Advantages-Expansion. That's simple. The dependency between Flatpak and Snap is not changed out of thin air. Instead, it uses the system dependency instead of pre-built dependencies.
As the saying goes: "If a mountain does not come, I will go to the mountain ".
-As mentioned earlier, users with high security awareness will like the additional isolation layer provided by S & F, as long as the application comes from a trusted source. However, from another perspective, users who do not know much about this aspect may obtain a package containing malware from a unreliable location, causing harm.
The above point of view can be said to be meaningful, although today's popular methods, such as PPA and overlay, may also come from untrusted sources.
However, S & F packages increase this risk because malicious software developers only need to develop one version to infect various releases. On the contrary, without S & F, developers of malware need to create different versions to adapt to different releases.
Taking into account the above, it is clear that in most cases, the advantages of using the S & F package exceed the disadvantages.
At least for users of the binary release, or users who are not focusing on the lightweight release, this is the case.
This prompted me to ask this question. May Microsoft always be correct? If yes, will you continue to use Linux or Unix-like systems after S & F becomes the standard of Linux?
Obviously, time is the best answer to this question.
However, I think that, even if it is not completely correct, Microsoft is also commendable in some places, and from my point of view, all these methods can be used immediately in Linux is indeed a bright spot.
From: http://mt.sohu.com/20160918/n468642039.shtml
Address: http://www.linuxprobe.com/snap-flatpak.html