Snap is fully owned and controlled by Canonical<\/strong>, including:<\/p>\n\n\n\n By contrast, Flatpak<\/strong> and Flathub<\/strong> are community-driven and decentralized. In short: it\u2019s a business and ecosystem lock-in<\/strong> strategy, similar to what Apple does with the App Store \u2014 but in the Linux world.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Canonical argues that Snap offers:<\/p>\n\n\n\n However, most of these features are also available in Flatpak<\/strong> or OSTree<\/strong>, and Snap\u2019s implementation has drawbacks that make it unpopular among desktop users.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Here are the most common complaints:<\/p>\n\n\n\n For users who value openness, transparency, and efficiency, Snap feels bloated and authoritarian<\/strong> compared to the more community-friendly Flatpak.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Flatpak has become the de facto universal app format for Linux desktops<\/strong>, while Snap has found a niche in servers and IoT (Ubuntu Core)<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Canonical has invested heavily in Snap for:<\/p>\n\n\n\n For them, Snap isn\u2019t just a desktop packaging format \u2014 it\u2019s part of a commercial ecosystem<\/strong>. Abandoning it would mean rewriting their IoT and enterprise offerings around something like Flatpak, which they don\u2019t control.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Many Ubuntu derivatives (like Linux Mint<\/strong>, Kubuntu<\/strong>, and Lubuntu<\/strong>) have either:<\/p>\n\n\n\n In short, the Ubuntu desktop community has largely rejected Snap<\/strong>, even as Canonical doubles down on it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Ubuntu sticks with Snap not because it\u2019s technically superior \u2014 it\u2019s not \u2014 but because:<\/p>\n\n\n\n For most users, however, Flatpak + Flathub<\/strong> is faster, freer, and better integrated \u2014 which is why Flatpak has become the community standard while Snap remains a Canonical outlier.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \ud83e\udde9 1. Canonical\u2019s Strategic Control Snap is fully owned and controlled by Canonical, including: By contrast, Flatpak and Flathub are community-driven and decentralized.Canonical sees Snap as a way to: In short: it\u2019s a business and ecosystem lock-in strategy, similar to what Apple does with the App Store \u2014 but in the Linux world. \u2699\ufe0f 2. … Read more<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":7,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[34,2],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1335","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-linux","category-technology"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.woodcentral.com\/-\/peter\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1335","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.woodcentral.com\/-\/peter\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.woodcentral.com\/-\/peter\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.woodcentral.com\/-\/peter\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/7"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.woodcentral.com\/-\/peter\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1335"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.woodcentral.com\/-\/peter\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1335\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.woodcentral.com\/-\/peter\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1335"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.woodcentral.com\/-\/peter\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1335"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.woodcentral.com\/-\/peter\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1335"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}\n
Canonical sees Snap as a way to:<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\u2699\ufe0f 2. Technical Motivations (from Canonical\u2019s POV)<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\ud83d\udeab 3. Why Users Dislike It<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Issue<\/th> Explanation<\/th><\/tr><\/thead> Slow startup times<\/strong><\/td> Snaps mount as squashfs images; startup often lags behind native or Flatpak apps.<\/td><\/tr> Centralized store<\/strong><\/td> All Snaps must come through Canonical\u2019s store; there\u2019s no real alternative.<\/td><\/tr> Huge disk usage<\/strong><\/td> Each Snap bundles dependencies, and multiple revisions may remain installed.<\/td><\/tr> Opaque updates<\/strong><\/td> Background updates can\u2019t easily be disabled or scheduled.<\/td><\/tr> Poor integration<\/strong><\/td> Theming and file dialogs often mismatch with the desktop environment.<\/td><\/tr> Developer friction<\/strong><\/td> Developers can\u2019t easily host or manage their own Snap repositories.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\ud83e\uddf1 4. Comparison to Flatpak<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Feature<\/th> Snap<\/strong><\/th> Flatpak<\/strong><\/th><\/tr><\/thead> Control<\/td> Canonical (centralized)<\/td> Community (Flathub or custom remotes)<\/td><\/tr> Update model<\/td> Automatic background<\/td> User-controlled<\/td><\/tr> Sandboxing<\/td> AppArmor<\/td> Bubblewrap\/OSTree<\/td><\/tr> Startup speed<\/td> Slower<\/td> Faster<\/td><\/tr> Store independence<\/td> No<\/td> Yes<\/td><\/tr> Popularity (desktop)<\/td> Mostly Ubuntu-only<\/td> Widely adopted (Fedora, openSUSE, Arch, etc.)<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\ud83d\udcbc 5. Why Canonical Won\u2019t Back Down<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\ud83e\udded 6. Community Response<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\ud83e\udde0 Summary<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"