Can we talk about the rude installers not asking for installation locations?
78 comments
·October 31, 2025alphazard
I agree with the sentiment; I also want to control where things are installed. But the framing of the technical problem here is totally backwards.
The operating system or application manager within the operating system (what does flatpak consider itself?) should decide where all application state goes. The application shouldn't ever prompt the user for this, it should just assume a path inside a sandbox. That path inside the sandbox will get mapped to where-ever outside the sandbox, and that's where the user exercises control.
We already see this pattern emerging with docker images. Everything assumes `/data` is a good place to store things, and `/config` is a good place to read configuration from. I want every application to do this. If I want it to store state, then I'll decide to map those to directories that are persisted.
alphazard
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).
IAmBroom
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".
whalesalad
100% agree with this.
diffeomorphism
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.
wongarsu
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
JohnFen
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.
zahlman
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.
gruez
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?
IAmBroom
> 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."
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.
ape4
As long as the uninstaller can find it
bigbuppo
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.
HeyLaughingBoy
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.
andai
>I care where the data goes
I used a Win10 debloater last year about 2 weeks after install. It deleted Minecraft, which is apparently a UWP too, and it deleted my world, because UWPs apparently store userdata in program directory.
zahlman
I don't want an uninstaller to be required by default.
IAmBroom
I think that ship has sailed. As soon as software uses more than one custom path to store its crap, I can no longer be sure I've deleted everything.
krferriter
Almost like you might need some system-wide registry of application configuration...
gethly
Always chose custom settings when installing anything. Not only you always get to pick target location but often you can avoid installing some additional garbage. I see no problem here though. Maybe i am too used to these things and some people just never learn and click on every button that is presented to them?
StableAlkyne
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 issue
Edit: there may be something lost in translation. This post is in reference to software your IT already approves, which happens to only install to program files.
RamRodification
> 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.
StableAlkyne
> Your IT department should be vetting it, deploying it, and keeping it up-to date for you.
There are not enough IT staff at my organization to do this. They have an approved list of software that may be installed. Some common installations are automated, others are niche-enough that it's DIY.
We don't live in a perfect world where the IT staffing ratio is 1:20 (or whatever arbitrary number you would consider "good"), so this is how my organization does it.
> unfortunately we can't let everyone install anything.
Who is this "we?"
IAmBroom
"We" are the large-enough companies to have full IT departments. (I hate this practice, but it is necessary.)
"Your" IT department should consider giving you your own admin account. But it's their call.
JohnFen
> 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.
loloquwowndueo
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.
kemotep
In a Windows environment this can be managed with AppLocker, or an endpoint management solution, or 3rd-Party tool like Threatlocker.
It becomes less about controlling the users and more about stopping any bad guy dead in their tracks. If nothing but what has been implicitly authorized can execute, then 99% of ransomware attacks will be stopped immediately even after the user clicks the link.
Your company software procurement process shouldn’t be so onerous that people turn to Shadow IT. You have to work with people where they are.
StableAlkyne
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?"
null
IAmBroom
If it's not approved by IT in advance, by definition it is random, and quite possibly crap.
keyringlight
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.
bell-cot
On Windows, I'd classify the "where all has this thing put my data?" problem as worse than the "just assume C:/Program Files" installers.
criddell
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%.
ranger_danger
Firejail on Linux and Sandboxie on Windows means I can let programs install whenever they want, and I always know it'll be inside some other top-level directory I specify.
Probably better to not let programs spray all over your filesystem anyway.
bigbuppo
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.
zahlman
Making the project work when it's in an arbitrary place isn't always trivial.
The proposed "random third-party program" is effectively an extension to the OS.
1xtrm0
[dead]
crazygringo
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?
JohnFen
> 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.
IAmBroom
Oh, are we opening this discussion up to how much we hate OneDrive? <gets glass of water, sweeps desk clean, pulls up soapbox>
al_borland
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.
birdman3131
The main reason is wanting it on a second drive.
politelemon
On any platforms that allows choice of installation location. There could be a multitude of reasons from control to organisation to disk usage.
timemct
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)?"
afandian
And the stuff in "~/Library/Application Support/" and/or "/Library/Application Support" . It's a well-defined place.
marcosdumay
The OP is probably talking about Windows.
add-sub-mul-div
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.
bee_rider
It really depends on the system. In Linux for example it is pretty conventional to ask. But, the asking is often done by querying some environment variables.
If a program prompts the user for a directory instead of querying the appropriate environment variable, that is a violation of the stated user preference.
IAmBroom
Huh? How is "the appropriate environment variable" the "stated user preference"?
gjvc
/opt/vendor/product/version/
BoredPositron
I am really more annoyed about config files that are cluttering up everything. Even resolve and other big packages started to clutter the Documents folder on Linux.
ohyoutravel
Or she.
alejoar
They is the way
ranger_danger
I've literally had someone get upset that I used "they", you can't win with some people.
RamRodification
You can probably win with that person though. Just not by using "they".
munchlax
Perhaps because they is plural. Plural is reserved for the royal family in some cultures.
null
Title.
I think it is very rude to just install to any "default" directory and not asks the user where he wants it to be installed.