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.

  • Eugenia@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    Some of these apps can’t work as flatpaks at all, because they require more access to the system, e.g. Davinci Resolve. AppImage allows that. I mean, heck, even Ubuntu runs a virtual filesystem in order to allow its Snap Firefox to access the Dictionary that lives “outside” its sandboxing. So, yes, there are cases where AppImages do serve a purpose. Not most cases, but a lot of cases.

    • yukijoou@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      because they require more access to the system

      afaik, you can allow more system access to flatpaks

      Ubuntu runs a virtual filesystem in order to allow its Snap Firefox to access the Dictionary that lives “outside” its sandboxing

      i believe flatpak also does that, you can specify some paths from the host to be available to the flatpak