Consider .app file extension

[FryingPanBrock]

In addition to the usual .AppImage file extension, consider also simply .app, since that is a more user-friendly and marketable extension. The current extension .AppImage is very long, whereas .app (with a lowercase a) would be shorter, simpler and more in line with Windows and Mac where their executables use the extensions .exe and .app. Thus users would feel more at home seeing a file ending with such an extension and instantly recognise it as an app/program; they would not think “what image? is this a picture?” and would not need to be explained what an ISO image is.

To reiterate, I am suggesting a backwards-compatible change, not a replacement of the extension .AppImage; the new extension .app would be the new default, while the old extension .AppImage would continue to work to preserve compatibility with existing AppImages. There would be no confusion with Mac software as it cannot run on Linux — except in some cases with WINE, but that is another topic.

I am aware that I can simply rename my .AppImage files to .app; that is not the point. The point is about all AppImage files in general going forward, not just mine.

[FryingPanBrock]

@probonopd @TheAssassin Mentioning you since you seem to be the current maintainers.

[probonopd]

Thanks for your suggestion, but we won't consider .app, as it is already taken by Mac OS X application bundles and .AppImage is working well for our purposes.

For your own use, you can even remove the extension altogether.

[FryingPanBrock]

@probonopd I already addressed your points in my post. I will rephrase and reiterate:

• Nothing is ever “taken”. Conventions are decided from context. Paradox and SQLite databases are both named .db. Alpine Linux and Android packages are both named .apk. Firebird and Navision databases are both named .fdb. GPL is both a GIMP palette file and the name of a licence. And so on.
• Almost all Mac software is distributed on Apple's App Store; most Mac users never manually download a file.
• Mac software distributed directly by developers is always packaged as .dmg files, not .app files. Random examples: LibreOffice, Krita, Inkscape, Keka. The .app files appear in the Applications folder after installation, but most users do not browse that; instead they use the dock at the bottom or the Spotlight search feature, like hitting the Super key to search in GNOME.
• Linux users are not going to download Mac software to their Linux machines, as it is always distributed as .dmg files.
• Developers are not going to distribute .app (AppImage) files and call them Mac software, for the aforementioned reason. Also, look at any website: the links to Windows, Mac and Linux downloads are always clearly delineated.
• I have already stated that this is not about my own personal AppImages, but about all AppImages going forward; it is irrelevant that I am able to rename my own files.

If the “year of the Linux desktop” ever comes, AppImages are a key thing to make that happen, but the extension looks long and clumsy and puts unnecessary technical details in the name itself, which is confusing to a novice user (“Am I downloading a picture?”). It would be like if Microsoft named their files .PortableExe, since the format name is Portable Executable, or Apple named their files .AppFolder, since they're technically folders. This is not a criticism of the format itself, which is wonderful, but of the extension.

I understand that you are worried that a change to .app would confuse users, but I am telling you that there would not be any confusion, and in fact the current situation causes more confusion than necessary to novice users, in addition to the extension just not being very elegant when the convention is to keep extensions short.

I hope you will reconsider your verdict.