Talk:AppImage
Page contents not supported in other languages.
| This is thetalk page for discussing improvements to theAppImage article. This isnot a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies |
| Find sources: Google (books ·news ·scholar ·free images ·WP refs) ·FENS ·JSTOR ·TWL |
 | This article is ratedStart-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to multipleWikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
What are the drawbacks? If there were none we'd see all our software done just this way. I understand the attraction of the approach, but they come with drawbacks by their very nature: multiple versions of libraries, etc. 8 klik limit is mentioned, what else? I feel this should be mentioned.—Precedingunsigned comment added by24.7.83.142 (talk)17:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Should we need to mention/compareklik with a Mac OS X or NeXT package ? Since i think they use a similar idea (self-contained package).-- bact'213.61.59.23511:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have repaired the lowercase template to replace the title with "klik (packaging)" on Java-enabled browsers. The alternative title must exactly match the page title, except for the capital letter, for the template to work. Either that, or it didn't work before because the page "Klik" already exists. —Swpbtalkcontribs15:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems klik2 is now called portablelinuxapps.org. The old klik wabsite has dissappeared.85.76.98.51 (talk)20:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
portablelinuxapps.org now redirects tohttp://appimage.org/ . The name PortableLinuxApps seems not to be used any more, they speak about AppImages instead.85.23.199.144 (talk)19:31, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links onAppImage. Please take a moment to reviewmy edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visitthis simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored byInternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other thanregular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editorshave permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see theRfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template{{source check}}(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot(Report bug)02:09, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, from reading this article is seems like klik and PortageLinuxApps are so distinct from the present format known as AppImage that maybe we should not mention them as earlier names in the lead, but rather as predecessors. Frankly if we had enough information to create reasonably sized separate articles I'd argue they'd belong in separate articles.Fuse809 (contribs ·email ·talk ·uploads)08:21, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is a discussion atTalk:Klik (disambiguation)#Primary on whetherKlik should redirect here (asKlik (packaging method) already does.) Please feel free to add your input. --Nat Gertler (talk)22:58, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
https://appimage.github.io/apps/--Tuxayo (talk)19:47, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the case for Snap.
That might be the case for AppImage, if this could be confirmed, it would be worth mentioning. Since when comparing AppImage to traditional repos or with Snap or Flatpak it's an important question.
maybe a source (though primary):https://github.com/AppImage/AppImageKit/wiki/Similar-projects#application-distribution
--Tuxayo (talk)20:21, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The "Lead too short" template was added in October 2009, when the lead was indeed a very short line about klik (as it was called back then). A lot has improved since then and I would say the current lead seems sufficient. So I took the liberty of removing the template. --MichielN (talk)13:35, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why is ROX, a desktop environment, relevant? The wikipedia entry on ROX doesn't seem to justify having a link to ROX.5.103.219.89 (talk)11:17, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
