[AnIdiotOnTheNet]

They aren't hard problems at all. Even DOS handled them with ease. The problem is that the culture of application development around systems with package managers doesn't consider these use cases at all, forcing you to jump through a bunch of hacky hoops to do deal with them. Case in point: symlinking or mount-based tricks because developers hardcode paths.

[cix_pkez]

Having multiple versions of dependency libraries was a pain on DOS, Windows, ... It just is what it is. For the record, you can have multiple versions on any OS, but it's important they have a version in their name and that the dependent application is aware of that convention.

The specifics of path layout is just how Unix-like systems do things in general. It's not all that different on MacOS.

If you really like the filesystem layout of Windows, just use Windows. If you really like `exe` files, just use Windows. I don't see the problem.

[AnIdiotOnTheNet]

> Having multiple versions of dependency libraries was a pain on DOS

DOS didn't even have the concept of a dependency being separate from the application, so i'm not sure what you're trying to say. MacOS classic also didn't. Windows didn't either, really, until DLLs became a fad and ushered in the era of DLL hell.

> If you really like the filesystem layout of Windows, just use Windows. If you really like `exe` files, just use Windows. I don't see the problem.

I don't particularly like the way Windows works these days because it is becoming more like UNIX, and installers certainly aren't a great idea but I still prefer them to package managers.

There's no problem, I'm Just expressing an opinion about package management, same as you. If the Linux community doesn't agree, and they've made it quite clear that they don't, then that's fine and I'll just continue not to use their OS like most people.