2 ms·

> Installing your binaries into C:\Program Files\AppName or /usr/local/bin? Fine. I used to have this opinion too. Then I decided that I actually don't want r

> Installing your binaries into C:\Program Files\AppName or /usr/local/bin? Fine. I used to have this opinion too. Then I decided that I actually don't want random things to install to `/usr/local/bin`. They should install to `${HOME}/.local/bin`. I should be perfectly capable of installing any application without modifying the system for every user.

lmm 7mo ago
You should have that option, but you should also be able to install things for all users. That's a pretty common case - most of the time if you install something on your computer, you are the administrator of that computer and want the thing you installed to be available for all users of that computer.
- inetknght 7mo ago
  > most of the time if you install something on your computer, you are the administrator of that computer and want the thing you installed to be available for all users of that computer Speak for yourself. For installing via system packages, yes. Otherwise absolutely no. Most of the time if I install something on my computer without using the package manager, I am the administrator of that computer and I want the thing I installed to be available to a specific run-user, not to all users.
  - Dylan16807 7mo ago
    > Speak for yourself. For installing via system packages, yes. Otherwise absolutely no. That's an overly strong rebuttal given they said "most" and weren't talking about a specific style of install.
  - tremon 7mo ago
    > I am the administrator of that computer and I want the thing I installed to be available to a specific run-user Are you saying you use root access to install something to a specific user's home directory? That's gross. A user installing something for themselves should not need administrator access. You only need admin access for making system-wide changes.
  - lmm 7mo ago
    If you set up dedicated run-users for specific programs then you're very much the exception rather than the rule. I think it's reasonable for tools to serve the common case by default.

lmm 7mo ago

You should have that option, but you should also be able to install things for all users. That's a pretty common case - most of the time if you install something on your computer, you are the administrator of that computer and want the thing you installed to be available for all users of that computer.

inetknght 7mo ago
> most of the time if you install something on your computer, you are the administrator of that computer and want the thing you installed to be available for all users of that computer Speak for yourself. For installing via system packages, yes. Otherwise absolutely no. Most of the time if I install something on my computer without using the package manager, I am the administrator of that computer and I want the thing I installed to be available to a specific run-user, not to all users.
- Dylan16807 7mo ago
  > Speak for yourself. For installing via system packages, yes. Otherwise absolutely no. That's an overly strong rebuttal given they said "most" and weren't talking about a specific style of install.
- tremon 7mo ago
  > I am the administrator of that computer and I want the thing I installed to be available to a specific run-user Are you saying you use root access to install something to a specific user's home directory? That's gross. A user installing something for themselves should not need administrator access. You only need admin access for making system-wide changes.
- lmm 7mo ago
  If you set up dedicated run-users for specific programs then you're very much the exception rather than the rule. I think it's reasonable for tools to serve the common case by default.