What are the differences between Porteus modules and AppImage?
http://www.porteus.org/tutorials/9-modu ... dules.html
https://docs.appimage.org/reference/architecture.html
https://docs.appimage.org/user-guide/portable-mode.html
From what I understand, Porteus copies some files to the system, while Applmage creates a mountpoint that pretends to have files in the system directories? I'm not sure about that. Can someone explain?
In Windows I would create portable software. Many well behaved executables would first look in the present-working-directory for any libraries it needed. I would log a program install, then copy the program directory to my "portable" folder which contained all my portable software. I would also copy all files injected into the system into the same folder. Do Linux executables have the same tradition of checking the PWD for dependent files?
Porteus modules vs AppImage
Porteus modules vs AppImage
While both containers usually use the same compression method (squashfs), they use different aproaches to somehow inject a file structure into the Live System (system directories).
The main difference being that in order to inject his contents into the UnionFS, and thus make the various binaries/libraries available to the user, a module needs to be "activated":
Code: Select all
$ activate /path/to/my-module.xzm
More info Howto: Popular AppImages one click away
> Does not compute_
https://forum.porteus.org/viewtopic.php?p=94310#p94310
https://forum.porteus.org/viewtopic.php?p=84002#p84002
https://forum.porteus.org/viewtopic.php?p=77174#p77174
https://forum.porteus.org/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=8584
https://forum.porteus.org/viewtopic.php?p=94310#p94310
https://forum.porteus.org/viewtopic.php?p=84002#p84002
https://forum.porteus.org/viewtopic.php?p=77174#p77174
https://forum.porteus.org/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=8584