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.

  • GenderNeutralBro@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    9 months ago

    I agree with much of this. However, regardless of which platform you’re on. it’s best to follow the design patterns of that platform.

    Putting binaries on your desktop is not in keeping with Linux design patterns, nor are self-updating apps. I think those are fair points.

    Having dozens of apps all using their own update mechanism introduces unnecessary complexity, which can be exploited. This has been a problem on Mac and Windows over the years. On Mac, for example, a common solution to this is the Sparkle framework, which devs can use in their app to manage self-updating; but Sparkle itself has been exploited, so then you have apps out there running god-knows-what-version of Sparkle in their bundles, leaving users vulnerable with no good way to identify or remediate it. This is why I typically disable any self-updating feature in any apps I use.