Appimages totally suck, because many developers think they were a real packaging format and support them exclusively.
Their use case is tiny, and in 99% of cases Flatpak is just better.
I could not find a single post or article about all the problems they have, so I wrote this.
This is not about shaming open source contributors. But Appimages are obviously broken, pretty badly maintained, while organizations/companies like Balena, Nextcloud etc. don’t seem to get that.
AppImage is great at what it does - provide an ultra-low effort packaging solution for ad-hoc app distribution. There are obvious problems, security and otherwise, that arise if you try using it for a large software collection. But then again people also use things like Homebrew and pacstall unironically so …
I learned quite some things from this talk
https://youtube.com/watch?v=4WuYGcs0t6I&t=456
Appimages are damn broken
I mean, I’m not saying they aren’t. I think the original argument is valid. I just think they’re better than the alternative, which isn’t Flatpak but self-extracting .sh files.
Yes thats true. But that talk specifically mentioned the horrible security practice of appimages, and that they dont run everywhere at all
No argument. The security aspect is something that seemingly a lot of people in this thread don’t get. The some-person-creates-a-package-I-install model works as reliably as it does without sandboxing only when that person is a well known trusted individual or group. For example the Debian maintainers team. It’s a well known group of people who are trusted due to their track record to not produce malware-ridden packages intentionally or unintentionally. That is the line of defense you got. If you remove that, you end up in download-random-shit-on-Windows land in regards of security.
What’s worse, this extends to the bundled libraries. Unlike central systems with shared libraries like Debian, bundling libraries means that the problem extends to the sources of those libraries! Package A and package B both include libjpeg-v1, it’s got a remote exploit gaping hole. Developer A has time to follow CVEs and updates theirs. Developer B doesn’t or has moved on. The system gets a patched libjpeg-v1, app A gets it, assuming it can be auto-updated. App B remains open for exploitation.
Therefore given all that, sandboxing is a requirement for safely using packages from random people. Even when the packages from those come from a central source like Flathub or Snap Store. Sandboxing is why this model works without major security incidents on Android.
Anyway, won’t be the first bad practice advocated by some in this community.
This matches very well with this talk of an OpenSuse microOS maintainer doing a followup on his thoughts of Appimages, Snaps and Flatpak.
Spoiler: Flatpaks are the only ones that work.
Snaps work too if you use Ubuntu and trust Canonical, as he mentions. I’m a bit annoyed at Flatpak for being inferior to Snap in that it can’t be used to install system components. Snap allows for a completely snappy system, without the need to build the base OS one way and the user apps another. The OS from-traditional-packages, user-apps-from-Flatpaks model is an unfortunate compromise but I guess we’re gonna get to live with it long term. It’s better than the status quo.
BTW I completely disagree with him that everyone should be using rolling releases. As a software developer, user, and unpaid IT support, this is a mind boggling position.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/watch?v=4WuYGcs0t6I&t=456
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
But then again some people use things like Homebrew and pacstall unironically so …
Thank you for mentioning this! Unfortunately a quick search on the internet didn’t yield any pointers. Would you mind elaborating upon the security problems of Homebrew(/Linuxbrew)? Thanks in advance 😊!
Post about homebrew by Jorge Castro
I am not sure how secure it is.
I am aware that Homebrew has become the go-to solution for installing CLI applications on Bluefin. Which is exactly why I feel compelled to ask the question in my previous comment.
