Include AppImageLauncher by default

[je-sendra]

I think AppImageLauncher (or a modified version with a more friendly UI) should be included in Mint by default, especially on Cinnamon.

I know a lot of people may dislike AppImages for a variety of reasons, including integration and package duplication.

However, I feel like AppImages align pretty well with Mint's "ease of use" philosophy, since they allow users to quickly launch applications from an icon on their desktop. And to be honest, a lot of people don't know the difference between a shortcut to an app and an AppImage itself.

If you wanted to avoid using AppImages in your Mint installation, you could just not download any AppImages, and the AppImageLauncher app wouldn't bother you (you can also uninstall AppImageLauncher if you really dislike it).

I think this would give Linux newcomers choosing Mint as their first distro a more welcoming and smooth experience.

This is related but not the exact same as #188

AppImageLauncher source link: https://github.com/TheAssassin/AppImageLauncher

[Secret-chest]

Just add them to the menu, but not to the desktop.

[je-sendra]

what do you mean by this?

[contrarybaton60]

Secret-chest meant to manually add a .desktop file with the executable linking to the AppImage

[Secret-chest]

I actually like it.

[SuperninjaXII]

Yeah this will be good

[SpeeQz1]

AppImageLauncher isn't being maintained much and it's already showing problems with AppImages from apps like FreeCAD due to zstd compression FreeCAD/FreeCAD-Bundle#331. I would recommend Gear Lever be used instead.

[Secret-chest]

Gear Lever uses libadwaita, so it doesn't integrate nicely visually. We could make our own launcher though since it isn't that complicated.

[je-sendra]

Making a custom launcher is a lot more work than simply including a reskinned AppImageLauncher (or Gear Lever or whatever) in the default installation. Also see: https://xkcd.com/927/

[contrarybaton60]

Still, AppImageLauncher uses Qt so it still wouldn't make sense.

[Secret-chest]

We could try to separate the AIL backend and make a new GTK interface.

[je-sendra]

After doing a little research, I agree that AppImageLauncher is arguably getting less maintainance than Gear Lever. The compressions issues seem to be solved in the development version though ( TheAssassin/AppImageLauncher#674) so one would expect them to be ready in the production version soon.

Anyway, I also do agree that the UI for AppImageLauncher NEEDS to be reworked in order to be integrated into LM, in fact, I already said "a modified with a more friendly UI" would be a good idea in the original post.

That being said, I personally don't have anything against Gear Lever, it's just that I haven't personally used it, so wouldn't know how well it works. If Gear Lever is a better option for LM integration in general, then definitely go with it.

That also applies to any other AppImage "launchers" I might not know about.