Flatpak Is Not the Future
To be fair, as a daily user and (to some extent) app developer, in my experience Flatpaks have solved the problem of library fragmentation and app distribution on Linux.While my experience on Snaps was mostly negative (due to bugs, virtual "loop disks" per every app affecting the system performance, etc.), I found that Flatpak finally lets me install essentially any app on any distro.For example, the Elementary OS "AppCenter" apps are now available in any other distribution, thanks to the Flatpak remote. Testing daily GNOME apps has become as easy as installing their Flatpak reference, and letting them update automatically.Regarding memory, storage and power consumption:- The base runtimes (which are the heaviest bit) are downloaded only once per system, e.g., one for the KDE Plasma ecosystem, one for Elementary, and so on. The first app you install will pull them, so I do not see it as much more bloaty than having an enormous bundle of system-wide dependencies (e.g. if you install a KDE app in a primarily GNOME environment) as would happen otherwise.- Memory and CPU-wise, Flatpaks are very light containers (which do not require loop disks, or anything else) which should have almost no overhead. I never witnessed any loss of performance, at least.- Bug and crash-wise, I experienced a tremendously stable and "flat" experience on Flatpaks. That is, if there is a bug in one app on one distribution, the bug will exist on all, or vice versa. This is not as common as it should be in containerized app install tools, and makes debugging overall much easier.The only drawback are updates taking longer than on other platforms, probably because compressed deltas are not yet available unlike in other major package managers.With this, I don't want to describe Flatpak as a panacea in everything, but at least for GUI apps, it solved a lot of distribution fragmentation issues in my case.