sorry, my bad. On Thu, Jun 12, 2025 at 12:37 PM Willow Liquorice <[email protected]> wrote:
> I believe the conversation was talking about creating a "demo VM" for > Linux using an AppImage, rather than porting the format to Plan 9. > > - Willow > > On 12/06/2025 18:58, Ron Minnich wrote: > > I don't see the value of appimage in a statically linked binary world > > that we have in Plan 9. What would it add? > > > > Flatpack and Snap and friends, I'm not sure either. To run a program > > on plan 9, you construct a namespace and run it, with resources local > > and remote. Sounds like an rc script to me. > > > > On Mon, Jun 9, 2025 at 12:40 PM Jeremy Jackins <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >> Flatpack and Snap would give a portable repository experience (i.e. > >> with updates). However I think many find the "download and click to > >> launch" experience of AppImage to be nice. > >> > >> Offering an AppImage for download seems like slightly lower maintainer > burden. > >> > >> On Tue, Jun 3, 2025 at 5:19 AM David Arnold <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> I’m not sure on the latest status, but a Flatpak, Snap, or AppImage > could deliver a similar “just one file” experience for Linux users. > >>> > >>> I *think* AppImage is the most portable but I’m not sure that’s still > accurate. > >>> > >>> Has anyone tried to build any of these? ------------------------------------------ 9fans: 9fans Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/Tbe8e5fda6ae62f5c-M5813efbda9ffb6a2876e4760 Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription
