This is pretty exciting to me. At my job we create a Linux desktop app using NW.js, which basically has Ubuntu 12.04 as a minimum requirement. Unfortunately almost all of our customers use RHEL/CentOS 6.x, which dates from 2010. I've gotten NW.js compiled in CentOS 6.x (and submitted patches to it as well as Chromium, which it is based on), but Chromium is a famously moving target and the latest betas will take even more work to backport. Hopefully this will solve this problem.
AppImage: Linux apps that run anywhere
91–100 of 241 posts
Re: AppImage: Linux apps that run anywhere
#92Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's possible that they don't like the potential for walled gardens like those being erected in windows or mac-land. I don't like a bunch of binaries either, but I also don't like the app-store-ification of desktops.
Ya know, I've thought for a long time that the idea of app-store-ification of OS's was lifted directly from distro repos. The depth of use is drastically different, but the core concept is the same. Something like this is probably more useful in the Linux desktop advocacy areas and not so much for hackers. Sometimes suspension of disbelief should be applied to projects like this, as it's target market is not hackers…
You know, I realized I DO like the optional app-storeification of desktops, when it's in the open source world and there's no DRM or account tie-in. The Ubuntu software center is great (but I usually just use apt-get). I guess what I meant was the "I'm Apple and you should only be allowed to install the software I want you to have - you know - for your safety!" trend which seems to be taking hold. The warnings presented are alarmist, and the hacks like using functions meant for assistive devices for Steam are an indication of the garden walls closing in.
That being said, I totally get why Apple, MS, et al are doing this. Unsavvy users installing random binaries causes no shortage of headaches or damage to your reputation. I just worry about the long term implications.
Re: AppImage: Linux apps that run anywhere
#93As a blah blah I want to blah blah; give us a break.
Re: AppImage: Linux apps that run anywhere
#94What this could and should lead to is this: a separation between system packages and user applications, prefferably with two different managers. What we have now are mostly system package managers, you want them to be stable, secure, having the latest features might not be necessary. But we see more and more often that that distribution channel doesn't work well with applications: you end up with old, buggy, insecure…
I really think that although this might be a boon to packagers it results in an inferior system wherein people end up with bloated,buggy packages. I don't want to deal with 2 different package managers and new users are apt to be confused by the idea that they get packages from 2 different places.
Well, it's the system that is composed of packages. The app images would be distributed through an app center. Most users wouldn't have to touch the system packages in their daily use case.
Re: AppImage: Linux apps that run anywhere
#95What this could and should lead to is this: a separation between system packages and user applications, prefferably with two different managers. What we have now are mostly system package managers, you want them to be stable, secure, having the latest features might not be necessary. But we see more and more often that that distribution channel doesn't work well with applications: you end up with old, buggy, insecure…
I really think that although this might be a boon to packagers it results in an inferior system wherein people end up with bloated,buggy packages. I don't want to deal with 2 different package managers and new users are apt to be confused by the idea that they get packages from 2 different places.
Yea, I agree. I personally think that this is a huge step backwards.
Look at Android and MacOS. You have these self contained packaging things that contain all their dependencies. You have the same dependencies in each package. You have a TON of wasted space with packages that have the exact same built-in libraries and jar files.
Especially with Android, they could have made a real package dependency system, with slotted installs of all the jar/jar-versions from the official maven repos. When you install and app, it could install all its dependent jars. You'd still be able to do multiple versions of each of those jars, probably easier than it is with standard .so/.dll libraries.
Projects like this are a huge step backwards is terms of DRY principals and general package management.
Re: AppImage: Linux apps that run anywhere
#96I too love package management like the rest of the people on this thread but the existence of this project confirms that we have a problem, distribution is pretty hard.
Tools like fpm help a lot. Developers have a lot of options now too where they can install python modules and ruby gems as regular users, to their ~/.local directories. It's not ideal, but it helps.
And despite all the things I hate about systemd, it does make packaging with a unified initialization script. There have been projects that have tried to do just that piece as a drop in replacement (uselessd) but have gone unmaintained.
Re: AppImage: Linux apps that run anywhere
#97What this could and should lead to is this: a separation between system packages and user applications, prefferably with two different managers. What we have now are mostly system package managers, you want them to be stable, secure, having the latest features might not be necessary. But we see more and more often that that distribution channel doesn't work well with applications: you end up with old, buggy, insecure…
We use HTML5 clipboard and webcrypto and frequently get support requests from Linux users with outdated versions of supposedly 'evergreen' browsers.
Re: AppImage: Linux apps that run anywhere
#98What this could and should lead to is this: a separation between system packages and user applications, prefferably with two different managers. What we have now are mostly system package managers, you want them to be stable, secure, having the latest features might not be necessary. But we see more and more often that that distribution channel doesn't work well with applications: you end up with old, buggy, insecure…
That's hardly related to a package manager. You can for example run Debian unstable to get more up-to-date stuff or mix Debian Jessie with backports. Same package manager, different sources.
Thanks for mentioning this. I have been running unstable for many years and when people ask I simply tell them that it's like running latest Ubuntu except i can stay with my favorite Debian.
Re: AppImage: Linux apps that run anywhere
#99This is very similar to the approach that we took in our InstallBuilder cross-platform installers ( http://installbuilder.birock.com ), embedding a filesystem in the executable that gets mounted at runtime. If you do it right, it can support a wide variety of Linux distributions and significantly decrease the amount of pain end users and app developers experience. Those who disagree with this approach and believe "th…
Just a heads up, your link is pointing to the birock.com domain instead of bitrock.com.
This is the correct URL: http://installbuilder.bitrock.com
Re: AppImage: Linux apps that run anywhere
#100This is missing the point. Linux distributions do not lack package management options, they lack stable and sane APIs for developers to work against. No amount of static linking and binary bundles can fix that.
The Linux Kernel interface does an excellent job of remaining stable. There's a surprisingly small set of interfaces that the kernel actually exposes to userland, and in the words of Linus, "WE DO NOT BREAK USERSPACE!". I don't see the lack of stable APIs elsewhere as an actual problem. The biggest problem is that it makes life harder for proprietary software developers - it's pretty much mandatory for them to setup…
What exactly was achieved in the backwards compatibility nightmare that is Gnome 3, for example?
This:
https://trac.transmissionbt.com/ticket/3685
All things UI in Linux distributions go through so much insane thrashing that very very few application developers want to bother. There are no tangible benefits to UI thrashing; people use systems for software, not window chrome!