Snaps are a default no, obviously. Most of the points by Flatkill still hold true to this day. Apart from that, I have my own set of disagreements which I'll not be talking about - basically, stuff like reproducibility, storage space, inconsistent permissions, inconvenient configurations, outdated runtime - well, you get the point, so I'll not be expanding on that.

My primary disillusionment towards Flatpak has to do with how people with shared backgrounds and vested corporate interests have taken over open-source - in this particular case, I am talking about Big Tech. It's almost as if the space for a community-developed organization is hijacked by them - by them occupying core positions of the organization.

These organizations do not follow a horizontal approach to decision-making, they often come up with decisions without consulting folks that aren't within their direct circle, and worst, when they're held in a tight-spot, they can evade any criticism by appealing to authority - that they're the maintainers/contributors, and they know what's best for the project's future.

The same is true about funding - it is always through members of the company that they're indirectly funding these projects, that I can't help but feel that the "community", aka the outsiders never had the chance to be a part of the decision-making.

Flatpak may have it's share of poor features that can be fixed - sand-boxing can be improved by using permissive containers that allow particular shell variables, installation will throw dialogue, informing the users beforehand about the permissions these apps will need, developers may be forced to use proper run-times, and perhaps, some of the runtime be eliminated to use system dependencies, thereby complying with storage compliance - I don't know, but it could be fixed. But this invisible, unspoken flaw in the governance? No way.