Comments on: Universal Package Managers for Linux: Snap, Flatpak, and AppImage

By: Aaron Kili

Aaron Kili — Mon, 20 Jul 2020 06:15:32 +0000

In reply to alex.

@alex

Many thanks for sharing your thoughts with us.

By: alex

alex — Mon, 20 Jul 2020 00:09:10 +0000

I totally agree with you in this. It’s only cross-distribution and not universal. I don’t know why modern technical journalism has the same problems as mediocre political press full of inaccuracies. In fact, snap have generated more problems than solutions and all three solutions populate your disk with unnecessary software, like Microsoft bloatware who the community always stays away.

The real solution for non-technical users is to empower graphical front ends who resolve these dependencies in a silent background and not remake the packaging systems again and again. There is the typical problem introduce by so much pride and lack of consensus in the free software community.

By: dragonmouth

dragonmouth — Mon, 06 Jul 2020 13:25:54 +0000

How can any of these products claim to be "universal" if there are three of them? Universal means "one and only". If any of these products were true "universal" they would be capable of working with the other two formats. If any of these products were true "universal" they would be capable of working with ALL Linux distros. They don't. Each product has its own set of distros that it works on and that is it. Calling any of them "universal" is like calling any Linux distro, even Ubuntu, "universal".