> I don't get why parts of the Linux community are so resistant to embrace AppImages and provide first class integration for them. Decent desktop integration is

> I don't get why parts of the Linux community are so resistant to embrace AppImages and provide first class integration for them. Decent desktop integration isn't that hard. AppImages are good for certain use case. Recreational vehicles are also good for certain use cases. But just as a I don't live in RV parked in my garage when I'm at home, I don't use AppImages as my primary way of running locally-installed software on my main system. > As an app developer I want to create one single package that works everywhere that users can just download. You should just release source tarballs (or static binaries if you're not FOSS), and let the distros do their job of packaging and distributing the software. AppImages are fine to maintain in parallel for specific use cases, but I just want normal software binaries running in the OS environment I've already set up to my liking, not embedded in someone else's encapsulated runtime environment that's inconsistent in dozens of ways from my system config. > Most software is best installed by the native package manager. For the few exception AppImages are perfects. Exactly. But static builds are far superior to AppImage.