It's not just the command that one types. DEB packages are more widely available than RPM. The Debian repositories are larger. And for all its flaws, I find dependency resolution is done better on apt than the alternatives.
But it didn't and it isn't. Debian created DEB three years before RPM was created. Starting out, RPM didn't even support dependencies. I got into Linux before RPM so Debian was the obvious choice. I never understood why RPM was created.
Well yes: if Canonical cared they could make most of their snaps work almost as good as the Debian packages they dropped, and then it would be the same to the user.
But also no: even if they spent years catching up they would not reach the level of not-sucking that .deb get without extra effort, as a result of decades of policy ossified into the supporting tools. Such as the strong expectation that apt deals with packages that can be (re)built from their declared inputs and share common build-essentials. Whereas snapcraft does not even provide the tools yet to easily rule out building from ephemeral inputs or merely-accidentally working rust versions.
I don’t care much about package managers. I left Ubuntu because it put a snap directory in my home folder, put ads in mtod, and made mount output unreadable. It felt like I lost control of my computer.
Does that really make a difference? From a user perspective it's only replacing apt-get install by dnf install or pacman -S or apk add