Snaps vs Flats vs Good Ol' Apts

To Snap A Flat Or Not?

The time has come, you go into the desktop for the first time on a Linux machine and decide to install software. It comes with Firefox but you decide to use Chrome, as any curious human being you go through the application launcher on your taskbar beforehand see "Software Store" there and click on it. Oh Jolly, it's like Android, just point and click - you said before searching for Chrome. 3 results come up, they all look the same, say the same thing and have the same amount of stars. Oh ****, it's like Android, so many of the same - you thought after you realized this is more like buying pasta. You look down and see different package sizes wink wink. What gives? What do you choose?


A couple years ago I would have freaked out and thought an unlikely virus was in my system adding tainted software libraries.
Nowadays, it's a headache. You go on a distro and it wants you to install flat packages, others want you to install snaps, some will even mention an AppImage thing, an ancient form of sandboxed packages from the days of CD's and DVD's.

Here's the simple answer, if you're a regular user like me go with the tried and true apt install, via command, or .deb files via graphical user interface.

If you need software that relies on dependencies that can break easily with updates, then using the sandboxed version of said software might be better for you. However, the same can be said about the opposite, let's say you decide to use a distribution that takes months to release an update (you know what I'm talking about) but there are pieces of software you need to be as up to date as possible.

There's also the security aspect, sandboxed programs are supposed to be safer as they run separate from the system or user space, contained by "leprechaun magic" and a dose of developer tears and breakdowns. But let's be honest, it's Linux, unless you're doing some really shady guano on your computer you don't need flats or snaps, just stick to PornHub, it's safe.

What about the size issue? Because sandbox applications rely on every dependency they need to be packaged with them it does take up extra space, sometimes a few extra megabytes, sometimes a few hundred.

Sandbox systems, snaps or flats, which one? Snaps are pushed by Canonical on their distro, Ubuntu. Flatpaks are developed by Red Hat and suggested on their distro, Fedora. Flatpaks are still faster and theming works better, the gap is closing though. I use Flatpaks when I can, snaps if I have to.

What now?
Sandbox apps have advantages for very specific situations but are a disadvantage for most, extra space required, performance may be degraded and themes might not work well, a cost for extra security or stability.
I only have one program I use I'd gladly sandbox, Discord, it's proprietary and I don't trust developers who advertise love for openness while keeping their only software secretive from public scrutiny.