AppImage

>>59952016
>App

>>59952016
>Linus approval

>>59952023
The old name was klik, then changed to portable linux app finally settled on AppImage.
Which is a good thing, since all application are "apps" now.
>>59952067
Well it solves a lot of issues.

>>59952016
It's got the support of the projects that matter

>krita
>openshot
>avidemux

Snappy and Flatpak are memes, replacing distro repositories with a super-distro repository which is especially retarded
Appimage is completely decentralised as it should

Also
>flatpak
>naming you open source project from an ikea buzzword

>but appimage doesn't offer sandbox support
Just use Firejail

>>59952593
>It's got the support of the projects that matter
Because it is just easiest to use for both packager and user.
* for packager: just run a script that compile and copy every dependencies to a file
* for user: download, chmod +x and start using it

snap and flatpak offers nothing over AppImage.

>>59952631
Can it update?

>>59952593
>but appimage doesn't offer sandbox support
Why is it important?
Do you mean most applications run with sandbox by default?
>>59952697
Yes and no.
Yes, you can download a newer version.
https://github.com/probonopd/AppImageKit/issues/133

>>59952300
>All applications are apps now.
Are you fucking retarded?

File: Screenshot_2017-04-18_19-38-19.png (65KB, 764x692px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 764x692px

>>59952016
Where is your god now?

>>59954446
You seem to be retarded definietely.

File: 1470786193190.jpg (23KB, 580x393px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 580x393px

>>59952016
>It even got Linus approval.
huh? who cares what Linus thinks. he's a shill.

File: macfag.jpg (40KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 480x360px

>>59952300
>all applications are "apps"
>t. apple shill

>>59952016
It certainly doesn't beat compiling my own version of the program to include support I want and remove options I don't need/want.

>>59955510

app always was just a short form for application. What part of it is too difficult to understand for you autistic idiots?

>>59955531
This

Linus is a retard that likes stock gnome

>>59955465
They should have made the file extension .app just to fuck with people.

File: Screenshot_2017-04-18_19-54-34.png (118KB, 947x633px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 947x633px

>>59955604

You can rename the files if you wish so, they keep working it seems.

It certainly beats installing all kde dependencies system wide to have krita on my cinnamon desktop.
And having gimp2.8 installed and playing with the dev version. (works better than flatpak imo)

>>59955678
I know. Would've still been funny had they made it the standard.
Where do you get all those appimages? From the programs websites?

>>59955745
https://bintray.com/probono/AppImages

>>59952016
Lots of big projects use it, Krita comes to mind.

The only reason it isn't more popular is because package management is already so easy on Linux on most distros. I hope it catches on big eventually though.

>>59955823
Fucking sweet, thanks anon.

>>59955823
thx m8

A newer version of gimp with gmic plugin and mypaint brushes built in.
https://pixls.us/files/
cce is color corrected version, but I can't tell any diff.

>>59955823
Holy shit this stuff is seamless. Why are Flatpak and Snap even a thing?

>>59956030
tribalistic autism

>>59956030
Red Hat and Canonical trying to shit up the Linux ecosystem as usual.

File: properly_commented_reply.png (18KB, 742x131px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 742x131px

>>59956777
trips of truth

>>59955465
>not installed

>>59955531
>removing options
The only reason you would want to do that if it posed a security risk.
>not compiling your own AppImage

File: keep-calm-and-use-linux_o_760600.png (223KB, 500x718px) Image search: [Google]

223KB, 500x718px

>>59955823
>tfw Linux was saved

>>59955823
How do you remove those?
What about configurations files and such?

>>59957333
>How do you remove
rm ProgramName*.AppImage
>Configuration Files
They are probably created in ~/.config.

>>59957458
That's a bad thing if you think about it.
What if you used an application that uses large amount of storage space?
AppImage should have something like remove/purge feature.

Also if all configurations go to ~/.config/ then doesn't it mean it will conflict/uses an existing config files?

I've just tested it, The chromium AppImage used the already existed config files for the already installed chromium, and vice versa.
It would be problematic if you want to test a new version without messing with your older one.

>>59957654
Doesn't Chromium use profiles, similar to Firefox -p default

>>59957654
Yeah it would be ideal if Appimages created something like a local config directory wherever they are located, maybe just called [application name]config or something. If they're supposed to be portable they ought not have to rely upon anything in ~/.config/

But I know nothing about how they work, so maybe I'm just being retarded.

>no automatic updates
>no sandbox
>no central download source
>User has to decide where to put it (bad idea)

>>59957852
It's obviously not great for every single application but for things like games or other software that is generally complete or not going to be updated often it is ideal.

>>59957914

complete software in this century?

File: Untitled.png (251KB, 522x704px) Image search: [Google]

251KB, 522x704px

>>59957333
>How do you remove those?

right click -> delete

>Configuration Files

no need, most appimages ask after start if you want them to be integrated into the system, though. you can also create x.desktop file (usually in usr/share/applications) that links to the appimage you wanr. This way you can start
the appimage from launcher/panel/dock, or you can drag the whole folder where you store the appimages to the panel/dock and start the appimage from launcher context menu

>>59957852
>>User has to decide where to put it (bad idea)

It's called freedom and it's a good idea