I mean I get it. I don't think the defaults are right though. It could be smarter - automatic purge 7 days after user has used new version, or something along those lines. Keeping 3 versions just in case doesn't sound like anybody's ideal.
> Even if you are an experienced Linux user, you fall into that negative sentiment and even if an issue is small, it is a deal-breaker for you.
I don't think that's fair. Apt/deb is solid, battle tested, and works. Introducing snap with this kind of instability is the source of the negativity.
> The "chromium" issue has been explained in 2019.
And the fact that it still crashes in 2020, on a flagship package on a modern laptop, is really really bad. In fact I had the same crash happen during a dist-upgrade on another laptop(!) which locked up the entire dist-upgrade.
If apt is going to call snap, it needs to be rock solid.
The jetbrains stuff keeps several versions around by default, which eats disk space. I'm sure there's a way to change that, but I haven't cared enough to dig.
The other day I ran `apt install chromium-browser` on a brand new install; it chose to install via snap (grr) and then snapd promptly crashed ("Waiting for restart" -- https://forum.snapcraft.io/t/installing-the-chromium-snap-in...), but apt's wrapper wasn't notified. I ended up ctrl-Cing, which left dkpg (somehow involved) in an inconsistent state. Took several iterations of dkpg reconfigure and apt update to recover. I've been on linux for 20 years, so not a big deal for me, but my experience has been that snap is less newbie friendly than apt.
Not disagreeing with your main point, but positivism doesn't mean what you think it does (you wanted "positivity" instead.)
noun: positivism
1. a philosophical system that holds that every rationally justifiable assertion can be scientifically verified or is capable of logical or mathematical proof, and that therefore rejects metaphysics and theism.
a humanistic religious system founded on positivism.
another term for logical positivism.
2. the theory that laws are to be understood as social rules, valid because they are enacted by authority or derive logically from existing decisions, and that ideal or moral considerations (e.g., that a rule is unjust) should not limit the scope or operation of the law.