Package managers in Ubuntu have evolved over time, with APT (Advanced Package Tool) remaining a long-standing traditional package manager, while Snap, developed by Canonical, introduces a modern approach. In this post, we’ll dive into a detailed comparison of these tools, looking closely at how they differ in terms of package size, security, performance, and other critical factors. By the end, you'll better understand which might be best for your setup or specific use cases.
1. What are APT and Snap?
- APT: The traditional package manager for Debian-based systems, APT handles
.debpackages, manages dependencies, and installs applications from software repositories. It’s widely used in both Ubuntu and Debian-based distributions for system-level and application-level packages. - Snap: Snap packages come with the application and its dependencies bundled in a single, universal package format, developed to work across various Linux distributions. Snap packages are isolated from the underlying system, making them portable and self-contained.
2. Comparison Based on Key Factors
2.1 Package Size
- APT: Generally, APT packages are smaller because they rely on shared system libraries rather than bundling dependencies within the package. While this reduces the download size, it also introduces dependency management challenges.
- Snap: Snap packages include all necessary dependencies, making them larger than APT packages. This increase in size ensures that applications function independently, regardless of the system libraries’ versions. However, the trade-off is the greater storage and memory footprint.
Example: Installing the same application via APT and Snap may show a stark contrast in file size, with Snap potentially several times larger due to bundled libraries and dependencies.
2.2 Security
- APT: APT packages inherit security advantages from the Debian and Ubuntu package maintainers, who handle rigorous testing and updates. However, because they use shared system libraries, vulnerabilities in a shared library could potentially affect multiple applications.
- Snap: Snap packages employ confinement using AppArmor profiles, isolating the application from the underlying system. This isolation (strict or classic) reduces the risk of vulnerabilities affecting the core system. However, it requires that Snap apps request specific permissions to access system resources, giving users control over which permissions to grant.
2.3 Performance
- APT: APT packages tend to load faster and are more efficient in terms of memory and storage since they rely on shared libraries, reducing redundancy in memory usage.
- Snap: Snap’s bundling approach results in higher memory usage since each Snap package includes its dependencies, which can lead to duplicate libraries running in memory. This can result in slightly slower startup times, particularly when loading desktop applications.
3. Comparison of Installation and Update Processes
- APT: Applications installed via APT are managed through system updates, ensuring that users receive patches and updates directly from the official repositories. APT commands, such as
apt-get installorapt update, are simple, fast, and familiar to most Linux users. - Snap: Snap enables background updates, updating packages automatically without user intervention. While this is convenient, users may occasionally find themselves using resources without explicit knowledge of an update occurring.
4. Compatibility and Availability
- APT: APT repositories tend to provide stable, tested software but can be slower to receive the latest releases. This stability is particularly useful for users needing tested, long-term support versions of software.
- Snap: Snap packages are often cutting-edge, offering access to the latest versions of software. This makes Snap an excellent choice for users looking to run the latest versions without having to wait for system repository updates.
5. Real-World Use Cases: Choosing Between APT and Snap
- System Stability: For those prioritizing system stability, APT is generally preferred because of its reliance on shared system libraries and the rigorous testing by Debian and Ubuntu maintainers.
- Application Isolation: Snap is the better choice if isolation and sandboxing are critical, such as in environments where applications need to be self-contained.
- Developer-Friendly Features: Snap provides more flexibility for developers, who can release their applications independently of distribution-specific repositories, reaching a broader audience.
Conclusion
Choosing between APT and Snap ultimately depends on your priorities. APT remains a robust, efficient, and traditional package manager suited for stable, system-integrated applications. In contrast, Snap’s modern, isolated, and universal approach caters well to users needing the latest applications with minimal dependency concerns.
In future posts, we’ll cover specific installation examples and discuss how to fine-tune package managers for optimal performance in different environments. Let’s continue exploring the tools that make Linux such a flexible and powerful system!