this post was submitted on 12 Mar 2026
88 points (90.0% liked)

Linux

13243 readers
252 users here now

A community for everything relating to the GNU/Linux operating system (except the memes!)

Also, check out:

Original icon base courtesy of lewing@isc.tamu.edu and The GIMP

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] gworl@lemmy.blahaj.zone 70 points 1 month ago (7 children)

I like both flatpaks and appimages why does everything have to be a victory and defeat

[–] KryptonNerd@slrpnk.net 48 points 1 month ago (13 children)

Because it's nice for devs to have a single package type to build per OS

[–] gworl@lemmy.blahaj.zone 15 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Why can’t they do that already? Just choose whichever one you want it’s trivial for me to run whichever as a user

[–] curbstickle@anarchist.nexus 25 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Just not snaps.

AppImage and flatpak are fine though

[–] chocrates@piefed.world 5 points 1 month ago (5 children)

Whats wrong with snaps? My only "issue" with appimages is i tend to leave them in my downloads folder and lose them

[–] alfredon996@feddit.it 15 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

My issues with snaps are:

  • The server software is closed source and centralized
  • They create many block devices that can slow down booting the PC.
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] curbstickle@anarchist.nexus 14 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

The snap store is a shit show of security issues.

Forced migration to snaps.

Performance issues.

Proprietary back end.

Slow to install

Slow to start

Eat up RAM

Eat up disk space

They screw up access to devices.

They automatically update themselves without user confirmation.

Fuck snaps. Fuck Canonical.

[–] med@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 month ago (4 children)

There's an appimaged daemon you can install that will manage them, and it watches a bunch of folders to integrate appimages with xdg and whatever window manager you've got. ~/Applications looks like an easy pick, or ~/.local/bin.

Appimages you decide to keep you can just move there!

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Damage@feddit.it 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

snaps are essentially ubuntu-only

I have an ~/app directory for appimages

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] gworl@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 1 month ago
[–] bleistift2@sopuli.xyz 6 points 1 month ago (6 children)

Recently I wanted to uninstall $thing. Couldn’t via the package manager. I had forgotten that it wasn’t a native package. So what was it? *scratches head* Flatpak, snap or Appimage? Aw damn, it’s an AppImage. Now where did I put the binary? *scratches head*.

[–] wildbus8979@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] SqueakyBeaver@piefed.blahaj.zone 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I think it's really funny that it's a flatpak used to manage AppImages

[–] wildbus8979@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 month ago

I know right?! ;)

[–] morto@piefed.social 4 points 1 month ago

Maybe you would like appimagelauncher. It allows you to define a directory for storing your appimages and you just put them in there and you can automatically launch it from the system menu as if they were installed apps. It also makes removing them easier, since they're all in the same directory and you just remove them and the shortcuts get deleted as well

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (12 replies)
[–] artyom@piefed.social 7 points 1 month ago (2 children)

It goes a long way to simplicity from both a user and dev to have only one package type to deal with and distribute.

[–] aloofPenguin@piefed.world 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I'd agree with that sentiment, but at least for me, if we went with all flatpacks, i'd be losing the one ability that I like about appimages, which is as a one-time-use type of "installation". They're kind of like those windows EXEs that you could just run in place without needing to install. very useful for stuff like raspberrypi imager where I don't need to keep it around much

[–] morto@piefed.social 4 points 1 month ago

appimages also allow some sort of portable apps you can carry around. Very useful for dealing with no internet scenarios. I also use appimages for things iI use very rarely and don't want to bother to have them being updated regularly along with the system

[–] Beacon@fedia.io 3 points 1 month ago (2 children)

This completely. Speaking as a person who's more tech skilled than 99% of non-programmers, i can tell you that installing apps is the main tech hurdle for Linux getting mainstream adoption.

There are non-tech hurdles too, but of the actual technology being easy to use then app installation is really the only aspect left that regular people can't do without a huge dive of tech learning that's beyond what most people can do.

  • Installing on mac: click the Mac download button and follow the prompts.

  • Installing on Windows: click the Windows download button and follow the prompts.

  • Installing on Linux: there's no Linux download button, there's a couple of buttons that say words you've never heard of before. They look kinda like buttons to download an app. You click one and try to open it, but it just shows an error, etc etc etc

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] the16bitgamer@programming.dev 42 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

I use flatpak and app images for different uses.

App images are like portable exe files for onetime use apps. Like Rufus

Flatpaks are like installable exes from the devs website. Used for apps I want to used and use again on my machine.

[–] Kirk@startrek.website 14 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Yeah Flatpacks aren't really "competing" with Appimages the way they are with Snaps.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Hond@piefed.social 39 points 1 month ago (5 children)

I fucking love appimages. I dont have any issues with Flatpak. I just like appimages more and i can get them for almost all of my stuff. So idk if flatpaks won. But i also dont care.

[–] illusionist@lemmy.zip 22 points 1 month ago

I love flatpaks and your attitude

[–] NotSteve_@piefed.ca 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

AppImages are great! It reminds me a lot of how software is packaged on MacOS and I think it hits that perfect trifecta of powerful, simple, and easy to use

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] thingsiplay@lemmy.ml 24 points 1 month ago (6 children)

AppImages are completely different thing versus Flatpak and Snap.

