The Confinement Dilemma: Why Snap & Similar Solutions Aren’t Always Ideal

The Fragmented Package Management Landscape

Snap, flappak, AppImage and sh-installers contribute to a hybrid package management experience. For example, most Ubuntu systems still heavily rely on dpkg/apt, while Snap tries to confine certain apps. Consequently, users must navigate different package management paradigms. The often touted division of «system packages» (via dpkg/apt) vs. «application packages» (via Snap) is rarely clear-cut in practice and does not always meet security requirements.

The end result is a system that provides neither the promised security advantages nor a consistent user experience. Because the notion of a fully confined package ecosystem remains distant, users end up juggling multiple package managers with the associated confusion and overhead.

Arch Linux and Ditana: A Unified Approach

In contrast, Ditana pursues a deliberately unified package management strategy. As outlined in Embracing Arch’s Unified Package Management Philosophy, Ditana maintains a single, cleanly structured system, rather than mixing multiple technologies. This philosophy, closely aligned with the Rolling Release Model, results in a transparent update and maintenance process with minimal fragmentation.

While relying on one package manager alone does not automatically provide app confinement, it offers a simpler, more navigable environment that can be secured with tools like Bubblejail. Instead of distributing multiple overlapping isolation methods, Ditana recommends Bubblejail for scenarios requiring true separation.

Bubblejail: Effective Isolation Without System Fragmentation

Rather than adopting numerous package managers with inconsistent sandboxing features, Ditana installs Bubblejail by default to provide real isolation when needed. Built on bubblewrap, Bubblejail introduces an orderly approach to running applications in separate «instances.» Each instance has its own home directory and a services.toml that outlines which system resources may be accessed.

• Clear Separation: Instead of running unsandboxed apps accidentally, each application operates within its own environment, reducing the chance of misconfiguration.
• Granular Profiles: Reusable profiles let you quickly apply recurring service configurations (e.g., network access, audio).
• Consistent Control: Rights must be granted explicitly, strengthening the principle of least privilege.

Compared to AppImage, Flatpak, Snap, or shell installers, the deliberate combination of Arch’s unified package management with a dedicated sandboxing solution like Bubblejail keeps the system both clean and easy to maintain.

Conclusion

Ditana follows the philosophy of sticking to one package manager, thus avoiding solutions like Flatpak, Snap, AppImage and sh-installers. For applications that truly need segregation, Bubblejail offers a concise, trackable alternative. By focusing on a lean yet secure distribution, Ditana demonstrates how a single-package-manager model—augmented with powerful sandboxing when necessary—promotes clarity, stability, and security.

To learn more about the reasoning behind a unified package management approach, see Embracing Arch’s Unified Package Management Philosophy.