Originally Posted by TiagoTiago

Linux gives the user power to make a mess in so many way....why the need for additional steps just to change the install folder name or location?

I much rather how Windows installers work, by default they install where everyone installs, but they give you the option of doing differently at install time, without the need of recompiling things nor doing manual changes after the installation.
edit: oh and there is even a trend now for also offering the option of keeping config files in the install folder instead of in the shared folder for config files

Originally Posted by benlau

However, it has its disadvantage , you can not enjoy the newest software , you need to wait until the package manager is free to pack the software for you. For example , Firefox , you may need to wait for few days to weeks for newest version.

Originally Posted by RobbieThe1st

It's called a PPA. You can usually find them for whatever package you want, and all it is is a small repo for whatever package or set of packages you want.
Want the absolute latest Firefox package? https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-mozill...y/+archive/ppa <- Just use that. You'll have up-to-the-day updates, but the trade-off is that your using untested, nightly software.
If you are using a "stable" repo, like setup by default, then things are pre-tested for you, and generally won't screw up your system or have major bugs. On the other hand, running from devel, testing or nightly repositories can cause problems.

What a lot of people don't seem to get - You included - Is that there is generally a good *reason* for doing something one way. It may not seem the best to you, but you aren't developing an OS either. The people who generally decide these things have way more experience with such things than you or I - Trying to second-guess such knowledge isn't a good idea.

Originally Posted by TiagoTiago

If the package manager keeps track of where things are installed, any program that would need to know if a given program is installed and where would just check the place where the package manager stores that information.


Regarding DLLs in Windows, in the rare cases i need a program to use an specific DLL instead of the one present in PATH i just put a copy of the DLL in question in the same folder as the executable, and in several instances i've updated a DLL because of one program, and didn't even had to do any tricks to keep other programs working, the newer version of the DLL remained compatible (perhaps nowadays developers are more carefull when releasing newer version of their DLLs? Or perhaps i've just been lucky all these years...)


Many programs in Windows do offer the option of keeping it all in a single folder, for those that don't i can just install them inside Sandboxie on a pendrive or whatever.



Regardless of the OS, i consider it much more tidy to keep things that are only for a given program instead of being shared be under a single folder than spread all over; ideally configuration files would all have the same extension so if i ever needed to find them all it would be just a matter of running a search. If i even need to backup things from a program i often just copy the install folder, and then i transfer whatever files back if after a reinstall they aren't kept (even better when the program divides it's files in subfolders according to what they are about). Another nice thing with this approach is there is no risk of name conflicts, all programs can have their own "config.ini" without needing to prepend their own names and versions making filenames long and annoying to read.

Originally Posted by TiagoTiago

If the package manager keeps track of where things are installed, any program that would need to know if a given program is installed and where would just check the place where the package manager stores that information.

Originally Posted by TiagoTiago

Regarding DLLs in Windows, in the rare cases i need a program to use an specific DLL instead of the one present in PATH i just put a copy of the DLL in question in the same folder as the executable, and in several instances i've updated a DLL because of one program, and didn't even had to do any tricks to keep other programs working, the newer version of the DLL remained compatible (perhaps nowadays developers are more carefull when releasing newer version of their DLLs? Or perhaps i've just been lucky all these years...)