Btw, I don’t really understand why you felt the need to share Jorge Castro’s blog post on Homebrew? AFAIK it doesn’t go over any security implications. Sharing the article would only make sense if Jorge Castro is regarded as some authority that’s known to be non-conforming when security is concerned. While I haven’t seen any security related major mishaps from him or the projects he works on, the search for the CLI-counterpart to Flatpak seemed to be primarily motivated by facilitating (what I’d refer to as) ‘old habits’; which is exactly what Homebrew allows. It’s worth noting that, during the aforementioned search process, they’ve made the deliberate choice to rely on Wolfi (which is known for upholding some excellent security standards) rather than Alpine (which -in all fairness- has also been utilized by Jorge for boxkit). IIRC, people working on uBlue and related projects have even contributed to upstream (read Distrobox) for patches related to Wolfi. So, there’s reason to believe that the uBlue team takes security seriously enough to work, contribute and deliver on more secure alternatives as long as it doesn’t come with a price to be paid by convenience. Which, in all fairness, is IMO exactly why Homebrew is used for in the first place (besides their recent utilization of technologies that have similarities to the ‘uBlue-way’ of doing things)…
I’m not a security expert but I do know that the Homebrew is working with openssf on security: https://openssf.org/blog/2023/11/06/alpha-omega-grant-to-help-homebrew-reach-slsa-build-level-2/
Boxkit predates wolfi so it’s still alpine, I’ll probably replace it at some point but most of the forks of boxkit are because people want the premade github actions and they end up replacing it with whatever distro they want anyway. The wolfi connection is because I know the people who work there (including a ublue maintainer) and we have similar goals/ideas on how linux distros should be put together. My ideal dream is a wolfi userspace systemd-sysext on top of fedora base, then we can have our cake and eat it too!
We’re not security experts but lots of us work in the field and that gives us access to peer review from experts when we set things up. We sign every artifact with sigstore so users can verify that the code used in github is what’s on their image, that sort of thing. And most of our practices utilize CNCF governance templates that lots of other projects use.
Great, now tell me why your appimage is complaining about not having some .so file on my system
The developer made extra low effort and missed a lib. 😅
No, the problem is more subtle, the developer assumed I have the same libs in the same locations as a mainstream distro like Ubuntu, but I do not
I actually have several versions of each library in different hashed folders (my distro does this) and I just steam-run normal Linux executables
Except I can’t do that when using this appimage thing so it doesn’t directly work on my system
Well, theoretically if the developer had bundled the libs they assumed would be present on Ubuntu into the AppImage, maybe it would have worked. Would it be larger? Sure. 😂
Eh, I’ve always felt these solutions are complementary, or supplementary, rather than a “versus”. Each one, in particular cases, covers gaps the others can’t cover. The only one that’s unneeded is Snap.
For example, I like Flatpak. I like that I can get software from an authorized hub, much like with a package manager. I like that the releases of the apps in the hub are mostly well documented.
But no matter how nice Flatpak seems to be, its overreliance on “portals” and “buses” and “seals” comes associated with trying to over-engineerize my system too much for its own good. Every app I have ever tried on Flatpak, for example, doesn’t support audio, apparently because I have the godly, eternal, battle-tested ALSA and not the manchild’s crap that is PulseAudio. But since apparently PulseAudio is the GNome / Microsoft approved way to do audio on Linux, I’m
supposedexpected to have it. What’s next? systemd-flatpakd?OTOH, I picked up the AppImage for Freetube and not only do I get audio but it loads and runs noticeably faster than the Flatpak version. And since it’s an official release I know where can I trustably get an update from. Literally no downsides!
But I sure as hell am not going to go for an AppImage for an app from which I expect more integration with my desktop activity, such as say a code editor or an advanced image / model viewer. Not if I can help it. Because I am going to be expecting to be able to stuff like drag and drop, have a correct tray icon, etc.
So that means I have to keep an eye on both solutions.
Hey, at least I’m avoiding Snap!
Now if there’s an AppImage for Steam somewhere… maybe…You got me in the first part XD
No joking, apart from that
But since apparently PulseAudio is the GNome / Microsoft approved way
I think I understand your point.
Pulseaudio is outdated, Pipewire AND Pulseaudio are now needed. Maybe also just Pipewire, and you can somehow fake Pulseaudio?
I never used a system without Pulseaudio, and Fedora has both (?) Or just Pipewire.
Pulseaudio is the old stuff that apps want to use, pipewire is the new cool stuff (I recommend qpwgraph) which allows like everything.
Aaand it is not overcomplicated, it isolated apps and introduces a permission system. Privileged programs that channel the requests and permissions, and sometimes need user interaction. Its actually less chaotic, the problem simply is that Flatpak ALSO tries to run all apps everywhere. And apps are mostly not up to date, so Flatpaks have randomly poked holes everywhere.
Today I worked on hardening configs for my apps. I maintain a list of recommended ones here. I will just put my overrides in my (currently still private) dotfiles, will upload them some day.
