My experience was exactly the opposite: snaps usually feel more polished and take less space than "flatpaks", at least when you compare the first time you install a flatpak.It's true that over time flatpaks take less space because they use what's already there.
However the conclusion still holds imo, both are bad.Not necessarily because they haven't partially solved what they tried to achieve, but because they are being pushed instead of provided as alternatives to good-old package managers or binaries.
Though technically older than both, AppImage is more recent in adoption compared to both Flatpak & Snap, and yet 95% of the time i had absolutely no problem using AppImage(with the small caveat that desktop integration is less polished, and i use a neat tool called AppImageLauncher to 'install' them).
I know it's an apples to oranges comparison and AppImage is not a package manager, but the point still stands.
However the conclusion still holds imo, both are bad.Not necessarily because they haven't partially solved what they tried to achieve, but because they are being pushed instead of provided as alternatives to good-old package managers or binaries.
Though technically older than both, AppImage is more recent in adoption compared to both Flatpak & Snap, and yet 95% of the time i had absolutely no problem using AppImage(with the small caveat that desktop integration is less polished, and i use a neat tool called AppImageLauncher to 'install' them). I know it's an apples to oranges comparison and AppImage is not a package manager, but the point still stands.