For decades, Linux distributions have relied on native packaging formats like DEB and RPM to distribute software. These formats are deeply integrated into the Linux ecosystem, tied closely to the distribution's package manager and system architecture. But over the last few years, two newer technologies—Flatpak and Snap—have emerged, promising a universal packaging model that could revolutionize Linux app distribution.

But are Flatpak and Snap destined to replace native Linux apps entirely? Or are they better seen as complementary solutions addressing long-standing pain points? In this article, we'll explore the origins, benefits, criticisms, adoption trends, and the future of these packaging formats in the Linux world.

Understanding the Packaging Landscape

What Are Native Packages?

Traditional Linux software is packaged using system-specific formats. For example:

• .deb for Debian-based systems like Ubuntu and Linux Mint

• .rpm for Red Hat-based systems like Fedora and CentOS

These packages are managed by package managers like apt, dnf, or pacman, depending on the distro. They're tightly integrated with the underlying operating system, often relying on a complex set of shared libraries and system-specific dependencies.

Pros of Native Packaging:

• Smaller package sizes due to shared libraries

• High performance and tight integration

• Established infrastructure and tooling

Cons of Native Packaging:

• Dependency hell: broken packages due to missing or incompatible libraries

• Difficulty in distributing the same app across multiple distros

• Developers must package and test separately for each distro

What Are Flatpak and Snap?

Both Flatpak and Snap aim to solve the distribution problem by allowing developers to package applications once and run them on any major Linux distribution.

Flatpak

• Developed by the GNOME Foundation

• Focus on sandboxing and user privacy

• Applications are installed in user space (no root needed)

• Uses Flathub as the main app repository

Flatpak applications include their own runtime, ensuring that they work consistently across different systems regardless of the host OS's libraries.

Snap

• Developed and maintained by Canonical, the makers of Ubuntu

• Focus on universal packaging and transactional updates

• Comes with automatic updates and rollbacks

• Uses the Snap Store, fully controlled by Canonical

Snap also sandboxes applications, though it takes a different approach from Flatpak, emphasizing strict confinement and broader system integration.

Advantages of Flatpak and Snap Over Native Apps

Cross-Distribution Compatibility

Flatpak and Snap work across virtually all Linux distributions. Developers no longer need to build separate packages for Fedora, Ubuntu, Arch, etc. A single Flatpak or Snap can run everywhere, solving a massive pain point in Linux software development.

Simplified App Deployment

Since Flatpak and Snap bundle their dependencies, they remove the hassle of relying on system libraries. This guarantees that the application behaves the same on all systems—no more crashes due to outdated dependencies.

Security via Sandboxing

Both formats run applications in isolated environments. This sandboxing limits what apps can do to the system, reducing the risk of malware or accidental damage.

Faster Updates and Rollbacks

Snap’s transactional updates and automatic rollbacks are particularly useful. Flatpak also supports versioning and updates through Flathub. Users get faster access to newer software without waiting for distro maintainers to update the official repos.

Challenges and Criticisms

Despite their benefits, Flatpak and Snap are not without criticism.

Performance and Resource Usage

Bundling libraries means that Flatpak and Snap packages are larger and consume more disk space. Additionally, some users report slower launch times compared to native apps—especially with Snap.

Theming and Desktop Integration Issues

Flatpak and Snap apps often struggle with integrating seamlessly into the host system’s desktop environment. Fonts, icons, and themes may not render correctly without additional configuration, leading to an inconsistent user experience.

Centralization Concerns

Snap’s centralized nature is a major point of contention. Unlike Flathub (which can be mirrored or self-hosted), Snap packages must be distributed through Canonical’s Snap Store, which is closed source. Some see this as antithetical to the open-source spirit of Linux.

Compatibility Gaps

Not all applications are available as Flatpak or Snap. Power users and developers may find certain system-level tools or niche applications still only available via traditional native packages.

Adoption and Community Reception

Mainstream Adoption

Many popular applications now provide official Flatpak or Snap versions, including:

• Spotify

• Visual Studio Code

• Zoom

• Discord

• LibreOffice

• Firefox (as a Snap on Ubuntu by default)

Distro Support

• Ubuntu has fully embraced Snap, even replacing some native apps (like Firefox) with Snap by default.

• Fedora includes Flatpak integration and strongly supports Flathub.

• Arch Linux supports both Flatpak and Snap, though its AUR remains a dominant packaging source.

• Linux Mint supports Flatpak out of the box but has removed Snap support entirely due to philosophical differences with Canonical.

Developer Reception

Developers increasingly appreciate Flatpak and Snap for reducing the burden of multi-distro support. However, some still find the sandboxing models and performance quirks to be hurdles for more complex applications.

Are Flatpak and Snap the Future of Linux Software?

Will They Replace Native Packages?

Unlikely—at least not entirely. Native packages remain essential for:

• Core system libraries

• Kernel modules and drivers

• Lightweight apps and scripts

• Distro-specific configurations

Coexistence Is the Most Likely Outcome

Flatpak and Snap will continue to gain popularity for end-user applications, particularly those maintained by third-party developers. Native packages will remain dominant for system software and developer tools.

This hybrid model mirrors what we've seen on other platforms (e.g., mobile apps using sandboxing alongside system-level native services).

The Rise of AppImage and Other Alternatives

AppImage is another universal packaging format, focusing on portability and simplicity. While less feature-rich than Flatpak or Snap, it appeals to users who want fully self-contained applications without any system-wide installation.

Conclusion: Evolution, Not Replacement

Flatpak and Snap have brought Linux desktop software a long way toward modernity. They solve many long-standing issues—cross-distro packaging, dependency conflicts, and app sandboxing. Yet, they also introduce new complexities and face resistance from parts of the Linux community.

Rather than replacing native packages, Flatpak and Snap are expanding the Linux ecosystem by making software more accessible and easier to manage for both users and developers.

In the end, it’s not about replacement—it’s about evolution. And in the diverse and open world of Linux, there's room for all packaging formats to coexist, each serving its ideal use case.