Appimages totally suck, because many developers think they were a real packaging format and support them exclusively.

Their use case is tiny, and in 99% of cases Flatpak is just better.

I could not find a single post or article about all the problems they have, so I wrote this.

This is not about shaming open source contributors. But Appimages are obviously broken, pretty badly maintained, while organizations/companies like Balena, Nextcloud etc. don’t seem to get that.

  • smileyhead@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    AppImage is a nice way to have an app on an USB stick, remote server or for archival. But for normal app usage, why?

    • Pantherina@feddit.deOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      I want to find a way to do this with flatpaks too.

      A small GUI tool (a statically linked binary lol) that can be placed on that stick

      • copy the flatpak app and runtime stuff to a folder
      • copy the desktop entry over
      • copy app data when chosen

      And the same thing to copy it from the stick to a live system. Should work, probably not haha

      • smileyhead@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        10 months ago

        TIP: Flatpak have a build-in way for creating USB, check out the “flatpak --help”.

        But the point is with Appimage all that have to be installed is FUSE, which is expected to be installed on most installs when you go to a friend or work where Linux is used.

        • Pantherina@feddit.deOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          Oh nice!

          Flatpak also works everywhere and appimages are not ported to fuse3…

          I mean I want to think Appimages where nice, and they are kinda, but no.