But what about for state that the application doesn't really "own"? e.g. I want to open a PDF in an editor. The PDF is in my documents folder, and I don't want to expose all of my documents to the application in its sandbox.

Fine grained access to single files should be given out using a file picker. The application manager passes in a socket to the application sandbox. The application connects to that socket using a known hard-coded path. It sends a message (client->server) over the socket, the listening file picking process opens a new GUI window to prompt the user to select a file. The user picks a file and a file descriptor is sent over the socket to the application (server -> client).

Spoken like a Linux software developer, I suppose. As a Windows user of generic software (image editing, video players, games, etc.), I want to be able to control such crap. I have a media player that can easily fill a small HD with its mindlessly huge DB, for instance. Rather than manually cleaning periodically, or upgrading my $y$tem, it's easiest to say "Software, store your data here".

100% agree with this.

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

I would love a sane, sensible standard.

But I also want to be able to decide to not adhere to that standard when it gets in the way. It's my machine, there's no reason why I can't make these decisions myself.

I would say that "expect the computer to decide for me", rather than having control over where the files are, is the Windows-centric view.

You mean how on linux "make install" just installs to whatever directory (/usr/bin/, /usr/local/bin/, /opt/?), and if you want to change it you have to do ./configure --prefix=whatever?

> Weird windows centric view.

What a surprise, an anti-Windows snob comment. "I dislike 75% of the world's OS choice, so let's pretend it doesn't exist."

There exists makefiles that don't allow DESTDIR, as in

  mkdir derp
  gmake install DESTDIR=$PWD/derp

Well the problem with that is that the past few generations of laptops have taken a page from chromebooks and only give you 128GB of storage, maybe 256GB if you're lucky, unless you add more, assuming that's even possible. Storage has never been cheaper, yet most laptops ship with barely enough storage for a base Windows install.

Same here. I don't care where the application goes; I care where the data goes. One of my initial annoyances when I started using PlatformIO was that it assumes a default workspace directory and as a new user, it took me forever to figure out where it was putting my files. I have a standard directory structure that I use and this was really messing me up.

I don't want an uninstaller to be required by default.

Almost like you might need some system-wide registry of application configuration...

Maybe OP is complaining about times when there isn't such a button? In fact, explicitly OP is discussing those instances.

> 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.

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.

The other choice that some developers decide upon for 'convenience' is within appdata, so admin isn't as much of an issue if at all.

Assuming C:/Program Files is a bug and you should notify the developers.

The installer should ask the user if they are installing for just themselves or for everybody on the machine.

If it's the former, the installation is typically somewhere under %HOMEPATH% (probably in %LOCALAPPDATA%), the latter will put it in %ProgramFiles%.

Ah yes, because people should be forced to use some random third-party program because developers went out of their way to write their own installer that lacks a feature every standard installer has had since the 1980s.

> 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.

Not the OP, but I do sometimes install macOS applications to ~/Applications. This is especially useful at work where /Application requires elevated permissions. I used to have to request admin rights for a period of time every time VS Code needed do something. In ~/Applications, that’s not an issue.

Of course, 90% of macOS apps (outside of the App Store) don’t have installers. You just drag the app where you want it, so it’s a moot point.

Literally anytime you have a computer with more than one hard drive, or if you want to be able to install it to an external.

The main reason is wanting it on a second drive.

On any platforms that allows choice of installation location. There could be a multitude of reasons from control to organisation to disk usage.

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)?"

And the stuff in "~/Library/Application Support/" and/or "/Library/Application Support" . It's a well-defined place.

The OP is probably talking about Windows.

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.

Huh? How is "the appropriate environment variable" the "stated user preference"?

/$OPT/vendor-product-version

/$PROJOPT/vendor-product-version

They is the way

If software allows changing install location, it should work from everywhere. And there's no excuse for hardcoding Program Files anymore with multiple package managers on windows.

I feel your pain as a developer but as a user, sometimes I need the choice. Try to hide it so non-techies people can click Next Next Next but put it in advanced options somewhere.

Sorry, but I cannot agree.

>> don't remember about it

If you take your time to manually set any kind of new installation location, I assume you know what you are doing and will obviously remember.

>> complain to the software publisher

Changing the installation location should not break the program and if it does, its obviously a bug, or what are you trying to tell me?

Not really, the common pattern is to use a well known default and then allow advanced users to modify their install location. Installation location has been a choice for well over 30 years now and a lot of the initial problems ironed out.

You do realize that most laptops ship with almost zero storage available on the C: drive, right? You have actually looked at the specs of real hardware in use in the real world, right?