I don't have a problem with snaps as a technology. If you want to use them, then who am I to judge?
But what I do have a problem with is when I don't have a choice and I am being forced to use what the distro maintainers think is good for me. That is what finally made me quit Ubuntu and switch to Fedora.
I do have a problem with them, the same problem was solved, better, with other technologies like appImage (which doesn't litter your mount list with 100 meaningless entries).
Even flatpak is better, snap is an also ran they're trying to force on us without being as good as any of the competitors.
Couldn't the same argument be made for any distro? They give you what they put in their repos. If you want a deb package, use the mozillateam PPA (which is built on Canonical's hardware, same as Mozilla's snap of it).
IIRC, the issue was that - unless you take steps to explicitly prevent it - Ubuntu would occasionally reinstall the snap version. I don't remember the details, been a while since I had to dance that dance, but I recall it being one of the things that put me off snap in particular, Ubuntu in general and sparked my search for a different distro.
I'm now on Nobara, a Fedora-based gaming-oriented distro maintained by GloriousEgroll (who also maintains the popular Proton-GE)
the difference is that the folder/package structure for other package manager is open and well known
everyone can host their own i.e. apt, pacman or Flatpak repository with little effort
the required folder/package structure for snaps is no longer open and you cannot change the default snap repository either easily
when I don’t have a choice and I am being forced to use what the distro maintainers think is good for me.
That's the case on literally any distro.
And just like on literally any distro, you can also install Firefox from FlatPak, the Mozilla repo or from source.
Except on Ubuntu it just installs the snap regardless. If you don't pay attention you may not even realize that it is a snap. Also the snap store is controlled exclusively by one company with a questionable history.
Same here. What especially irritated me was that even though I installed the .deb firefox and followed the directions to disable snap firefox, occasionally Ubuntu went ahead and reinstalled snap firefox for me.
Ubuntu was great, until Unity debacle, when I switched to Mint DE. Few years later I returned to an Unity free Ubuntu just to be welcomed with snaps and Ubuntu pro.
When I first returned to Linux several years ago I started with Ubuntu, since it was the only distro I had used. I got confused when I installed Firefox and other apps via apt but instead got snap versions. This (very miniscule) gripe is enough of a reason for me to not recommend Ubuntu to new users anymore.
Exactly that same, really. There were a few things I did that I liked about Ubuntu, like the tray icon extension, but otherwise its nearly identical minus snaps.
This is literally the reason why I switched over to Debian. At least back then, snaps wouldn't work if the home folders were not under /home/<username>, breaking all computers on the system I helped run.
Installed ubuntu on an rpi and firefox there ran snap. Was not very usable. Everything was so slow. Forcing an install of the dep package was the only way to use it. Not very well thought through bu cannonical.
If you look at the "improvements" in every release since, you'll notice that shit like they do currently isn't an accident:
9.04 integrated web services into the main user interface.
9.10 integrated Ubuntu One (Ubuntu's OneDrive, upgradable for money) by default and introduced the slooooow Ubuntu Software Center
10.04 integrated an interface to post on social media
10.10 added app purchases in the Software Center
11.04 made Unity the default
11.10 removed Gnome as fallback to Unity
12.04 introduced the buggy HUD
12.10 added the famous Amazon ad lense to it by default
Tbf, Unbuntu works, but they're ran by a company which has made some questionable choices. You can still go with it if you don't care too much, it has the advantages of being user friendly and well documented.
If you'd rather not, but you want something not too far and equally easy, you can go with Linux Mint, which is based on Ubuntu but disables snaps. They also offer differently choices of desktop environments, the default being Cinnamon (which looks a bit more like windows), and another being Mate, which is closer to Gnome.
They also have a "Debian Edition", which aims to stop being dependant on Ubuntu and may or may not replace the default edition someday, but so far it's not the one they recommend for new users.
The meme above refers to Canonical's own Snap packaging format (think of it like UWP/Microsoft Store apps vs. "regular" Win32 apps), and the way they're pushing for its adoption. Snap is installed by default on Ubuntu and official Ubuntu flavors. You can uninstall it manually, but Canonical has modified the APT package manager so that when an application is available as a Snap package, it automatically installs the Snap back-end and the application as a Snap package without notifying the user (instead of installing the .deb-packaged applications, which is what happens on all other distributions that use APT). Canonical recently also ordered that official Ubuntu flavors (which are maintained by independent groups) can't include Flatpak, a universal packaging format that directly competes with Snap, in their default installations.
Just install something else like Linux Mint or Pop OS. Ubuntu doesn't seem to want to respect your rights as a user. You do one thing and the sneakily do something else. Its a bit like how Microsoft makes Edge the default after an update.
Ubuntu's packet manager Apt was already kind of awful in many ways, especially with its PPA hell. But them adding Snap packages somehow managed to make them reach even new levels of awful.
Switch to Linux but you have major paradigm you need to pick. Do you want your computer to be bleeding edge but it be a hobby? Or do you want slightly older and rock solid? Or do you have an enterprise support contract? You only pick Ubuntu/RHEL if you have the last one.
KDE Neon or EndeavorOS are also options, depending on whats important to you in a distro. I recommend getting a live usb so you can boot into linux and try it before installing the whole system.
Ignore the noise and go with Ubuntu LTS. When you get comfortable with that, you could try Debian.
You could play it backwards too. Try Debian, if you can't get it to do what you want, wipe and do Ubuntu LTS. But I do not recommend this path if you have no idea what you're doing. People underestimate how difficult it is to do simple things when you don't know how to, no matter how trivial.
Nah, this is just the same "hivemind hates thing" leaking over from Reddit. It's not that different to the systemd hate. There's a core of a point, but if a small fraction of the energy spent on the daily Two Minutes Hate were redirected towards fixing the things those folks don't like, they wouldn't have any molehills to treat as mountains.
And there broken design. They are way overly complex and snapd requires large amounts of permissions. They also add a ton of overhead and make everything slow.
One of my friends spent like a month distrohopping just to find a debian-based distro that fits these two criteria:
First-class support for KDE
Isn't broken all the time
Ubuntu fails both. KDE Neon excels on the first one, but fails harder than ubuntu on the second one. Kubuntu as well. Debian has horridly outdated packages, and he refuses to use nix/flatpak. Tuxedo OS is obscure and broken. Mint is great, but installing KDE takes some effort.
He finally settled on Ubuntu Server with the native KDE package. Still has to do some weird incantations to banish snap tho.
I'd love to know what's consistently breaking on KDE Neon for you. I've got some specific bugs I'm working through with their team, but I've never found it to be "always broken" (although I will say it is easier to break than Kubuntu IME).
He really insists on debian-based, I don't really know why. And, while Void IS really solid, it isn't exactly known for the most expansive package collection. Xournal, for example, is not available through XBPS (there is a xournal package, but it just installs xournal++), which is one of the programs he likes a lot. I told him it's on nix, but he doesn't want to use nix.
But I agree, Void is amazing, I use it on my laptop. One little-known cool feature of Void is that its official docker images come in busybox/musl libc, busybox/glibc, and coreutils/glibc variants, it gives you a nice scale from most minimalist to most compatible.
I am against container as they are slower to start and much bigger. I think they solve the problem the wrong way. Next step is probably a VM...
Firefox have always been possible to run without container so what is the problem for all Linux distributions that containers solve? Nowadays developers have do to both... That did not less the load.
I didn't really understand what I just read, but it sounds like flatpack but different. I'm on mint, so I'm pretty sure it doesn't affect me. The memes I've seen on the subject give me the impression that people don't like it.