Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Can we talk about the rude installers not asking for installation locations?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 82 posts

Re: Can we talk about the rude installers not asking for installation locations?

#51

Post by wongarsu »

diffeomorphism wrote: post #17

Weird windows centric view. There shouldn't even be a question where to put things much less a "wherever you want". Instead you want a sane, sensible standard.

Configuration should go in a defined place. /etc and ~/.config on linux, registry and %appdata% on Windows. A common location makes management, synchronization and backups easier, and space is rarely a concern for configs. Cache directories should go in a defined place. /var/ and ~/.cache on linux, %localappdata% on Windows.

But application files have a huge size range depending on the assets the program needs (typical sizes range from the tens of MB to the tens of GB, with large outliers in either direction). I have multiple tiers of storage (a terabyte of SSD, multiple TB of HDD, tens of TB of network storage) and allocate my software to the desired storage tier depending on my needs

And this isn't just a thing on Windows, Android does the same by allowing you to moving apps to the SD card, provided you have one. Management is just greatly simplified in that case because you have at most two meaningful storage locations on an Android location, while desktop or laptop might have any number of them

Re: Can we talk about the rude installers not asking for installation locations?

#52

Post by munchlax »

timemct wrote: post #48
munchlax wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps because they is plural. Plural is reserved for the royal family in some cultures.

'They' is also used when gender is unknown and has been for a long, long time. Person_1: I found this great blogger whose writing I think you'd love. Person_2: Oh, really?! What do they write about?

Only in English.

Re: Can we talk about the rude installers not asking for installation locations?

#54

Post by timemct »

crazygringo wrote: post #9

Can you be more specific about which platform you're talking about? On a Mac, I've never wanted an application to go anywhere but the default /Applications. I don't ever recall being asked if I want another location, nor would I want to be. Is it different on Windows or Linux? And why would you want a different install location?

You've probably been asked about it, but it's often phrased differently than simply asking where to install the app. "Would you like to install theAppInQuestion for all users of this computer (install in /Applications) or just you(install in ~/Applications)?"

Re: Can we talk about the rude installers not asking for installation locations?

#55

Post by StableAlkyne »

loloquwowndueo wrote: post #6
StableAlkyne wrote: post #5

The most annoying instance of this is installers in Windows that just assume you want to go into `C:/Program Files`, which nowadays requires admin to be modified This is very annoying on company machines where you may not have admin, since now there's red tape with your IT because the installer was poorly written. Half the reason I use the WSL is because you at least get "root" on it, so permissions are never an issu…

There’s an argument to be made that this is by design/edict. The company does NOT want you installing random crap on their machines.

No, that's the default behavior in Windows. If you install to, say, app data it's fine. If you install to program files, you need admin because it is a protected folder.

> The company does NOT want you installing random crap on their machines.

Why do you immediately jump to the conclusion that the post is about installing "random crap?"

Re: Can we talk about the rude installers not asking for installation locations?

#56

Post by blauditore »

After many years of working with computers, I'm still confused about what exactly installing means. Whenever I have to set up something by hand (e.g. some SDK), there's a good chance of spending hours trying to make everything work everywhere, mostly dealing with environment variables, where to set them, and how to make sure all the tool who need to use the thing see it. Not to speak about the slight differences between operating systems. Maybe I just suck at this.

Re: Can we talk about the rude installers not asking for installation locations?

#57

Post by add-sub-mul-div »

crazygringo wrote: post #9

Can you be more specific about which platform you're talking about? On a Mac, I've never wanted an application to go anywhere but the default /Applications. I don't ever recall being asked if I want another location, nor would I want to be. Is it different on Windows or Linux? And why would you want a different install location?

You might want to use another drive because there's space there or because it's faster, and what you're installing is a game that's sensitive to load times.

Re: Can we talk about the rude installers not asking for installation locations?

#58

Post by JohnFen »

crazygringo wrote: post #9

Can you be more specific about which platform you're talking about? On a Mac, I've never wanted an application to go anywhere but the default /Applications. I don't ever recall being asked if I want another location, nor would I want to be. Is it different on Windows or Linux? And why would you want a different install location?

> Is it different on Windows or Linux? And why would you want a different install location?

On Linux, I want to be able to choose my install location because I may want it installed on removable media, or on a different drive for space reasons, or because I want to keep executables used for a single project with the rest of the files that comprise that project.

The same things apply to Windows, but also on Windows (which I only use at work) I specifically want to avoid the use of the standard locations for things so that I don't have to fight with OneDrive about them. Putting them somewhere else means OneDrive will leave them alone.

Re: Can we talk about the rude installers not asking for installation locations?

#59

Post by JohnFen »

RamRodification wrote: post #27
StableAlkyne wrote: post #5

The most annoying instance of this is installers in Windows that just assume you want to go into `C:/Program Files`, which nowadays requires admin to be modified This is very annoying on company machines where you may not have admin, since now there's red tape with your IT because the installer was poorly written. Half the reason I use the WSL is because you at least get "root" on it, so permissions are never an issu…

> This is very annoying It's a feature. You shouldn't be installing software on your work computer. Your IT department should be vetting it, deploying it, and keeping it up-to date for you. Maybe you can tell the difference between report.pdf and report.exe, but too many people can't, so unfortunately we can't let everyone install anything.

> You shouldn't be installing software on your work computer. Your IT department should be vetting it, deploying it, and keeping it up-to date for you.

If I actually had to depend on IT to do all that, it would take forever to get anything done.

Re: Can we talk about the rude installers not asking for installation locations?

#60

Post by [deleted] »

StableAlkyne wrote: post #55
loloquwowndueo wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s an argument to be made that this is by design/edict. The company does NOT want you installing random crap on their machines.

No, that's the default behavior in Windows. If you install to, say, app data it's fine. If you install to program files, you need admin because it is a protected folder. > The company does NOT want you installing random crap on their machines. Why do you immediately jump to the conclusion that the post is about installing "random crap?"

[deleted]
Post reply on HN