Cemu emulator for Wii U now provides an AppImage

i liek appimage and flatpack both for different reasons. appimage is nice for stuff like github or a random obscure app, and flatpack for 'app stores' experiences or things that should be sandboxed. both have a place

Quoting: Zer0Cooli liek appimage and flatpack both for different reasons. appimage is nice for stuff like github or a random obscure app, and flatpack for 'app stores' experiences or things that should be sandboxed. both have a place

I think the main reason I prefer flatpak is based on discoverability. Also it currently will usually integrate smoother. Appimage does... but then you need appimage launcher.

I agree with most sentiments here, I def prefer AppImage over snaps and flatpaks. I just wish they integrated better and had better ways to update -- sure, some of them can be updated with tools, but not all of them, and most of the time it's janky regardless.

Though as far as preference goes, I wish they were just packages. Thankfully Cemu can just be built directly.

Quoting: M@GOidI wish Appimage became more widespread. So many projects have a Linux port but don't provide a convenient way to use the thing. Meanwhile those same projects don't have a problem providing a Windows executable.

That just contribute to the bad look Linux have among Windows users "I don't use Linux because I don't want to compile a program to use it".

While I think AppImages are good, the devs of it don't help adoption when in the past (idk how long it's been) they said some things about the OBS Project because they only had flatpak and I think tried to say because RedHat became a sponsor of OBS that they then added flatpak, some crazy stuff like that.

Quoting: gradyvuckovicBetween Snap, Flatpak and AppImage, I'll admit I think AppImage is my fav. Just because I love the simplicity of it.

"Here's an app, it's in a file, double click it to run it."

Beautiful simplicity. What I'd like to see is more distros improving their support for the format. Stuff like if you try to double click an AppImage file and it doesn't have executable permission, just asking the user, 'Do you want to give this AppImage file executable permission?' and stuff like a place to drag and drop AppImage files to add them to the application list.

Yeah, I do like the java approach they employ as well, that's also why I like java, although admittedly java does have the extra step of needing the jre but I think recently they added a way to bundle the jre in the app (think it's jpackage)

Quoting: const

Quoting: gradyvuckovicBetween Snap, Flatpak and AppImage, I'll admit I think AppImage is my fav. Just because I love the simplicity of it.

"Here's an app, it's in a file, double click it to run it."

Beautiful simplicity. What I'd like to see is more distros improving their support for the format. Stuff like if you try to double click an AppImage file and it doesn't have executable permission, just asking the user, 'Do you want to give this AppImage file executable permission?' and stuff like a place to drag and drop AppImage files to add them to the application list.

I'm ok with the dev to decide between Flatpak and AppImage. Distros may also still decide to provide their own package, but I'm a big fan of flatpak and AppImage for any self-contained application running on top of my DE. SteamDeck only made it more necessary to have these.

Regarding integration with AppImage: For some reason, it works beautiful with my Arch-KDE System. I just double click the appimage and a GUI pops up, asking if I only want to run it once or have it integrated. This is how it should be.

Sounds like you have AppImageLauncher perhaps as I recognize the gui you are describing

Quoting: M@GOid

Quoting: elmapul

Quoting: M@GOidI wish Appimage became more widespread. So many projects have a Linux port but don't provide a convenient way to use the thing. Meanwhile those same projects don't have a problem providing a Windows executable.

That just contribute to the bad look Linux have among Windows users "I don't use Linux because I don't want to compile a program to use it".

its not the developers fault if we dont have an standard on linux like windows have with .exe, we are just now making those techs that work across distros and even with then some distros chose to not support all of then or offer a crap support so we still have to solve "political problems" before we can solve "techinical" ones, not to mention is a bit hard to make those packages last time i checked.

but hey, if you think otherwise you can always package yourself once they relase the source code...

Sorry, I don't agree. If you have a app and are releasing it out there for people to use, you can do your part to easy things for the end user, just like you do with the Windows executable. Appimage is not a new thing, and way before it, some devs just released a compressed file with precompiled stuff and their dependencies. Just drop it on a folder and off you go. Mozilla does it for ages with Firefox and Thunderbird.

While it is nice, I don't think it is or should be an expectation (that's how the bolded text in the quote comes across to me, kind of like geez, the least you can do after making an app for free and releasing the source for anyone to do with as they please is to support my preferred packaging format, if I got the impression/way it came across wrong, please let me know), it is remarkable developers as they are put time and effort into open source projects with no guarantee of financial support (or possibly any support as some open source projects are largely or entirely a one man team). I think it is the job of the packaging formats to make it as easy as possible to integrate with any project to make it enticing and preferably low maintenance to implement for the developer.

Quoting: JordanPlayz158

Quoting: M@GOid

Quoting: elmapul

Quoting: M@GOidI wish Appimage became more widespread. So many projects have a Linux port but don't provide a convenient way to use the thing. Meanwhile those same projects don't have a problem providing a Windows executable.

That just contribute to the bad look Linux have among Windows users "I don't use Linux because I don't want to compile a program to use it".

its not the developers fault if we dont have an standard on linux like windows have with .exe, we are just now making those techs that work across distros and even with then some distros chose to not support all of then or offer a crap support so we still have to solve "political problems" before we can solve "techinical" ones, not to mention is a bit hard to make those packages last time i checked.

but hey, if you think otherwise you can always package yourself once they relase the source code...

