I upvoted this only because of the discussion that it could spark in the HN comments, the article itself is actually very poor. It compares only disk space, memory and CPU usage and of those another user pointed out that the disk space calculation for snaps is not even correct.
Furthermore these metrics are amongst the least important when discussing "next gen" package managers. I am more interested in hearing about developer tools, sand-boxing capabilities, the update mechanism, OS support, private distribution, enterprise pricing. I don't care if one packaging system uses slightly more memory or whatever because of how it handles shared libraries, and if I do care I would still be interested in hearing what the trade off for that increased memory usage is.
Furthermore these metrics are amongst the least important when discussing "next gen" package managers. I am more interested in hearing about developer tools, sand-boxing capabilities, the update mechanism, OS support, private distribution, enterprise pricing. I don't care if one packaging system uses slightly more memory or whatever because of how it handles shared libraries, and if I do care I would still be interested in hearing what the trade off for that increased memory usage is.