Not to start a flamewar, but I'd like to point out why I think snap is not only inferior to flatpak technically but actually a threat to the linux desktop: Sna

Not to start a flamewar, but I'd like to point out why I think snap is not only inferior to flatpak technically but actually a threat to the linux desktop: Snap is very deliberately centralized, with a single hard-coded repo URL. The server is also closed-source. This is because snap's somewhat transparent primary goal is to give Canonical central control of app installation across all linux distributions. The plan from there will include taking cuts of sales revenue and publishing fees. The pieces for this (like DRM) are falling into place. Flatpak, because it isn't born out of such business a model, supports an arbitrary number of user-defined repos, which are trivial to host because they are static folders and can be installed with a single-click via a `flatpakrepo` url. This is on top of other advantages such as upstream support from the likes of GNOME, support for sharing code between apps using "frameworks", supporting themes, using namespaces instead of modified AppArmor, p2p support, a better permission system, etc.