Not that it’s bad. For me, it’s actually very useful, I just find it mildly amusing that an app for managing AppImages is packaged as a Flatpak, despite the two formats being widely known as competitors*.

* Okay, most people (including me) would say that the two formats are for different use cases and aren’t directly competitors, but for the eyes of a lot of AppImage purists and Flatpak critics, they are.

  • IverCoder@lemm.eeOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Speaking of that app, I have been using it for some of my programs that are only available as an AppImage for sometime now and I can confirm it works really great.

    Flathub link in case anybody’s interested

    • Mane25@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      OK well I’m not sure where the AppImage “purists” and Flatpak “critics” are but I’ve not really encountered them.

  • BRINGit34@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    What’s off? It’s an app for managing appimages that is hosted on flathub. Just because it is a flatpak does not mean it can’t manage appimages

    edit: a word

    • bitwolf@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      May I interject for a moment. What you are referring to as a Docker Image is actually an Open Container.org Image or OCI… Continues stallman quote

      • Mane25@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I mean they are two things that co-exist, it’s not like they’re in commercial competition. Flatpak itself is usually distributed as an RPM or deb.