PPA vs Snap vs Flatpak

Which one do you prefer over the others and why?
Personally I prefer PPA as it doesn't download 100 other things onto my PC (that already exist) and overall, it left a better taste in my mouth. However I think that Flatpak is also good, as the download sizes are smaller than the Snap counterparts and they do not require Admin rights. Snap is my least preferred option. So for me it is PPA > Flatpak > Snap.

Mine is Flatpak > PPA > Snap

The reason is snaps are nightmare to when it comes to themes. Usually they come with hard-coded icons, so snap doesn't follow theme(s).

2 Likes

Snapd has been known to repeatedly have security issues. Snapd operates with Sandboxed applications, preventing User Control over running processes. This is something that FOSS has seen as a boon of Linux over Other proprietary Operating systems for years. Canonical Promised that Snapd would never replace APT or PPA programs - then broke this promise. For this one reason alone... I would avoid all Snapd processes...
The list goes on. From troubleshooting sandboxed snaps to the heavy bloat that Snapd brings - I have no preference of Snapd because I always remove snapd and never use any snaps.
Flatpak is slightly better than Snaps. But follows similar principles. It gets the same treatment from me.
So, for me, the preference line is:
PPA > .deb > build from source

I never use Snaps or Flatpak.

2 Likes

Agreed. Also one big point to mention is that PPA is decentralized while Flatpak and Snapd aren't. The amount of bloat that come with Snap/Flatpack packages are just unacceptable. How did this idea even got approved? Or was it forced upon the community? I think it eventually leads to a situation that everybody loses. The developers will get lazier and the quality of the applications will decrease, the size of the bloatware increases, the community is pushed towards a centralized network that can turn on them at any moment, canonical loses dedicated fans/users ... the list goes on.

4 Likes

Human nature.

Microsoft was not populated with special people that exclusively desired more control. And Canonical is no less special.
We see this in Linux a lot. The FOSS idea is there, but developers in Canonical, Gnome, Red Hat, etc. push their desires over users wants all the time.
And we see countless Linux Tech Articles telling us what is trending, what we want... regardless of what we really want.

As users transferred from MS to Linux, they noted difficulties with Dependency issues or did not like the terminal.
Snap is an answer to that - as if to say, "If MS is what you want, then MS is what you will get." How could Canonical, known for years to take advantage of users, ignore user protest and consistently promote a brand image instead of FOSS turn down such an offer?

Migrating users from Windows to Linux should focus on teaching Users how to use the terminal and how to enjoy the control being back in their hands, not in "look how easy it is."

3 Likes

In my case, I never intentionally use Snaps or Flatpak.

It is/was possible to install a Snap unintentionally from Software Store in Z15. We have diagnosed a fair number of posts arising from that. Hopefully the changes to Software Store in Z16 may go some way to avoid that failing, but only if Snaps are advertised with a health warning maybe.

2 Likes