>Users wanting to install Flatpak apps need to revert to using the .deb version. It’s not an ideal solution when previous Ubuntu Software releases could handle all three formats. In all, the latest Ubuntu Software is a step back.
Supporting fewer competing formats (and eventuallu just one) sounds like progress to me...
>And that’s another place where snaps don’t shine. They are slow. I hate that Chromium’s snap takes more than 10 seconds to load on cold boot on a freaking SSD, whereas .deb and Flatpak apps load in 1-2 seconds. Snaps are simply not fast enough to be default anything yet.
That said, this sucks. How can this be? I though snap was just some packaging wrapper format (so one wouldn't expect any difference in loading time) -- is it more like ELF instead? Or is it some extra overhead like non-shared libs?
I'm sure Ubuntu considers it progress when they can push more people to use their pet project and it's app store nobody can self-host and give less room to its competitor. But is it progress for the users, for whom access to software not available as Snap and not in repos became harder? The developers who hoped supporting one of the competing formats would be enough to reach most users, and picked for Flatpak for any number of reasons?
>I'm sure Ubuntu considers it progress when they can push more people to use their pet project and it's app store nobody can self-host and give less room to its competitor. But is it progress for the users, for whom access to software not available as Snap and not in repos became harder?
The progress being having a single standard -- then all the software will be available for that.
Mixing and matching 2-3 different package/distribution formats to get all of your software because some is available in one and not the other is not ideal, and doesn't lead to a consistent sytem.
If there's anything approaching consensus about the "single standard" then maybe, but to me it seems like a good chunk of the ecosystem right now wants Canonicals idea of that to fail, at least in its current form, and instead of attempting to fix the problems and trying to make the user experience more consistent across the different options they try to force it.
Supporting fewer competing formats (and eventuallu just one) sounds like progress to me...
>And that’s another place where snaps don’t shine. They are slow. I hate that Chromium’s snap takes more than 10 seconds to load on cold boot on a freaking SSD, whereas .deb and Flatpak apps load in 1-2 seconds. Snaps are simply not fast enough to be default anything yet.
That said, this sucks. How can this be? I though snap was just some packaging wrapper format (so one wouldn't expect any difference in loading time) -- is it more like ELF instead? Or is it some extra overhead like non-shared libs?