I discourage the implementation of AppImage creation because it's a cheap and dirty way to tick the box for Linux compatibility, yet this does not translate into usability for the Linux user. Some cons to this half-baked shortcut IMHO are:

• packages don't update with operating system updates using native package managers like apt or yum so updates are clumsy and in some cases have broken my system.
• packages don't integrate with operating system menu hierarchy.
• it can tend to circumvent the quality controls inherent in the package introduction processes of these distributions, therefore reducing it's overall reliability as a tool. (it's also a great way to sneak malicious code on to your machine, btw)

What you end up with is a broken app, which may not break your system entirely at first. Any of those that continue to attempt to correct these broken apps can either get lucky and fix the app, or make things worse and really break the Operating System. It is for these reasons I urge the developer community to avoid using snap, AppImage, or Flatpak and stick to releasing binaries for specific distributions like .deb or .rpm.

I'd rather wait a year longer for it than have you check off your "Linux compatibility" box and never look at it again.

I'm not a programmer, so if you find any statements factually incorrect, I'll beg your forgiveness in advance and ask that you don't bite my head off in your reply, just politely point out and correct factual misstatements and save your energy for writing code for binary installation package files like .deb or .rpm.

Sincerely,

Prancing389