I just found out about AppImageLauncher, a package handler for AppImages. It organizes them, creates desktop files for you and handles updates and removal.

Integrate AppImages to your application launcher with one click, and manage, update and remove them from there. Double-click AppImages to open them, without having to make them executable first.

Much better than having to create all the desktop files myself, and having to figure out what to put in them for it to work correctly (I’m looking at you, qBittorrent and magnet links).

  • @TCB13
    link
    English
    131 year ago

    The best launcher you can get for AppImages is to just drop the thing and move to Flatpaks that don’t take 2 seconds to launch apps.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        121 year ago

        As someone who tried to maintain a large application flatpak I would say it’s pain in the ass to work with and things break often. The way it’s configured and how permissions are set needs to be simplified.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        111 year ago

        Looking at you Bitwarden.

        Appimage and snap. Why no flatpak?

        There is a flatpak, but I’m pretty sure it’s a community version.

        • @TCB13
          link
          English
          121 year ago

          Appimage and snap. Why no flatpak?

          I know why. They’re most likely running into this scenario as well.

            • @TCB13
              link
              English
              31 year ago

              Because it only lets you copy to the clipboard, lol.

              Fair enough. :P

      • @TCB13
        link
        English
        11 year ago

        Some apps are only available as appimages.

        Yeah I know, I was just joking around, still AppImages are annoying.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        8
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        From the “universal package formats” that’s the one I’ve had issues with when using it on a distro not specifically mentioned to work, it was supposed to be universal! Though not sure if that’s an issue with whoever packaged the app or anything specific with AppImage. Poor experience anyway.

        Also no repo model. I like package manager to deal with shit. We have sorta solutions for that but not quite like snaps and flatpaks.

        Also the dependencies stuff is weird. They advice you to think of the oldest (LTS?) distro you think the app will be used on and use deps compatible with that one. Which just seems, I dunno, icky, for lack of better word.

        But for a random one-off app, I think it’s fine. I prefer flatpak but it’s fine, I wouldn’t avoid it or anything.

      • @uranibabaOP
        link
        21 year ago

        No automated package management maybe? I like them tough.

      • @TCB13
        link
        English
        -61 year ago

        Performance… or lack of it. Overhead.

    • @uranibabaOP
      link
      21 year ago

      I honestly prefer AppImages over Flatpaks or Snaps, because I don’t always know how is behind the Flatpak. When I download an AppImage from the applications webpage, I know that I am downloading something they have packaged.