AppImageLauncher VS AppImageKit

Every file that you want to execute has to be in your environment PATH. I would also advise to put symlinks and personal executables in ~/.local/bin and put that to your path. Since your user has ownership over that directory, you won't have any probs with permissions that may or may not occur at all. Since we're talking about AppImage files, you might also want to take a look at AppImageLauncher which does a pretty good job at creating entries for your Desktop Menu for the AppImage files that you install to your system.

I think it's safe to install it directly as it stores everything in a single directory. For AppImages there is also AppImagePool + AppImageLauncher (can be installed rootless, useful for better integration of appimages).

This reminds me of a prettier version of AppImageLauncher. Is there also an "Uninstall" option in the right-click menu of the app launcher?

I'm using AppImageLauncher on Fedora.

"... I recall that this was related to an issue with most Electron apps, wherein the AppImage cannot be integrated with the desktop or the favourites bar. So far we've found that the AppImageLauncher (https://github.com/TheAssassin/AppImageLauncher) helps with getting around this!

What you're looking for sounds like AppImages (https://appimage.org/) . I have only used them while downloading games from itch.io, etc. (since i prefer package managers) but they seem to work out of the box on popular distros.

Ideally a new instance of the application is installed for each user. This also provides better isolation if one user upgrades/removes/breaks their application instance. I, for one, have really come around to the AppImage model [0] in the last couple of years.

[0] https://appimage.org/

I found a similar issue on github and tried this solution but still getting the same error .

There is AppImage[1], which packs a lot of stuff into a SquashFS filesystem, appends it to the executable, so everything is in one file.

[1] https://appimage.org

Nah i think yall just hating appimage. Real gold standard.

Although I haven't used plugins feature myself yet, this does sound like the perfect use case for them. Not every patient needs to access every single source. With plugins you can load only the source (or few sources) that they actually need. You can still use something like https://appimage.org/ to give them "a single binary", but will actually contain your slim binary and all the plugins.

```dlopen(): error loading libfuse.so.2 AppImages require FUSE to run. You might still be able to extract the contents of this AppImage if you run it with the --appimage-extract option. See https://github.com/AppImage/AppImageKit/wiki/FUSE for more information```

This doesn't look like a squashfs image. Cannot mount AppImage, please check your FUSE setup. You might still be able to extract the contents of this AppImage  if you run it with the --appimage-extract option.  See https://github.com/AppImage/AppImageKit/wiki/FUSE  for more information open dir error: No such file or directory

appimages. Appimages are similar to flatpaks, exept that they are a file you download and double click to run. Think of them as portable softwares like windows has (portable apps). They are sandboxed too. You can learn more about appimages here