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   ( @eugenia@lemmy.ml ) 
    link
    fedilink
    English
    84 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.

    • 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

    • Have a look at GPU screen recorder, I think thats as much privileges as you need.

      XDG-desktop portals are not yet complete. But for filesystem access and GPU de/encoding that should already work.

      If the Davinci Resolve devs actually cared about Linux…

    • Have a look at GPU screen recorder, I think thats as much privileges as you need.

      XDG-desktop portals are not yet complete. But for filesystem access and GPU de/encoding that should already work.

      If the Davinci Resolve devs actually cared about Linux… I think the best way to run it is using uBlues image on Podman.