So then don't install snaps and use PPAs or flatpak or compile yourself.

Unlike Windows 10 you do have a choice here.

I use Windows 10 and have a choice. I can use a package manager of my choosing. I can install an application that self-updates. I can pause OS updates in a control panel.

One of the biggest problems with Windows is that every app sets up its own update policy and comes from its own App Store. (Steam, battle.net, etc.,) But that's Microsoft's fault for doing too little, not for doing too much. And that's actually kind of nice.

> I use Windows 10 and have a choice.

So do I.

Their botched rollout of Edge, including installing it without my permission and placing it on my taskbar, shows that no, you don't have a choice.

> I can pause OS updates in a control panel.

This is misleading at best. You can pause updates for a time period but they're forced at that point.

Canonical's actions with snaps are very clearly steering us away from choices that were once easy to make. They come by default, you can't easily use a non-Canonical store (not even really possible at the moment), they force auto-updates on us and they trick us into installing them when we think we're going to install a traditional .deb.

I don't know why you're comparing it to Windows 10.

> Just so we're clear, it's not that the apps auto-update, it's that there's no way to stop them auto-updating.

Actually you can.

https://snapcraft.io/docs/keeping-snaps-up-to-date#heading--... for instructions on how to defer updates.

If you want to install a snap such that it never updates, see https://forum.snapcraft.io/t/disabling-automatic-refresh-for...

Deferring isn't a solution, it's a band-aid. Just as you can only defer Windows updates but not completely opt out, you can only defer snap updates; there is no global opt-out. Having to do a convoluted procedure for every app as outlined in your second link shouldn't be necessary and definitely shouldn't be hidden behind an obscure source that only snap gurus even know about.

This issue, combined with the snap server being closed source and controlled by a for-profit company that seems to care less about FOSS with every Ubuntu release, makes snaps a very hard sell to anyone with common sense.

With the direction Linux is heading between snaps and systemd, and old-school holdouts like Void and Slackware suffering from a lack of developers and long-delayed releases respectively, I'm leaning more and more towards adopting OpenBSD for daily driver use. Performance has improved, quality of life has immensely improved, and the team behind it actually cares about putting out correct, working, secure software.

Sorry, rant over and I really went out on a tangent there, but my original point is that snaps are definitely no good for the future of Linux and I believe will be a detriment to the platform going forward.

Good, good.

I'm still of the opinion that this should be a front-and-centre feature. Install from the snap store, disable updates for that app specifically, still have to tied to its store instance for manual future updates.

Is this a practical issue for me? Actually, no. However, the fact that they didn't just include it from the beginning is a clear indication that Canonical and I are starting to differ in our thinking when it comes to the autonomy of the user. Also the fact that they didn't allow you disable updating, but merely postpone it for a maximum of two months.

The ask is not really to have a snap never update. The ask is that you have the option to update only after a user allows it. This has the side effect that if the user never says yes, the app never updates. However the true goal is that you are in control of when your apps update. This has many benefits, I 'll only list two. If something breaks, you can immediately deduce that it is because of that specific update, instead of having to investigate your whole system on what's happening. Also you can always say no to updates on the day you have a presentation so you have no surprises.