I was procrastinating and I found this in Spanish:
I wrote in 2017 something about I was in favor of Snap and Flatpak packages. I was wrong!!!!
If someone ask me I will say "An alien wrote that" 🙄
@jrballesteros05 for me, flatpak seems to be a convenient way to get to test the latest version of different FLOSS programs, in cases when it's not so easy to build in the normal way because the newest code needs some newer versions of certain libraries, things like that. For example I'm using it now to test the Geary email client on a #librem5 by building a .flatpak file on my laptop using GNOME Builder and then copying the .flatpak file over to the phone. This seems useful, I think.
@eliasr Yeah for developers seems to be a very good alternative. I am not against Flatpak at all, as I said is not centralized and that's something good because if you don't like FlatHub you can mount your own Store without problems. It just I don't like them because I feel is like "Windowzing" Linux but that's just a pesonal opinion. However I do encourage never use Snap, I am against Snap.
@jrballesteros05 aha, and snap is bad because it is centralized, or for other reasons?
@eliasr Because everything relies on Canonical, even if they allow you to create "brands" on the snap store:
https://core.docs.ubuntu.com/en/build-store/
So, I compare Snap with Apple Store. If all packages become Snap only canonical would decide with package can be published on their store or no.
If other distributions wants to use Snap is the same, everything relies on Canonical. I don't want that for GNU/Linux.
And the most important the repository back-end is proprietary.
@eliasr Nothing really. I don't like them because they are bigger than packages from repositories but It is a good alternative to distribute proprietary software it is not centralized. On the other hand I am against Snap because Canonical want something like Apple's monopoly with its store.