Why do some Linux users dislike Snap packages?

One objection is about control rather than how an app runs. The Snap client is open source, but Canonical's store backend is proprietary, and the usual setup is tied to Canonical's store rather than letting users freely choose another one.

Some people also dislike how strongly Ubuntu promotes Snap. A package they expect to install through the usual Ubuntu package tools may end up as a Snap instead, which can feel like the choice was made for them.

Performance comes up a lot. Some Snap apps can take longer to start, particularly on the first launch, though how noticeable that is varies by application and hardware. Snaps use compressed mounted filesystems, and packages can also take extra disk space for dependencies and supporting components.

Automatic updates are another tradeoff. Convenient if you want software kept current, less appealing if you want tight control over when changes happen.

There's also a troubleshooting angle. Snap packages can put files in different places or behave differently from a conventional distribution package. That can make instructions for a regular install confusing, especially with tools like Docker.

It doesn't mean every problem is caused by Snap, but knowing which package format you're using can save some head scratching.

No, Ubuntu-based doesn't automatically mean the same Snap setup everywhere. Distributions make their own packaging choices, and alternatives such as Flatpak can be enabled on other Ubuntu-based systems.

I wouldn't pick Fedora solely because of online complaints. Check how Kubuntu supplies the applications you care about, then try them and see whether the update behavior, startup time and packaging choices bother you.

Snap isn't necessarily bad, but it isn't everyone's preferred tool either. Automatic updates can be useful in office or server environments, while people who want more control may prefer conventional packages or another format. A few Snaps needn't be a dealbreaker.