I'll be sticking with Ubuntu b/c A) it's relatively stable B) it ships w/ ZFS by default and C) it's so popular that software creators often put it at the top o

I'll be sticking with Ubuntu b/c A) it's relatively stable B) it ships w/ ZFS by default and C) it's so popular that software creators often put it at the top of the priority list for Linux OS support. I understand the concerns about snaps. Look, if you want control, you have it. Uninstall it and find other installation options including reviewing and building yourself. What I've realized over time is that for the far majority of things, I just want it to work b/c I have better things to spend my time on. I can appreciate that software devs have the same feeling regarding supporting the various Linux distros. It's less time and troubleshooting to just pick a single target like snap. Many of us want Linux desktops to gain in popularity...I can see how snap (or it's competitors) can help make that come true. I have my doubts about something like LXC being shipped as a snap, I'm curious to see how things will play out with shipping more server software through snaps. I understand why the push towards snaps would be viewed more negatively for server applications. I would like software to be heavily sandboxed by default. Why should any software I want to use have access to my ssh agent or all of my files? Firefox should have access to almost nothing except a limited part of the file system and the network, right? I'm not sure we are there yet, but I think this type of software packaging, "containerization", and isolation is a good direction to be heading. There are things I don't like about snap and I kind of wish one of the alternatives would win. At the very least, hopefully they will challenge snap to be better and the ecosystem itself will benefit.