I am for example now Wayland only. Not all apps want to, but with the correct env vars (which I just globally set for all flatpaks, hoping it will not mess with anything), all apps use it.
This makes the system way faster, and applying different vars on the apps is very easy with Flatpak.
Literally no downsides!
Not true. It still has no updating mechanism, the binary may be official, but the rest are random libraries that may not be well versioned or controlled, etc etc.
The post is specifically about upstream supported Appimages, while Flathub is mainly maintained by the same 4 peolple (it is crazy). The request is for upstream devs to maintain Flatpaks.
But for sure not everything is nice. Runtimes are too huge, outdated apps cause huge library garbage, downloads are inefficient, …
Get FUCKED
Totally agree with basically every point here. You hit the nail on the head. App images are the .exe’s of the Linux world and I don’t understand how someone can say they love app images but hate Window’s portable exe’s. Even Windows doesn’t have nearly as many portable executable as they once did. And when they do, most people (even those who prefer app images) prefer an exe with a Windows installer.
Anyways, this is all to point out why I avoid app images if at all possible
As someone who didn’t have a computer and had to install everything on a USB drive at some point, I absolutely LOVE portable .exe’s. Don’t see why anyone would have a problem with it. Don’t see a problem with aopimages either.
youtube.com/watch?v=4WuYGcs0t6I&t=456
For all the Grayjay/Newpipe/Freetube users
Very good video with additional points, will add them
flatpak?
Frying pan, meet fire.
I hate them both, give me a .Deb (or equivalent) if you’re gonna package it. And get off my lawn! 🤣
Installing .deb files from random sources is also very insecure and not reliable for updates.
Less secure than blindly installing flatpaks or appimages?
Appimages work “everywhere” so they are better for distributing malware.
Flatpaks are normally not installed from random sources and I hope it stays like that.
So yes and no.
Ah, got it.
(Also Flatpaks are, at least in theory, sandboxed and can’t mess with your system stuff unless you allow them to)
Not yet.
The permissions are too comlicated (unlike “allow documents access” on Mac for example)
And there is no Desktop GUI integration for opt-in to permissions. So install, open Flatseal / KDEs settings, harden, then run.
When I was first getting into Linux, Flatpak wasn’t a thing quite yet. I ended up installing software in all of the following ways:
-
A .run file. Simplify3D (commercial 3D printer slicer) did this, it was kind of a literal word for word translation of the Windows .exe installer system. Please don’t do this. See also install.sh. Just don’t do this.
-
A .tar.gz file full of the executable and its assets with no further elaboration. This happened a few times but I really remember FTL: Faster Than Light did this when I bought the game directly from them rather than on Steam, and they were nice enough to link it to a Steam key for me. This’ll work if you’re handing out a thing you made to a couple other people, don’t distribute like this please.
-
Clone my git repo. I’m going to type this slowly so that it will best be understood: Git is for people who are contributing to code, not for people who just want to run it. Do not ask end users to compile from source.
-
Ubuntu PPAs. This one seems to have died; it’s been a couple years since I’ve seen anyone suggest adding a PPA. Good, they somewhat sucked.
-
Pip. There are way too many end-user applications that are distributed with Python’s package manager. No. Bad.
-
Alien. For a brief time the driver for my printer was only distributed as a .rpm, I was on a .deb based system. There’s a thing called Alien that lets you do that.
-
Loose .debs. Haven’t encountered this one in awhile either, but…could be worse.
-Snap. No. Just. No.
Compared to almost all of these I’d prefer an AppImage. For example, go look at the process of getting an up to date copy of Chirp, the amateur radio programming software. The instructions are kind of “build it yourself,” they are flawed and borderline incorrect, and include no uninstall instructions. I would vastly prefer they just package the damn thing as an AppImage.
Compared to AppImage, I almost always prefer a Flatpak. Flathub is built into my distro’s GUI app center and is almost transparent to the user. Using Flatpaks with the terminal is complete rectal pus, but for most end users who prefer to do things graphically Flatpak works pretty well most of the time. It is not completely seamless, like Flatpak seems to suffer from all the drawbacks of sandboxing with none of the benefits.
