Re: Snap is an infection
Unfortunately, it will never happen until Canonical stops chasing the 30% snap store $$$.
There are too many ways to package apps in Linux, this is a given. The main problem I as I see it is that both of the *major* Linux families are currently run by commercial entities, IBM (RedHat) and Canonical. Neither wants to give up the commercial advantages that come with controlling the package format.
There are many, mostly commercial, software packages that are only distributed as .RPM, just look at IBM, RedHat, Oracle as examples. Either you are running in the RedHat family, or here's you .tar.gz good luck.
On the .deb side, Debian, and by extension the community, controls it. Since Debian, the distribution, isn't all that user friendly, especially when you have non-free hardware (which is pretty much most hardware these days), most users are running second or third generation distributions based on Debian. Ubuntu is one such distribution. Canonical has made it one of the easiest to get started, supports the latest software, and seamlessly 'just works' on most people's computers. This has made the Ubuntu family probably the most popular distro-family based on Debian and the .deb package format.
Canonical doesn't control the .deb format. So they need a format that they control, preferably one where they have gatekeeper ability (see Apple and the App Store). Welcome Snaps. All they need to do is to replace .deb as the primary package format with snaps. Now when you try to install Firefox on the current Ubuntu, even when specifically using the .deb package, it silently replaces it with the snap version. Their large user base makes it attractive for developers to create snap versions of their packages, and other distributions have added support for snaps, though not to the level of Canonical products, to support their users desire to install applications that are increasingly being distributed only in the snap format.
Even without the control Snaps gives to Canonical, it's a poor format. The loop back file system means it's slower than it should be. The locked down nature means that snaps have difficulties integrating into the wider system. Snap Firefox already has issues, besides being slower, with many extensions. It's documented how it doesn't play well with the kernel and snap 'adjustments' aren't being incorporated into the mainline kernel. And as any non-native package system, you end up with a plethora of duplicated files, libraries, etc. strewn across your system. Good luck finding all of the next log4j packages.
Personally I think it's a very bad idea to allow any one company, even Canonical, to have this much power of the Linux community.
Ideally, everyone should have picked the same native format. .deb is a great choice as it's mature, widely used, and not controlled by a single company. It's too bad Debian's current philosophy means it's destined to be the playground of die hard tinkerers and the source of many other distributions.
If you want to create a non-native package system for "applications" (kernel, DE, etc. are all BAD use cases for non-native packaging) then choose one that runs fast, doesn't take up too much space, plays well with the rest of the system, and can be installed from *any* repository or store. Currently that leaves us with Flatpak and AppImage. Flatpak's for control, AppImage for 'portable apps'.
I don't believe Canonical is going to open up Snaps anytime soon. The lure of $$$$$ is just too great. Snaps are going to become a cancer that infects every aspect of the Ubuntu system corrupting every developer seduced by the lure of the currently enormous user base of the Ubuntu family of distributions.
It's too bad, Canonical had a good run. Time to look for a distribution that's neither an Ubuntu flavor nor based on Ubuntu. Wish me luck.