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.
You must log in or register to comment.
This is not really a competition. Options are good.
Let’s trigger some peeps:
Is there a docker image available?
Just give me the source code. Under GPLv3 of course.
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.
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.
Tip: take a look at r/Linux and the Phoronix forums 😉
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
I bet the dev gets a lot of angry comments over that, a absolute hero!
It’s a statement, it’s about sending a message!
