Currently, I’m only using two Appimages… Upscayl and Balena Etcher. For management of Appimages, I use Gear Lever which integrates them into the app menu and offers updates as if they were traditional apps…
What about y’all? Do you use Appimages?
Nope. balena-etcher is in the AUR and so is upscayl-bin so that’s what i would be using. I’ve never been attracted to app images just like snaps or flatpaks. 
1 Like
Indeed they are. For some reason, on two completely different rigs, neither of those work well for me. Balena Etcher from the AUR on both my laptop and desktop is hit or miss. Never an issue with the Appimage. Same for Upscayl. The upscayl-bin version in the AUR take ages to do it’s thing with images on both my laptop and desktop. The Upscayl Appimage is much quicker and provides better results.
So, maybe the use of Appimages is specific to the user’s hardware and usercase. I hate snaps, and prefer to stay away from Flatpaks if at all possible. In a pinch, Appimages do the trick when all else fails.
No appimages at all. If repo or aur do not have it, flatpak will.
flatpak for 2% of my needs
aur/repo for the other 98%. Not confident changing these variables so no appimage. Just my POV.
also: don’t know much about them; transparency; maintainers; etc
What ever works best for you. I have used balena-etcher before and didn’t have any issues but didn’t use it for long. Once I found popiscle i was using that but i also use others too. I’m using Kde ISO writer now.
3 Likes
I hear ya. But in the case of Upscayl and Balena Etcher, there are Appimage links on their respective sites. Clicking the “Linux Download” link on the Upscayl official site provides an Appimage. Balena Etcher also offers a download link to an Appimage. Seems in these cases they should be considered official. Or at the very least recommended by the aforementioned.
1 Like
Just Upscayl at the moment. Just added it to the app menu myself.
1 Like
I’m not sure … I’m using the download version of Telegram-Desktop from their website, which is an archive to be unpacked, containing the program itself and an updater. Does it look like an AppImage to me? At least nothing has to be installed, the program is started in the folder and creates an entry in the application launcher. AppImage?
My list:
I only actually use 4, though.
GifCurry is rarely used, and XnViewMP is just in case there is an issue with the AUR package I normally use — though it will become default soon, since it works just fine.
The rest are for testing or as either a backup to or supplemental package for another package, or to have a previous version.
2 Likes
It should have the extension AppImage
OK, no extension at all.
Just had a look on their github its a binary they supply for linux
1 Like
As @smokey said… you’ll see the .appimage like this…
2 Likes
MoonDeckBuddy and Suyu.
Used to also use Plexamp, but I guess it got borked somehow and I switched to what ever version Discover offered.
OK, thanks, I don’t see enough of that.
Everything I use on my Arch system is either from the official repo or the AUR because it literally has everything I want or need.
Have you tried upscayl-appimage from the AUR?
Yep. The actual Appimage just works better for me.
2 Likes
I’ll have to keep an eye on that. I have it installed, but haven’t used it in a long time.
I assume the reason why appimages may seem to work more flawlessly is they include specific versions of some libs, and the native system may already have newer libs that may not be fully compatible with the actual program.
Note also that those libs in the appimage may have unfixed issues too…
This is true.
But with certain apps, like Krita, the good parts kinda matter more, especially if you use a firewall or something similar to block AppImage connections to the network.