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.

  • iopq@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    9 months ago

    Great, now tell me why your appimage is complaining about not having some .so file on my system

    • Avid Amoeba
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      The developer made extra low effort and missed a lib. 😅

      • iopq@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        No, the problem is more subtle, the developer assumed I have the same libs in the same locations as a mainstream distro like Ubuntu, but I do not

        I actually have several versions of each library in different hashed folders (my distro does this) and I just steam-run normal Linux executables

        Except I can’t do that when using this appimage thing so it doesn’t directly work on my system

        • Avid Amoeba
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          Well, theoretically if the developer had bundled the libs they assumed would be present on Ubuntu into the AppImage, maybe it would have worked. Would it be larger? Sure. 😂