If you are distributing to a wide audience, use Flatpak or publish to the various standard repos. If you’re a little niche thing that might distribute 200 or 300 copies ever, AppImage is probably simpler. Otherwise just…keep your repo private.
Thanks, yes fully agree. There are a ton if shitty distribution ways.
When I publish stuff on Github (its never big, always small tools) I never let people git clone, just download the needed parts.
Releases are meant for that, but still, putting software on repos may be annoying but its the correct way to do.
-
AppImages can be signed. Flat pak is the lesser option for security
Explained in a other comment how a pain it is to verify such a signature.
Is that stored in the appimage file?
I find it funny how flatpak neglectors always spell it wrong
oh boy here we go I strongly disagree with this article
While complex .tar archives (like firefox) may seem messy, they integrate many different things. An installer script takes care of placing a .desktop entry, you can have an updater script, a LICENSE, README and more. Those are all missing with Appimages.
.tar ARE messy, sometimes they don’t work right, dep conflicts, etc. An installer script can be shipped with an appimage anyways. Moot point IMO
Apps installed with the system package manager get their .desktop Entry in /usr/share/applications, installed Flatpaks get their entry linked to ~/.local/share/flatpak/exports/share/applications/, user overrides and other installs can be put in ~/.local/share/applications/.
Appimages have no desktop entry, so they have (currently) no icon on Wayland and they don’t appear in your app list. Desktop entries are a standard, used by everytthing but Appimages.
see above
Instead users follow strange habits like placing the files on their desktop, which is a highly discouraged “Windows workflow” (symbolic image) and not even supported on many Desktop Environments, most notably GNOME.
Who discourages it? I personally prefer this myself, lack of desktop icons is a common complain for stuff like GNOME…
This is both a usability and a security issue. Traditional Linux apps, even if they are cross platform, don’t have updater services, as package managers are way better at doing that.
I disagree that this is better. A personal issue but I Much prefer when apps can update themselves.
This means, packing as an Appimage either requires to implement an updating service, on a platform that doesn’t need that, or to have no updates at all.
Instead users need to follow an RSS feed, get a mail, or manually check for updates, which is horrible UX. Then how do they update?
Is this really a massive issue? There have been appimage stores in the past. Self updating appimages really isn’t that hard either. If this was a massive issue, you could do something like obtanium for android which could easily automate the process.
Appimages don’t even have a central place where you can find them, not to mention download them. This is extremely insecure. Modern Application stores and every well made Linux repository uses cryptographic (mostly gpg) verification, which secures the authenticity of the software. You can be sure you downloaded the real package.
I’d argue it makes little difference. But yes, Downloading things from the internet is more unsafe then downloading from a repo or a “curated” service. So we can grant one here.
There is no updating mechanism. On Android you may also update by downloading .apk files, but once installed, the .apk needs to be signed with the same key, otherwise updates are blocked. With Appimages… you just delete the old .appimage file, download the new one, change the name to remove the version and hope your .desktop entry didn’t break.
This is how you get malware.
the risks seem blown out of proportion here. As long as you are downloading from the same place, the risks are significantly smaller in reality, not gone, but smaller.
They are not well maintained
There is a well known “bug” on modern Ubuntu, where Appimages lost their “works on every Linux Distro”, because they are built for the outdated libfuse2, while Ubuntu now uses libfuse3. The fix is to install the outdated version of libfuse (!), and this is still not fixed.
An application format, that is incompatible with the latest version of its core dependency, is broken.
This is a very minor issue, i’ve had way more issues with traditional repo packages then I have had with appimages.
Lack of Sandboxing …
I find this to be a benefit myself, I have had countless headaches with flatpak applications and their sandboxing. everything from devices not being recognized, weird storage issues and more.
Random location …
Another moot issue. $HOME/.local/bin is an XDG standard, so unless we pretend that XDG standards aren’t “one of the major standards” this is just wrong. https://specifications.freedesktop.org/basedir-spec/basedir-spec-latest.html
Duplicated libraries
Appimages bloat the system. They include all the libraries they need, and unlike system packages or Flatpaks, they don’t share a single libary. If users would really install every Software as Appimages, they would waste insane amounts of storage space.
