Porteus modules vs AppImage

[mekineer]

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?

[M. Eerie]

What are the differences between Porteus modules and AppImage?

Porteus copies some files to the system, while Applmage creates a mountpoint that pretends to have files in the system directories

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

while an AppImage does not need to be "activated", since it contains an executable header that invokes the main program for which it was conceived. That header can be a binary that is included when the AppImage is created, or a shell script that does the same. In this way, an AppImage only needs to be executed (don't forget to set his executable bit).

More info Howto: Popular AppImages one click away