[DaSHacka]

> Veterans don't mention it because it has snaps, but regular users couldn't care less, they just want something they can use for their daily needs. No need to name niche distros.

The problem with snaps is they can cause unpredictable issues for a newcomer not expecting it.

It's espeically egregious when they force apt to pull in snaps, as it adds yet another layer of complexity no one asked for.

I started with Mint in Highschool and it served me well as a previous Windows user. It's quite literally Ubuntu, without snaps, and with a Windows-like UI out of the box (Cinnamon).

Not sure if it counts as "no-name" to you or the average beginner, though it's really starting to take the place Ubuntu used to have among beginners.

[cosmic_cheese]

There isn’t a Linux end-user-oriented distribution/container/sandbox solution I’ve run across that doesn’t come with some set of complications. I’m not convinced that sandboxing being external to the OS itself is a viable solution, there’s just too many things that can go wrong with integration points and the like for it to work well for non-technical users. Feels like macOS got this more right by shipping “dumb” all-inclusive .app packages that the OS then handles things like permissions and sandboxing on.

For my personal usage if there’s a .deb/.rpm/etc option for a program I install that instead of the flatpak or whatever. It almost universally works better.

[DaSHacka]

I agree; I always try to install a program through the distribution's page manager first and foremost—including AUR/GURU methods if available—over flatpak/snap.

I'm more okay with appimages; At least they don't require a framework to be installed on my end. I treat them akin to Windows programs with a "portable .exe" option.