Snap Unsnapped: Why Ubuntu's Packaging Isn't the Universal Dream You Were Promised

posted Tue, Jul 22, 2025 by darren horrocks

Ubuntu’s Snap packaging system was introduced with the promise of universal Linux applications, easy updates, and robust security through confinement. While these goals are admirable, the reality of Snap for many desktop users has been a source of frustration, leading to a growing sentiment that “Ubuntu Snap sucks.” This isn’t just a matter of preference; it’s rooted in several fundamental design choices that hobble user experience, resource efficiency, and even security.

The Walled Garden: Isolation to a Fault

One of the most significant criticisms leveled against Snap is its “walled garden” approach. While touted as a security feature, the strict confinement of Snap applications often goes too far, isolating them from the very operating system features that make Linux a joy to use.

Imagine trying to work with a program that can’t easily interact with the rest of your system. This is often the case with Snaps. Simple actions like drag-and-dropping files from your file manager into a Snap application can be a frustrating exercise in futility. The application, confined within its “garden,” often lacks the necessary permissions to directly access files outside its designated sandboxed directories. Similarly, opening files from arbitrary locations on your system, or even saving to them, can become a convoluted process, breaking the seamless workflow expected of a modern desktop environment. This isolation, while aiming for security, inadvertently creates an inefficient and disjointed user experience.

Resource Hog: High RAM and Disk Space Usage

Another common complaint revolves around Snap’s often-inflated resource consumption. Snaps bundle all their dependencies, even those already present on your system through traditional package managers. This “self-contained” nature, while simplifying deployment for developers, leads to significant redundancy for users.

• High Disk Space Usage: Each Snap application carries its own set of libraries and dependencies. If you have multiple Snaps that rely on the same underlying libraries (and many do, especially core GNOME components), those libraries are duplicated for each Snap. This quickly leads to a substantial increase in disk space usage compared to traditionally packaged applications that leverage system-wide shared libraries. Furthermore, Snap retains old versions of applications for rollback purposes, further contributing to disk bloat if not actively managed.
• High RAM Usage: The duplicated libraries aren’t just a disk space concern; they can also impact RAM. When multiple Snap applications are running, they might each be loading their own copies of shared libraries into memory, rather than sharing a single instance. This can lead to a noticeable increase in RAM consumption, particularly on systems with limited memory, making the overall system feel sluggish.

Outdated and Insecure: Version Disparity and Security Risks

While Snaps are designed to offer quick updates, the reality can be quite different. A concerning issue for many users is the version disparity between Snap packages and system packages. It’s not uncommon for the Snap version of a popular application to lag several versions behind what’s available through a distribution’s traditional package repositories (like APT on Ubuntu).

This lag can be problematic for several reasons:

• Missing Features and Bug Fixes: Users might miss out on the latest features, performance improvements, and crucial bug fixes present in newer versions.
• Potential Security Vectors: Perhaps most critically, outdated software versions are often unpatched versions. When a Snap lags behind, it might not include recent security patches for vulnerabilities discovered in its bundled dependencies. This transforms the “security through confinement” promise into a potential security liability, as an unpatched vulnerability within a Snap could still be exploited, even if the rest of your system is up to date.

The Ecosystem Conundrum: Canonical’s Control

Beyond the technical issues, the very nature of Snap as a Canonical-controlled ecosystem raises concerns for some in the open-source community. The Snap Store, the centralized repository for Snap applications, is proprietary. This level of control, while offering certain benefits in terms of curation and distribution for Canonical, goes against the decentralized and open philosophy that underpins much of the Linux world. This can lead to a feeling of being locked into a single vendor’s ecosystem, similar to the “walled gardens” seen in proprietary operating systems.

Conclusion: A Promising Idea with Implementation Flaws

Ubuntu’s Snap technology, with its ambitions for universal packaging and enhanced security, had a strong vision. However, its current implementation on the desktop has introduced a range of issues that actively detract from the user experience. The restrictive confinement, leading to difficulties with fundamental desktop interactions like drag-and-drop, coupled with its resource-intensive nature and the often-outdated software versions, paints a picture of a system that, for many, “sucks.”

While development continues and improvements are undoubtedly being made, the fundamental trade-offs in Snap’s design remain a significant hurdle for widespread acceptance and a source of ongoing frustration for a substantial portion of the Ubuntu user base. For those seeking a truly integrated, efficient, and open Linux desktop experience, the current state of Snap leaves much to be desired.