Sorry, I don't agree. If you have a app and are releasing it out there for people to use, you can do your part to easy things for the end user, just like you do with the Windows executable. Appimage is not a new thing, and way before it, some devs just released a compressed file with precompiled stuff and their dependencies. Just drop it on a folder and off you go. Mozilla does it for ages with Firefox and Thunderbird.

While it is nice, I don't think it is or should be an expectation (that's how the bolded text in the quote comes across to me, kind of like geez, the least you can do after making an app for free and releasing the source for anyone to do with as they please is to support my preferred packaging format, if I got the impression/way it came across wrong, please let me know), it is remarkable developers as they are put time and effort into open source projects with no guarantee of financial support (or possibly any support as some open source projects are largely or entirely a one man team). I think it is the job of the packaging formats to make it as easy as possible to integrate with any project to make it enticing and preferably low maintenance to implement for the developer.

I suppose, but the packaging formats are also open source, so if you're going down the "open source developers shouldn't have to make things easy for their users" road that would apply to the packaging format developers as well . . .
Obviously open source developers don't have to do anything. But whether open source or otherwise, if they want to say they've written "good" software, part of that is making it easy to use, which includes packaged in a way that makes it easy to run in the first place, or for packagers includes making it easy to package things with their system.

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: JordanPlayz158

Quoting: M@GOid

Quoting: elmapul

Quoting: M@GOidI wish Appimage became more widespread. So many projects have a Linux port but don't provide a convenient way to use the thing. Meanwhile those same projects don't have a problem providing a Windows executable.

That just contribute to the bad look Linux have among Windows users "I don't use Linux because I don't want to compile a program to use it".

its not the developers fault if we dont have an standard on linux like windows have with .exe, we are just now making those techs that work across distros and even with then some distros chose to not support all of then or offer a crap support so we still have to solve "political problems" before we can solve "techinical" ones, not to mention is a bit hard to make those packages last time i checked.

but hey, if you think otherwise you can always package yourself once they relase the source code...

Sorry, I don't agree. If you have a app and are releasing it out there for people to use, you can do your part to easy things for the end user, just like you do with the Windows executable. Appimage is not a new thing, and way before it, some devs just released a compressed file with precompiled stuff and their dependencies. Just drop it on a folder and off you go. Mozilla does it for ages with Firefox and Thunderbird.

While it is nice, I don't think it is or should be an expectation (that's how the bolded text in the quote comes across to me, kind of like geez, the least you can do after making an app for free and releasing the source for anyone to do with as they please is to support my preferred packaging format, if I got the impression/way it came across wrong, please let me know), it is remarkable developers as they are put time and effort into open source projects with no guarantee of financial support (or possibly any support as some open source projects are largely or entirely a one man team). I think it is the job of the packaging formats to make it as easy as possible to integrate with any project to make it enticing and preferably low maintenance to implement for the developer.

I suppose, but the packaging formats are also open source, so if you're going down the "open source developers shouldn't have to make things easy for their users" road that would apply to the packaging format developers as well . . .
Obviously open source developers don't have to do anything. But whether open source or otherwise, if they want to say they've written "good" software, part of that is making it easy to use, which includes packaged in a way that makes it easy to run in the first place, or for packagers includes making it easy to package things with their system.

I mean, I think the fact that most users don't need to learn how to program and make the programs themselves I'd definitely say makes it infinitely easier for the users, is it nice to have precompiled binaries for your platform and distro, yes, but I mean with all the work that goes into these programs, is it too hard to read the compilation docs or look online how to compile x program (if compilation file isn't supplied), it's difficult as for some apps (normally C in my experience), you definitely need compiled binaries (as even when following instructions, you will still get errors sometimes and you are relying on the documentation being up to date), but most other languages have a.... simpler build system, as java is my best language, I will talk about that, with Java, you have default java compiler or you can use build systems like Maven or Gradle and for maven, it's just `mvn package` and for gradle it's `gradle build`. I definitely am not against compiled binaries or some crazy, compile everything from source guy (no offense to gentoo users and such) but I just don't know if we should have too big of standards for developers, although I suppose no one is holding an developer to any standard but the standard the dev puts on themself but I think you get what I mean, putting extra pressure on devs when they already do a lot.

Quoting: JordanPlayz158

Quoting: const

Quoting: gradyvuckovicBetween Snap, Flatpak and AppImage, I'll admit I think AppImage is my fav. Just because I love the simplicity of it.

"Here's an app, it's in a file, double click it to run it."

Beautiful simplicity. What I'd like to see is more distros improving their support for the format. Stuff like if you try to double click an AppImage file and it doesn't have executable permission, just asking the user, 'Do you want to give this AppImage file executable permission?' and stuff like a place to drag and drop AppImage files to add them to the application list.

I'm ok with the dev to decide between Flatpak and AppImage. Distros may also still decide to provide their own package, but I'm a big fan of flatpak and AppImage for any self-contained application running on top of my DE. SteamDeck only made it more necessary to have these.

Regarding integration with AppImage: For some reason, it works beautiful with my Arch-KDE System. I just double click the appimage and a GUI pops up, asking if I only want to run it once or have it integrated. This is how it should be.

Sounds like you have AppImageLauncher perhaps as I recognize the gui you are describing

Yep, seems like that. This should come with every distro, really convenient.