What's Any Forums stance on this pressing matter?
Appimages, Flatpacks or Snaps
Isaac Taylor
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
yewtu.be
flatkill.org
twitter.com
Kayden Cook
that fag should cut his hair
Kevin Baker
They are shit.
Robert Nguyen
appimages for emergencies.
Charles Young
Snaps are empirically shit
flatpak security could be better but it works
appimage is a last resort
Camden Wood
I wear snap backs.
Brayden Hernandez
Easier to install, portable, better theme integration, decentralized and not backed by evil corporations. Any objection to the superiority of Appimages?
Tyler Russell
>his
Xavier Martin
Flatpak if it offers a better experience over native or if not available in native.
AppImage if no debian package and no Flatpak
Aaron Torres
GNU Guix is all you need.
Everything else potentially glows in the dark.
Here's why:
youtube.com
Michael Johnson
that's a woman, user, sorry to disappoint
Jackson Cook
...
Kevin Campbell
AppImages are kind of cringe because they're gigantic and contain all dependencies required for running it inside, which in theory is good so there aren't version conflicts...but not every single AppImage needs to have its own version of Bash.
FlatPaks' security is pretty much a lie, see flatkill.org
Snaps are...stupid? Just use apt. I see literally zero point. And they're confusing, unlike Arch packages.
Xavier Flores
>FlatPaks' security is pretty much a lie
But it's not. Is a traditional package manger able to restrict an app from accessing the webcam or the wifi? No? Flatpak can.
Parker Mitchell
I don't care about extra security with Flatpak, I didn't even know they claimed that, but I do know that flatpak's are structured like any normal native xdg-app, so really it's the simplest sandboxing solution. And that's what makes it nice, stable, and easy to work with across a bunch of distributions.
Jeremiah Rogers
portage
Angel Watson
AppImage is the most simple and sensible. It's also the least popular. Oh well, that's modern Linux for you.
Adam Robinson
AppImages are not portable since they depend on a specific version of glibc and may depend on other host libraries, often ones that are already deprecated. The chance of them running on any distro other than the Ubuntu 16 LTS that the dev built them on is not very high. Plus they are bloat because they can't deduplicate.
Ryan Garcia
>Snap
Proprietary Canonical BS
>Appimage
Pain in the ass to manage, "install", and not portable unless the dev takes care to make it so.
>Flatpak
Portable, easy installation, squashes repeat dependencies.
Pretty clear winner.
Lincoln Sanders
avoid all of them
Grayson Smith
>vulnerability discovered in libfoo
>have to wait for all developers to update their snap/appimage/flatpak
none, use distro provided packages