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.
I’m a Flatpak user myself, but a lot of those arguments against AppImage are outdated or invalid. Here are my counterpoints:
Usability issues
GearLever solves all the problems mentioned.
Updates
There are AppImages out there that self-update , but GearLever also solves the update issue. And if you don’t want to use GearLever, there are other updaters like AppImageUpdate.
The lack of repositories
Appimages don’t even have a central place where you can find them, not to mention download them.This is blatantly wrong - AppImageHub exists for this very reason. There are also GUI frontends like AppImagePool which makes it easy to discover/download/install them.
Lack of Sandboxing
That is a fair point, however, AppImage never claimed to be a sandboxing solution, and for some use-cases this can even be seen as an advantage (any Flatpak user would’ve at some point run into annoying sandboxing limitations - such as password manager and browser integration, or themeing woes). But there are other sandboxing options out there, such as using containers, and IMO, using a proper container is a better option for sandboxing. Or even better, use a VM if you’re actually running an untrusted app.
Random location
[…] A necessary step would be mounting the entire /home non-executable. This is no problem for system apps, or Flatpaks, but where do you put Appimages now?There would need to be a standard directory to put such files in, which is normally the PATH. But this is also the easiest attack goal for malware, so PATH would be non-executable as well.
I completely disagree with making the entirety of /home as non-executable, when
$HOME/.local/binis recommended by the XDG standard as a place to store executables. As long as$HOME/.local/binis in the XDG spec, I’ll continue storing my executables there. If you disagree, go argue with the XDG guys.Duplicated libraries
This is a fair point but “they include all the libraries they need” is the entire point of AppImage - so mentioning this is pointless.
If users would really install every Software as Appimages, they would waste insane amounts of storage space.
Then it’s a good thing that they don’t right? What’s the point of making hypothetical arguments? Also, this is 2024, storage is cheap and dedicating space for your applications isn’t really a big deal for most folks. And if storage space is really a that much of a concern, then you wouldn’t be using Flatpak either - so this argument is moot and only really valid for a hypothetical / rare use-cases where storage is a premium. And again, in such a use case, that user wouldn’t be using Flatpaks either.
Finally, some distros like Bazzite already have the above integrations built-in (GearLever/AppImagePool), so you don’t even need to do anything special to get AppImages integrated nicely in your system, and there’s nothing stopping other distros adding these packages as optional dependencies - but it’s kinda moot at this point I guess since Flatpak has already won the war.
Personally, I’m pro-choice. If AppImage doesn’t work for you, then don’t use it, as simple as that. Stop dictating user choice. If AppImage is really as bad as you claim, then it’ll die a natural death and you don’t have to worry about it. What you really need to worry about is Snap, which has the backing of Canonical, and some dev houses new to the Linux ecosystem seem to think packing stuff as Snap is an acceptable solution…
I agree with this, but as an app developer, can I just say, Flathub’s documentation is an absolute abomination. It is so bad, that I’ve tried 3 times to publish an app and have given up each time. I can build a local Flatpak just fine, but getting it on Flathub is just so convoluted and bad.
AppImages are ridiculously easy to build and distribute, just a pain to actually use. And even then, they’re not that much of a pain.
Try getting Creality Print to run without manually updating components of the appimage. I’ll wait.
This has nothing to do with my comment.
Uhh ok pal, sure thing.
Bro, a developer (which I am not) voiced his opinion. What’s the need for the toxicity? Isn’t it better for everyone if we all ask questions or provide our opinions respecting others? This is the reason why ANY difference of opinion ends up turning into a heated and useless argument. If you have something to counter what he said, by all means, bring it to the table. @hperin didn’t say anything out of place.
I think you’re both on something either really good or really bad. I added to the sentiment about appimages and you’re both too busy sniffng your own farts too actually read the very short thing I wrote. You’d rather create a narrative in your own head about what a big meanie I am. So be in it then.
In conclusion, screw both of you, you’re blocked. I have only marginally more patience for stupid than Linus does and you’re both well past that. Have a nice day.
One specific implementation by a terrible company that can barely manage to check quality control on their actual products isn’t a very good example of appimage’s problems.
Not saying they don’t have problems. But having seen creality’s version of Marlin, I gotta say, I’d be willing to bet they rebranded something, but using vastly out of date versions.
Probably should switch to simplify3d, prusa or cura.
While you’re not wrong, the problem I was referencing is an outdated library embedded in the image. It makes the whole app crash and it could happen to any app.