This also completely discourages efficient and up to date packaging, and the attached risk of outdates libraries is hidden away in that .appimage archive.
and? When you need only a couple appimage files, space I find is smaller then flatpak, it only becomes when you need a lot of applications.
Appimages are not needed Flatpak solved many Linux desktop issues at once …
None of these provide reasons as to why appimages aren’t needed. Appimages still offer a lot, for one I can just download and run it I don’t need to worry about installing and uninstalling application when I just want to try it, I don’t need to muck about trying to get an app into flathub or starting my own repo, when a user has a problem, I can just tell them to run the new appimage instead of trying to get them to compile it.
Appimages also let me do fine grained control over the dependencies. No unexpected runtime updates, I can compile the deps with flags/features I want to support, and disable flags/features I don’t want to support, Users don’t need to download a stupid appstore or use CLI (not a single appstore i’ve used to date isn’t hot garbage, I hope cosmic-store will be different).
Dont knoe where user installed tar archives (with statically linked binaries or including deps) would have dep conflicts, maybe if they are not statically linked.
The self updating stuff and desktop icons is personal opinion and not the common way on Desktop Linux, so I skip that.
you could do something like obtanium for android which could easily automate the process.
That is called a package manager, with a repo, with gpg signing etc. On Android (which I mentioned) updates are secure. Let alone the point that appimages are not updated in a regular way, they are just replaced.
I’d argue it makes little difference. But yes, Downloading things from the internet is more unsafe
No the difference is huge. If you are used to downloading software from websites, a faked website can easily lead to downloaded malware. Flathub can be added with a click and flatpak is included in distros, which means no hunting on the internet and no accidental clicks.
And as I said, until nobody downloads
.flatpakpackages online, and there may be an occasion where this is normal behavior, people will believe malware links are legit.the risks seem blown out of proportion here. As long as you are downloading from the same place, the risks are significantly smaller in reality, not gone, but smaller.
Appimages are distributed everywhere, just as .exe files for Windows. This means they are favored by developers used to Windows and Mac, and those will not add them to a repo instead.
So a faked website of whatever etcher or something is easy.
The fact that Linux malware is not a thing, while Appimages clearly give the headstart for that, is a miracle.
I find this to be a benefit myself, I have had countless headaches with flatpak applications and their sandboxing. everything
Flatpaks are not secure because their sandboxes are weakened to not have such issues. This is due to apps not following secure standards, and until that is fixed they are insecure or broken or both. (Apps need to write configs in the container, they should use portals etc.)
I maintain a list of flatpak apps following modern standards, which is a small portion but getting better.
Linux is only somewhat secure because everything is FOSS and comes from repos.
This is broken by appimages, that can easily distribute malware and thus fix the “my malware is not running on that distro” issue.
Every software that can write to your .bashrc can easily catch your sudo password.
Another moot issue. $HOME/.local/bin is an XDG standard, so unless we pretend that XDG standards aren’t “one of the major standards” this is just wrong.
Yes linux experts would put them there. As mentioned in that text malware would also install itself there, so on secure systems this should be only writable by root/ some elevated group privilege.
But apart from that users put them on the desktop, or in some random folder, I mean that dir is hidden for a reason.
Or put it in that PATH and then link to the desktop, resulting in a broken link when you remove the app.
When you need only a couple appimage files, space I find is smaller then flatpak, it only becomes when you need a lot of applications.
If something is not scaleable its not a good concept. The fact that you will only install a couple of appimage apps is enough proof.
On modern atomic distros users can rely purely on flatpak.
Btw see the linked dedup checker. You may download more dependencies but they are linked between each other and not actually take up so much space.
I don’t need to worry about installing and uninstalling application when I just want to try it
We need to overthink those habits. You dont just “try an app”, you run unsandboxed code from an unverified origin. As mentioned above, this could be totally fine, and also add a function to your bashrc that catches your sudo password (the next time you use it) and sends it to a server.
The secure way to do that is completely unpractical.
- Get a GPG app or use the cli, create a personal key. Secure the access permissions, as gpg always complains on Fedora for example.
