Which one and why /g/
Just give me a .deb that's in the Ubuntu repo. I'm not going to install a single snap, flatpak or appimage. I am not going to use your trannyware when there is already package manager that works entirely fine.
>>109039851brew install booba
brew install booba
>>109039892
>>109039851Neither. These are antithetical to the UNIX philosophy.If I wanted each of my apps to have their own separate copies of all their dependencies, I'd be using Windows.
sudo make clean install without reading the makefile
>>109039851its really not your choice you just use what's availablefor me its regular system package (official is better) > flatpak > brew > appimage > regular binary/build from source/"install by curling this bash script"
>>109039938nix solves this best given you can hold multiple versions + multiple builds with different flags of any package without t hem conflicting
>>109039851I just install everything from the AUR
>>109039851Static linking. Everything you need and nothing you don't from all the dependencies are just in the executable.
>>109039892>Ubuntu repoAren't many user application packages there just scripts that install snaps?
>>109039851I like AppImage because I can always extract it and run it bare if I wanna.
>>109039851AppImage, because it is the only one of the three that offers self-contained, single-file executables. The other two are just retarded package managers w/versioning.
>>109039851Flatpak or AppImage depending on use case. AppImages are generally superior though because they're more portable—flatpak's upcoming dependency on systemd will make them harder to deploy at large.
>>109039851Just statically compile your software so I can place the standalone binary anywhere I want. If it needs some supporting files with it, thats okay just distribute your project as a .zip and I'll extract it to /opt/your-programThanks.
>>109039851AppImage because I don't need to install some retarded bloatware package manager.
>>109040130You are malware.
>>109040805I know of like three packages that do that, it's severely blown out of proportion
>>109040169
I got an OOM error message on MX Linux yesterday from running an appimage. Idk why
>>109039851>SnapJust the package manger preinstalled on my ubuntu server>FlatpakMost of my apps. Easy permission management with Flatseal, freeze/rollback/clear-data with warehouse.>AppImageEasy management with 'Gear Lever', integrate to the desktop, like a native app, easy updates with Gear Lever. Mostly for Emulators, to have them portable and as backup, also for niche apps that aren't Flatpaked / Systempackage.>Native package managerOnly for system level stuff and CLI.
>>109039851AppImages are the answer the "Why can I just download an exe and click it to run" question Windose users love to ask. It also often comes directly from the company, holds all of its own dependencies, and works really well for old or proprietary slop. AppImages just need more tooling for easy containerization. Flatpak is only really useful for keeping Gnome and KDE apps from dumping a pozload of packages into your main pool. It has some nice containerization features, but I'm always dissapointed by it always being not contained enough + too contained at the same time. At least in my opinion. Snaps are universally agreed to be a failure. I also dislike flatpak because the people who push it are also 'immutable desktop' enjoyers, which I really dislike. The whole point of GNU/Linux is to have control over your operating system. I hated using Mac because it felt like I was a restricted user and Apple Inc was the system admin. If I want to prevent myself from cucking my own machine I'll just remove myself from the sudoers file or lock down my permissions further.
flatpak, because that's what comes preinstalled on mint and on my steam deck
>>109039851>appImageSuccess rate of running the thing is too low>flatpakpretty gud>snapwe have flatpak at home (canonical edition)in theory snap should be more reliable than flatpak, in practice the opposite is true. That being said, it’s still reasonably good
>>109048276>The whole point of GNU/Linux is to have control over your operating system.idk man i just want an OS that doesn’t randomly decide to upload my documents folder to onedrive which I didn’t even know I had
>>109039851why are you asking
>>109039851EXE
>>109039851Anylinux-Appimage.https://github.com/pkgforge-dev/Anylinux-AppImagesTheoretically speaking, AppImages would be the best, in practice their inventor crippled them because of the asinine advice to "not include everything", which turns the claim of "apps that work everywhere" into false advertising.Anylinux-Appimage solves this problem by including LITERALLY EVERYTHING inside the package. It is the ultimate distribution format that solves everything wrong with Linux, and everything else should be deprecated in favor of it.>>109039892>I'm not going to install a single snap, flatpak or appimagelmao appimages don't need to be installed.>>109039938>These are antithetical to the UNIX philosophy.And that's a good thing. The UNIX philosophy is antithetical to freedom and user-ownership, and needs to die asap.>If I wanted each of my apps to have their own separate copies of all their dependencies, I'd be using Windows.I'd be using Windows too if it wasn't a spyware.
>>109039851none, containers on the desktop is mental illness
>>109052349>Anylinux-AppimageIt's Docker. But for desktop programs. Wow.
appimage is the least cumbersome. snap is the worst
.exe
>FlatpakAnything else is asking for pain, AppImages don't integrate with the system and aren't managed by a package manager, Snap is just a worse flatpak cuz of cannonical's bullshit, and native apps are a disaster waiting to happen. Flatpak is the only sensible option.Atomic desktops are also a great addition to installing Flatpaks whenever possible, because they allow you to modify what you want while preventing you from fucking up everything.
>>109052408It's pretty close to perfection while being low-effort enough that the average retard developer can use it. You must include absolutely everything, there is no way around it. Namespaces and FUSE are unnecesssary, but building your software into a package that works without them requires at least 100 IQ, which filters 99% of developers.
>>109040130based!
>>109050202>>109052608>just don't delete anything for 30 years until your base OS install takes 100GB broare winfags really this clueless?
>>109039851Flatpak is the most useful one in practice, everything else is dead as fuck
>>109039851either it's in the package manager's repository or i build it from source. not touching any of this fucking shit
>>109039851Flatpak because it's libre. Appimage doesn't even belong here
>>109054688Why's that?
I see this kind of question a lot and it's weird to me. When I find something I want I look at how it's distributed and go with that if it's not in Fedora's repo. If I need to compile it or of it only targets Ubuntu it goes in a container. I don't specifically look for a certain format I just use whatever is best supported.
>>109039851it's actually pretty easy to make a snap, and snaps are complete application deployments regardless of a desktop user session meaning they are suitable for containerized immutable server software. they also support update chains to partially mutate the configs between versions. they also directly integrate into the shell and support bash completions.
>>109055487worth noting, canonical's snap store is absolute aids for making internal company packages, but is pretty decent otherwise
>>109054841It's not a package management system. Might as well provide a zip file with the program
>>109055524This but unironically
>>109039892Why aren't you using comfy Snappy Store to install Snap packages built with the Snappy Snapcraft tools! It's just so easy and fun even an indian could do it!
>>109039892this
>>109039851deb packages if they are available.app images are an acceptable alternative.binary packed in tarball is kinda caveman-style but I'll accept it over snaps, flatpaks and other memes.
OP here. Seems like the definitive go to for most on /g/ is .exe and native.
Why doesn't BlackMagic distribute its software as appimages anyway? Proprietary software is the best use case for them. Otherwise I prefer flatpaks. It seems like its past most of its growing pains.
