It's not that successful if the userbase hates it and would rather use a competitor.

I don't mind Snaps in a vacuum, but the unforgivable thing is that they messed with the package repo so that instead of installing a deb package as I intended, it installs a Snap stub which I did not want. If Canonical hadn't forced them on users in that way, I'd have been fine with them.

Instead, back to Debian I went (sorry I ever left, actually)

I mean I used to used to use Ubuntu for my server now I use Debian cos fuck snaps.

successful project

That is a very biased claim. It's like saying that the PS5 is the most successful gaming platform because God Of War: Ragnarök and Ghost Of Tsushima players prefer it over Xbox and PC.

It’s not successful though. Like, maybe if your measure of success is that it’s usable, sure. But no other OSes have adopted it. Not even Ubuntu’s downstream OSes like Mint or Pop_OS!.

Users don’t like it, vendors don’t like it, other OS maintainers don’t like it. I’m not sure why that would be considered successful.

I know why I hate snap, no confusion here.

If you don't like snaps, don't use the distribution by the company who tries to establish them.

They also called unity successful at some point

Nix, guix, flatpak, and OSI images are all better "universal" packages managers on sheer technical merits while also not be a vendor locked proprietary solution.

Snaps are worse than what Redhat is doing.

"Successful"

snaps are a proprietary vendor-locked format, the only redeeming quality is being able to run them in cli (once Flatpak get that too, there is no valid reason for snaps to exist).

I just find it midly infuriating (if that even is a thing, meaning I hate it but it's not that significant for me to distro hop on my work laptop) to have two "universal" package formats on my system with Canonical shoving the objectively worse one (from a free/libre pov) down my throat...

Former Unix security chief.

Do not use snaps. Risky as hell.

The one app I can't stand as a snap is firefox, it took a minute to navigate to the first webpage every time I start up. The rest are or more less fine I think, but flatpak meets my needs for most other applications.

I'd be curious to see some statistics on how many Ubuntu users removed snaps vs how many haven't changed the default.

Upstart and Unity are waiting for you.

When Mozilla provide the firefox deb package - Why not give it then? IMO snaps/flatpacks are slower to start, can't be updated while running, takes more diskspace, and takes longer time to update. With the isolation we also have different kind of problems - have you given it the correct permission?, and how do you get keepassxc browser extension to work with it(they dont support it)?

snap (especially firefox beeing one) made me an arch user

So, I used ubuntu for pretty close to 20 years and it was my go to distro. I have had hundreds upon hundreds of servers running ubuntu.

Last few years I've been moving away from ubuntu because of their lack of respect for their core users. They have no clear vision and when they do, its a magnificently shitty one like the donkey balls decision to enfrorce snap on everything.

I will still have some ubuntu servers to take care of, but every new server I set up will be fedora.

Because fuck snaps, thats why

snap is OK vs compiling stuff.

But it is bullshit that they "snapped" things like Firefox, which has a repo with .debs

Edit: typo

why depict RMS this way

I hate having several package managers coexisting on my computer, and the only advantage of snap is that it solves a problem I've never encountered in 25 years.

Personally, I use Debian and gravitate towards flat paks, but I'm starting to question whether this is just one of those hills Linux users arbitrarily choose to die on a la systemd/wayland? I suppose one of the advantages of an opinionated OS is a vast array of opinions

"But the Calamares versions have an install option without Snaps"

Well that also doesnt have a webbrowser and will install snaps the second you want one