Nothing's definitely off in here
Not that it's bad. For me, it's actually very useful, I just find it mildly amusing that an app for managing AppImages is packaged as a Flatpak, despite the two formats being widely known as competitors*.
* Okay, most people (including me) would say that the two formats are for different use cases and aren't directly competitors, but for the eyes of a lot of AppImage purists and Flatpak critics, they are.
24 replies
Let's trigger some peeps:
Is there a docker image available?
May I interject for a moment. What you are referring to as a Docker Image is actually an Open Container.org Image or OCI.... Continues stallman quote
What's off? It's an app for managing appimages that is hosted on flathub. Just because it is a flatpak does not mean it can't manage appimages
edit: a word
At the same time, it's like a Ford executive driving a Chevy. It looks wrong.
More like a train conductor driving a car between their home and work.
Knew a Porsche employee whose company car was a Beemer, so maybe it's not quite as rare as you think?
This is not really a competition. Options are good.
What's off? That looks like it might be useful.
Tool for managing AppImages is distributed only as a flatpak.
I mean they are two things that co-exist, it's not like they're in commercial competition. Flatpak itself is usually distributed as an RPM or deb.
OP is mostly joking about the appimage utility not having an appimage itself
Speaking of that app, I have been using it for some of my programs that are only available as an AppImage for sometime now and I can confirm it works really great.
Flathub link in case anybody's interested
OK well I'm not sure where the AppImage "purists" and Flatpak "critics" are but I've not really encountered them.
Lucky you, those idiots are fucking everywhere!
Tip: take a look at r/Linux and the Phoronix forums 😉
I like and monetarily support Phoronix the news site, but the forums have some of the worst Linux users. Lots of people upset about the silliest things and confidently spouting incorrect nonsense.
How is it compared to AppImageLauncher? That's what I've been using for a few things that only ship AppImage.
I bet the dev gets a lot of angry comments over that, a absolute hero!
I think we should just be happy it exists 😅
indeed :)
Everytime they add a feature to AppImage, they just keep trying to recreate flatpak but worse.
It's a statement, it's about sending a message!
obviously good for the bit, but the serious reason why this exists is likely because it's a modern gtk app -> it's meant for gnome users / made by a gnome users -> gnome is all in on freedesktop/flathub -> these users can all expect to have flatpak availability as a common method of distribution -> therefore, release it as a flatpak, so these users who already have flatpak can more easily manage their appimage-only programs
Wow, this is great! Thanks!