- Hunt the internet for the gpg key of the dev
- Look for at least another source of that key like GrapheneOS does it
- Compare those keys hashes using cli or some app
- When correct, load the key into gpg/kleopatra/kgpg
- Verify the key with your internal key (yeah gpg is overcomplicated)
- Download the appimage, and a signed hash (most of the time its done like that)
- Verify the signed hash
- Sandbox the appimage using bubblejail (doesnt work) or firejail (no idea if it works, and its insecure)
- Repeat on every damn update (if it doesnt have a builtin updater)
This is unusable. And repositories do this automatically without anything you need to do. For sure you could “extra check the website” and say "
Also app data will be everywhere, often in its traditional location, while there is no package manager at all to delete them. Flatpaks store all their stuff (when devs care and not just ignore that, cough Cryptomator) in their container and data can be easily removed during uninstallation, GUI stores show a popup to delete data and I also made a small script to do that.
And that “try it out” app will either have no desktop entry or that entry needs to be manually and will be still there after uninstalling.
I don’t need to muck about trying to get an app into flathub or starting my own repo, when a user has a problem, I can just tell them to run the new appimage instead of trying to get them to compile it.
This may be a reason, but this is only for testing then. But for sure, when its a small project, getting it on Flathub may be much efford.
I can imagine the developer experience is easiser. Flatpaks are simply very “defined” and need all that metadata and more to be complete. But needing to use available runtimes is a good thing mostly, its basically supporting a specific distro.
Flatpak through CLI is fine (I would like to have a standalone small store just for flatpak), Discover is nice too. The Linux Mint store also seemed fine but not much experience. (Linux Mint has some Wayland support now, so there is a secureblue Cinnamon spin, have to try that). The Cosmic store is just a stub currently, lets see!
Cheers!
I agree with much of this. However, regardless of which platform you’re on. it’s best to follow the design patterns of that platform.
Putting binaries on your desktop is not in keeping with Linux design patterns, nor are self-updating apps. I think those are fair points.
Having dozens of apps all using their own update mechanism introduces unnecessary complexity, which can be exploited. This has been a problem on Mac and Windows over the years. On Mac, for example, a common solution to this is the Sparkle framework, which devs can use in their app to manage self-updating; but Sparkle itself has been exploited, so then you have apps out there running god-knows-what-version of Sparkle in their bundles, leaving users vulnerable with no good way to identify or remediate it. This is why I typically disable any self-updating feature in any apps I use.
AppImage is a nice way to have an app on an USB stick, remote server or for archival. But for normal app usage, why?
I want to find a way to do this with flatpaks too.
A small GUI tool (a statically linked binary lol) that can be placed on that stick
- copy the flatpak app and runtime stuff to a folder
- copy the desktop entry over
- copy app data when chosen
And the same thing to copy it from the stick to a live system. Should work, probably not haha
TIP: Flatpak have a build-in way for creating USB, check out the “flatpak --help”.
But the point is with Appimage all that have to be installed is FUSE, which is expected to be installed on most installs when you go to a friend or work where Linux is used.
Oh nice!
Flatpak also works everywhere and appimages are not ported to fuse3…
I mean I want to think Appimages where nice, and they are kinda, but no.
Why do I hear the argument about no .desktop entries in every thread like this? Creating a .desktop file is a requirement for the appimage creation tools to work, and appimaged installs it in the system menu immediately. It’s seamless.
Needed to have zulip to talk about a bug, the AUR package was a pain to debug, the appimage in ~/.local/bin just works™.
I’m not a fan of alternative packaging solutions. Never been. If it’s not in Debian’s repositories then I don’t bother with it. Some would say that’s close minded as not all packaging solutions are bad but when you use a stable distribution like Debian the native packaging solution is a lot easier to maneuver and troubleshoot than flatpaks and the like.
Flatpaks dont touch the system, which makes them a perfect addition to a Debian Base. Tbh I think Windows is the best example that this works, stable, boring base, and no software is stable for no reason. They outsource the work and the software even installs and updates in random ways, but it is always up to date which never breaks the system.
But to be fair I am not a Debian user. I would consider it when being an admin for many clients that want a stable system. But I would install all apps from Flathub then, to have them up to date and not years old.
Does flatpack finally let me choose an alternative to
~/.var?
