• thingsiplay@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      I still don’t understand why a central repository for AppImages exist. The moment you are using a repository (and possibly version management), the format looses its reason to exist.

        • thingsiplay@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 months ago

          I personally use a few AppImages, but want replace them with Flatpaks. Flatpaks have their own issues, and because I did not want to troubleshoot in case I encounter another issue, just carry on using AppImages for these selected applications. Also I was not able to archive Flatpak easily, its very complicated with keys and not. Compared to it, I just have the AppImages included in my regular backup process with regular files.

          My point was not if AppImages are useful (they clearly are and I use them), but was talking bout repositories. However after some other replies I thought about it and indeed such a repository makes sense even for AppImages. I personally just don’t have to use them.

            • thingsiplay@beehaw.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              7 months ago

              Not really. AppImages are as much secure as any other executable you run on your system. If you download it from a trusted source, like you download trusted Flatpaks or your systems repository, then they are not worse. If you say AppImages are highly insecure, because you run executable code, then you have to take that logic to any other executable format. The problem is not the format itself that makes it insecure, it’s the source.