2017 LinuxQuestions.org Members Choice AwardsThis forum is for the 2017 LinuxQuestions.org Members Choice Awards.
You can now vote for your favorite projects/products of 2017. This is your chance to be heard! Voting ends on February 7th.
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
View Poll Results: Universal Packaging Format of the Year
Didn't vote. I'm trying all 3 out and haven't decided yet whether I'll keep all, some, or none.
So far no preferences until I better understand advantages and disadvantages of each vs others and vs packages.
If, in any distro I use, they become default vs packages, or replace them, I'll likely go with the distro's default or choice at that time.
I might also try out 0Install, which you might consider adding to the poll next year.
Jeremy, were you changing poll choices after feedback while the polls were live? (I thought I saw that happening.)
If so, I don't thing you should do that - early voters then don't vote on the same choices, which makes the poll results messier. I get that the poll is for fun and discussion, but cleaner polls would give more meaningful feedback.
If not, feel free to ignore the question and call me a twit.
BTW, here is a great tabular overview comparing the various properties of exactly the three formats competing here:
AppImage Wiki: Similar Projects (comparing AppImage/Snap/Flatpak)
However, you shouldn't cast your vote just based on this table!
Better try the three package formats on your own system. Confirm (or not) for yourself if the checkboxes of that table are correct (or not).
In any case, this table's rows give a nice feature overview about the different packages' properties, strenghts and weaknesses. It's up to everybody how much relative weight to assign to each of these personally.
@brashley46
...
Here's how I got joplin-0.10.39-x86_64 to work on Ubuntu 17.10 [edit: 64 bit]
Instead of by GUI, I used the steps from appimage.org in the command line
One detail appimage.org left out - first, you have to get into the directory that your appimage is in
Then make it executable
$ chmod a+x Joplin-0.10.39-x86_64.AppImage
Then run
$ ./Joplin-0.10.39-x86_64.AppImage
...
Quote:
Originally Posted by brashley46
tried that, and got bash: ./Joplin-0.10.39-x86_64.AppImage: cannot execute binary file: Exec format error
so much for that approach. Hmmm.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheTKS
I've never run into that before, but a quick search brings up several possible causes and solutions. The most common occurrence looks to be trying to run a 64-bit executable on a 32-bit OS or machine, but there are others. The error isn't an appimage-specific one, Google told me it happens with other executables, but you'll have to dig into for yourself.
If I misunderstood your comment above and you have 64-bit Xubuntu... I'm at a loss and can only suggest duckduckgoing (or googling) your error message
Distribution: Xubuntu 17.10, Android 5.0.2, Android 7.1.1, Trisquel 7.0 Mini
Posts: 86
Rep:
Okay; I guess then that they do not wish to make Joplin available for us nebbishes with "32-bit" systems. I cannot easily upgrade my system to the AMD-64 version, even though my CPU is in fact an AMD 64 dual-core.
Since it appears this category isn't as 'universal' as claimed (for some architectures, not others, and some initialization systems, not others,) I 'll say Linuxpackages (used to be on a website of that name since decades ago,) i.e., .tgz. That's the oldest packaging format standard (and for an entire family of distributions) so all later serious distributions have specific tools to try to install them... right? If not, one can often even do it oneself (just kidding... use 'tar xvf,') perhaps with a few changes (I'm not talking about other .tgzs just of source code, but ones that are packages with a tree of files ready-to-run.) I know .deb and .rpm are popular, but maybe not all of hundreds/thousands of distributions can install the other, but the oldest that uses (started?) .tgz has tools to try to use .deb and .rpm... so it's pretty clear which is universal in being around longest/first, used a lot, and having most time for support to be implemented.
I'd say deb is a universal packaging format. It's just not universally used, with the unfortunate growth of "universal package" formats that can now be observed...
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.