Snap vs Flatpak: A Detailed Comparison

Snap vs Flatpak: A Detailed Comparison

When it comes to Linux software installation, Snap and Flatpak have become popular options for packaging and distributing applications. Both formats aim to simplify the process by providing a universal way of distributing applications across different distributions. However, despite their common goal, they have distinct differences, histories, and ecosystems. In this post, we’ll dive deep into the origins of Snap and Flatpak, compare their features, advantages, and disadvantages, and help you decide which one to use.

The Origins and History of Snap and Flatpak

Snap:

Snap was introduced by Canonical, the creators of Ubuntu, in 2016. Canonical wanted a solution to address the limitations of traditional Linux package managers like APT or YUM, especially when it came to distributing applications across multiple distributions. Snaps are designed to be distribution-agnostic and include all the dependencies an application needs, thus avoiding the problem of missing libraries or dependencies. They’re containerized, making them more secure and easier to manage.

Flatpak:

Flatpak has its roots in the Fedora project and was developed by Alex Larsson in 2015. Similar to Snap, Flatpak provides a way to bundle applications with their dependencies. The idea behind Flatpak was to allow applications to run consistently on different Linux distributions while maintaining a high level of security. While Fedora and Red Hat were the early adopters of Flatpak, it has since gained support from a wide range of distributions, including Ubuntu, Debian, and Arch Linux.

Key Differences Between Snap and Flatpak

1. Repositories:
   • Snap: Snap applications are hosted in the Snap Store, maintained by Canonical. The Snap Store is centralized, meaning Canonical manages the publishing, updating, and distribution of all snaps. This can make the process easier for developers, but it also means that there’s less diversity in where and how applications are hosted.
   • Flatpak: Flatpak uses a decentralized approach with multiple repositories available. The primary repository is called Flathub, which serves as a hub for most Flatpak applications. However, developers and organizations can host their own Flatpak repositories, giving them more control over their distribution. This decentralized model gives users more freedom in choosing their source of applications.
2. System Integration and Isolation:
   • Snap: Snaps are more integrated with the system, but they also come with some isolation features. They’re sandboxed, meaning that they run in a container with limited access to the system. However, they tend to be more “system” oriented, as Canonical has more control over the underlying system’s interaction with the apps.
   • Flatpak: Flatpak applications are more isolated and run in a more strict sandboxed environment. This isolation improves security, but it can sometimes cause issues with system integration, especially for applications that need to interact closely with the host OS. Flatpak uses a runtime system, meaning that Flatpak apps rely on a shared runtime for common dependencies.
3. Update Mechanism:
   • Snap: Snaps update automatically in the background, which can be both a blessing and a curse. Users don’t have to worry about manually updating their apps, but some users find automatic updates to be intrusive, especially if they’re not in control of the timing.
   • Flatpak: Flatpak also has an update system, but it’s more user-controlled. While Flatpak apps can update automatically, it depends on how the user configures their system. Flatpak updates tend to be more flexible and less frequent compared to Snap.
4. Size and Performance:
   • Snap: Since Snaps bundle all dependencies, they tend to be larger in size. While this guarantees that the app will work across different distributions, it also results in applications being bulkier and consuming more storage.
   • Flatpak: Flatpak applications tend to be smaller than Snap packages since they share common dependencies through the runtime. However, if an app requires multiple runtimes, it can still lead to a significant size overhead. Despite this, Flatpak apps generally perform better because they use shared runtimes, avoiding unnecessary redundancy.
5. Security and Sandboxing:
   • Snap: Snaps are sandboxed by design, and Canonical uses AppArmor for additional security. While this offers a good level of protection, some users feel that it’s not as strict as the Flatpak model, as Canonical’s more centralized control can mean less transparency.
   • Flatpak: Flatpak uses SELinux (Security-Enhanced Linux) or other similar security mechanisms for sandboxing. Flatpak has a more strict isolation model, meaning that Flatpak apps are more restricted in terms of what they can access on the host system.

Command Lists

Let’s take a quick look at the basic commands for using Snap and Flatpak.

Snap:

• Install a Snap package: sudo snap install <package-name>
• Search for Snap packages: snap find <package-name>
• List installed Snaps: snap list
• Remove a Snap package: sudo snap remove <package-name>
• Update Snap packages: sudo snap refresh

Flatpak:

• Install a Flatpak package: flatpak install flathub <package-name>
• Search for Flatpak packages: flatpak search <package-name>
• List installed Flatpak applications: flatpak list
• Remove a Flatpak package: flatpak uninstall <package-name>
• Update Flatpak packages: flatpak update

Advantages and Disadvantages

Snap Advantages:

• Centralized Snap Store simplifies distribution and management.
• Automatic updates reduce the need for user intervention.
• Works across many Linux distributions with minimal setup.
• Strong integration with Ubuntu and other Canonical-based systems.

Snap Disadvantages:

• Larger file sizes due to bundling all dependencies.
• Automatic updates can be intrusive for some users.
• More centralized control, meaning less transparency.
• Slower start-up times compared to native packages.

Flatpak Advantages:

• Strong security features with strict sandboxing.
• Smaller file sizes thanks to shared runtimes.
• Decentralized model gives more freedom and flexibility.
• Better integration with GNOME-based systems and other desktop environments.

Flatpak Disadvantages:

• Slightly more complex to set up due to multiple repositories.
• May require more storage if multiple runtimes are installed.
• Some apps may face compatibility issues in terms of system integration.
• Less integration with Ubuntu-based systems compared to Snap.

Which One to Choose?

Snap is a great choice if you’re using Ubuntu or a distribution based on it, as it is tightly integrated into the ecosystem. If you prefer a more centralized system with automatic updates and easy management, Snap might be the way to go. It’s also ideal if you need a quick and straightforward installation process across various distributions.

Flatpak is a better choice if you value security and sandboxing, or if you want to use a decentralized system with the freedom to pick your repository. Flatpak is more suited to users who appreciate flexibility and want smaller file sizes by leveraging shared runtimes.

Ultimately, the choice comes down to your preferences and your distribution. Both Snap and Flatpak have their strengths, and as Linux continues to evolve, the adoption of both formats will likely grow.