AppImage

“AppImage actually works and is simple, so I use that.”

“A kind of silent tragedy for efficient shared library paradigms.”

“Works on every distro out of the box, but doesn’t have the permission system of Flatpak.”

“these package formats are handy: download an AppImage and make no changes to your system”

“I can pack a reproducible AppImage containing a Python virtual environment and it works okay.”

“as long as you build against glibc with an earlier version than the system it's run on it should be fine”

“The macOS way (AppImage) also works but doesn't allow for deduplication.”

“if I see an appimage, I usually download those, and they usually just work”

“Most appimages often rely on specific libc of the base system”

“AppImage isn't truly cross distribution in the first place because how it handles dependencies is not truly portable.”

“dynamically linked some libraries, and wasn't truly compatible across Linux distributions.”

“they're just a single-file (in appearance) binary I can put in a ~/bin folder and run”

“AppImage tries to recreate the "just download it and run" experience that Windows and macOS have, but hasn't quite gotten there yet”

“not being able to easily run or get them, is kinda the core issue with appimages”

“there's no install process to get a binary in your PATH and an app launcher icon automatically”

“I'd rather they just distribute a tarball. If I am going to be pissing around copying files around just have tarball download.”

“AppImage, which by design requires you to ship all the dependencies”

“I'd say it's even more true with appimage and flatpak options for desktop apps”

“A single file is much better to manage on the eyes than a whole bunch of them”

“Otherwise you'd have to manually verify all the libraries you're bundling will work on your user's distros.”

“applications released using AppImages has been the most consistent by far at "just working" on my distro”

“a lot of Appimage developers make assumptions about what their systems have as well”

“IMO one of the best features of AppImage is that it makes it easy to extract without needing external tools.”

“the fact that you can easily extract it and pick out the pieces you want to repackage”

“That's why you need to explicitly exclude graphics libraries from being packaged into AppImage.”

“AppImages tend to be noticeably slower at runtime than other packaging methods”

“I wish AppImage was slightly more user friendly and did not require the user to specifically make it executable.”

“would fail for me because of fuse and glibc symbol version incompatibilties”

“require relatively complex machinery and runtimes and whatnot to function”

“AppImage provides a macOS like Application experience”

“throw random programs (flatpaks, snaps, appimages, distroboxes and whatnot helps a ton”

“AppImage relies on the old, unmaintained and suid root fuse2.”

“I've had a hell of a time building AppImages for my apps that work on Fedora 43.”

“the best way to reliably run old/new software in any given Linux”

“I prefer AppImages because they are just statically compiled binaries.”

“rely on homebrew, appimages, flatpaks and toolbox for my app needs”

“AppImages are supposed to be able to handle all of that and I have used a number of them that do.”

“appimages are all going to be unnecessarily huge, I think/assume?”

“they're standalone binary bundles, that any indie dev can host on their website”

“appimage in particular is dead simple if what you want has it available”