XPost: comp.os.linux.advocacy   
   From: brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com   
      
   On Jan 17, 2026 at 10:27:19 PM MST, "Gremlin" wrote   
   :   
      
   > Brock McNuggets    
   > news:696c2146$0$21$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com Sat, 17 Jan 2026 23:54:46   
   > GMT in comp.os.linux.advocacy, wrote:   
   >   
   >> On Jan 17, 2026 at 4:00:41 PM MST, "Lawrence D´Oliveiro" wrote   
   >> <10kh4ao$2tq7m$11@dont-email.me>:   
   >>   
   >>> On 17 Jan 2026 19:42:00 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> On Jan 17, 2026 at 1:31:32 AM MST, "Gremlin" wrote   
   >>>> :   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> It reminds me of the old days of DOS and self contained programs.   
   >>>>> No installer BS. Unzip into an empty folder of my choosing and away   
   >>>>> you go.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Sort of like how macOS handles most installations.   
   >>>   
   >>> Don’t you wish macOS had something like these Flatpak/Snap/AppImage   
   >>> things on Linux? Nothing to unzip, even.   
   >>   
   >> Apple has similar ideas -- app bundles: open, then drag & drop, Mac App   
   >> store, etc.   
   >>   
   >> I do not know enough about the different techs to go into deep   
   >> differences, but they all work to install software easily.   
   >   
   > When using appimage based software, you don't install it. You give it   
   > execute permissions and a click or double click in my case brings the   
   > program up for use. It's entirely self contained. No risk of dependency   
   > hell or anything else.   
      
   In practice how is this different from how most macOS apps are installed   
   (though there preferences and the like are in the User/Library folder. I am   
   speaking from a standard user perspective. What benefits are there to each in   
   your view?   
      
   > GIMP-3.0.6-x86_64.AppImage   
   >   
   > That file is the whole enchallata. Easy to copy to removable media and put   
   > on other machines as you like. For those of us who use multiple computers,   
   > this too is a handy function.   
      
   Is it "portable" -- do the settings follow you?   
   >   
   >> Apple does have some advantages because they control the whole "stack"   
   >> -- less need to worry about system libraries, UI frameworks, hardware   
   >> available, etc.   
   >   
   > You were right in stating that you don't know enough about the different   
   > techs to go into deep differences. You don't know enough about it to   
   > penetrate the surface, forget going deep. Everything that the app needs is   
   > all within the appimage file itself; you don't install anything. Nothing   
   > overwrites what's already on your rig, or otherwise stomps on anything   
   > already present on the rig.   
      
   I said nothing contrary to that (though I can make some nits on your claims).   
   >   
   > When discussing appimage file containers, I really don't know what you   
   > mean by Apple having advantages. The examples you cited don't apply to   
   > them.   
      
   But can't you lose theming (consistency in look and sometimes features), lack   
   of graphic drivers and hardware acceleration. I *think* I have seen things   
   like version issues with Nvidia on Kdenlive. This is by memory... so I could   
   be wrong. I would assume (perhaps incorrectly) there may be issues with   
   X11/Wayland... though I have not seen it (I do little with Linux these days).   
      
   > Every single thing the program requires is all within that file.   
      
   If this was true it would run on any OS. :) But you mean things that are not   
   assumed on Linux. Fair enough.   
      
   ...   
      
      
   --   
   It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with   
   you.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)