[–] Samskara@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 month ago (3 children)

I use Appimage and flatpack, but not snaps.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Magnum@infosec.pub 15 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Comparing AppImages to Flatpaks is a bit of a stretch.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Grntrenchman@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I prefer appimages, it feels much more "open" than flatpak ever will.

Flatpak: install flatpost and flatseal.

Appimage: Download appimaged appimage to ~\Applications and run once.

then

Flatpak: Go to site for cool software I heard of, see it's flatpak with a link on the page. Click link, wait for flatpost to open, wait for flatpost to update repos, get cool software and possibly another copy of mesa and gnome compat stuff, then head to flatseal to fix drive/device permissions as needed.

Appimage: Go to site for cool software I heard of, see it's an appimage, download said appimage to ~\Applications, appimaged automatically loads in a desktop entry and we're done.

As far as updates, all the appimages that are in active development that I use, offer auto-updating when I open them, plus I'm not reliant on a centrally-controlled repo of the packages (which if it dies, takes all updates with it).

I feel appimage would be an easier adoption for people fresh to linux, as it follows the same model as windows or macos (download executable, install app), even for the initial setup of appimaged.

And either way, there's no "winner" here, if we're playing that game, native installs still win. Every distro supports (and uses) those by default, except for ubuntu, who has money on pushing snaps.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] recursive_recursion@piefed.ca 10 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

On Linux I don't really care who "wins" or loses" as we just have options.

The only 2 things I personally care about is which of the options have the most consistent and trustworthy developer, and which one is licensed or closest to being licensed under AGPL-3.0.

"Which xyz is better?" is the last of my concerns as my disgust for "proprietary", AI-product/service, and NVIDIA knows no bounds.


All that being said;
I'm glad people love Flatpaks, app images still exist, and that people dump snaps like it's the plague.

[–] BananaTrifleViolin@piefed.world 10 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

I don't think Flatpak "won". Flatpak makes sense for it's use, but AppImages also make sense for other uses, and even Snap has it's place.

It just happens that Flatpak has become the more "popular" method on many desktop Linux set ups, as Flathub integrates well into software stores and the shared dependencies can be more efficient (if you use a lot of Flatpaks).

AppImages are great for self contained portable apps with minimal local dependencies needed, and especially if something is pretty much "feature complete". They aren't quite as convenient in terms of keeping them updated or integrating into desktop environments seamlessly (they can be if you visit AppImageHub and install the AppImageLauncher - doesn't work for me thought - but even then they're not really as well integrated into desktop environments as Flatpaks have become).

If you were to use lots of programmes, AppImages would potentially take up more space than the same apps in a Flatpak setup because AppImages do not share dependencies while Flatpaks can (if dependencies are the same version). But AppImages are also ultraportable and can run on an even broader range of distros and setups than Flatpaks. AppImages don't require any installed tool locally to run, while Flatpaks need Flatpak installed. Both Flatpak and AppImage are bloaty compared to direct installs from a distros repos, but thats a trade off for their benefits (containerised, easily deployable across different distros etc).

Snap is proprietary particularly around snapd's hardcoded dependence on Canonical servers despite being otherwise open source. So it's not really been embraced by most distros outside the Ubuntu ecosystem, and even then there are Ubuntu derived distros that deliberately remove Snap. Snap does have its strengths in the server space (which Flatpak is not designed ofr), but Docker is the more popular system for this. Snap is still used "widely" in the sense that Ubuntu is widely used and Snap is its default, but outside that ecosystem Docker is much more extensively used (and probably on a lot of Ubuntu servers too). Snap in the desktop set up is also slower than Flatpak due to how it works, which adds to the perception they're "worse". Still Snap is convenient in the Ubuntu server space for deploying software.

Flatpak and AppImages aren't going anywhere. Who knows with Snap; probably not going anywhere?

[–] Ganbat@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 1 month ago

they can be if you visit AppImageHub and install the AppImageLauncher - doesn't work for me though

I use AM/AppMan with a local install. So far, it's been pretty good.

[–] ugjka@lemmy.ugjka.net 10 points 1 month ago

Some stuff aint on Flatpak, have to keep couple appimages around

[–] randamumaki@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I like appimages and will use them over flatpak. I will use both, but I will never use snap.

[–] sirico@feddit.uk 6 points 1 month ago

I just run every app in its own manjaro based distrobox.

[–] NauticalNoodle@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 month ago

I used to hate AppImages until I had Snap forced on me. Then i thought AppImages weren't so bad and I fled Snap by running straight into the arms of Flatpak

[–] asudox@lemmy.asudox.dev 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

~~Afaik snaps are (or should be) actually better in theory~~, but unfortunately its backend is proprietary.

edit: nope, outdated info

[–] BrilliantBadger@piefed.ca 5 points 1 month ago

My preference for flatpaks is based upon I can further lock out network access for those apps that I don't want having network access. Just gives me another layer of network access prevention using flatseal. For the paranoid side of me :)

Have a couple apps can only use appimages, using with gear lever is just great & easy

Both work great though

[–] ulterno@programming.dev 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

Turns out I came here to say the same thing as everyone.

AppImages are not in the same competition.
They have different uses and you would mostly not find out how many people are using them due to their nature of being very useful offline.

[–] tirateimas@lemmy.pt 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

There is still software that is only shipped through:

  1. Proprietary installer
  2. Snap

It would be great if they would move to Flatpak.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] OR3X@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

hard disagree I much prefer appimages over flatpaks.

load more comments
view more: next ›