Is DOpus right for me?:: changing the default settings dir

@drefty:

Dude... you are completely missing the point. I think we can all simply agree that stating that you wish a product worked in a way other than it does at the moment is not "complaining". But the idea that you're reasons for why any of the 'workarounds' suggested have 'significant drawbacks' not being appropriate to discuss here on the forums is simply rubbish, and your seeming refusal to discuss ideas of just 'how' GPSoft 'might' implement somethign to your liking is what has nudel a bit bummed... not your personal ideals on how software should work.

The only concern you should have about the 'length' of this thread is in whether or not you make another lengthy reply without putting forward some ideas on how to implement the kind of change that would do what you'd like in the 'way' that you'd like... this is not 'complaining', it is constructive feedback. And as for your dislikes with the workarounds... well... this actually is the place to discuss such things...

State your case mate :sunglasses: !

@steje: I've already given the Ultimate Justification (TM) for which there is no refutation: "because that's the way I see it."

If that justification is "rubbish" in your view, all I can say is you have every right to your personal opinion ... please consider extending the same right to others.

Yes, I do actually have reasons for having this preference, but quite frankly, if you can't accept that someone actually has a different preference, I really see no point in giving justifications, especially when I'm the one paying for my own copy of the software.

When I buy a sandwich at the local lunch place, and I ask to make a substitution on the toppings, I expect to hear either: "yes", "no", or "yes, but we charge extra for that" ... I do not expect to hear "why?"

Even if they offer an alternate topping that they think should be "good enough" ... I do not expect it to be forced down my throat or to be badgered into giving detailed reasons for why the "good enough" is not "good enough" for me.

If they say to me "that might be a good idea, but you need to tell us how we can change our sandwich making process to meet your preferences" ... all I can say is, "there are plenty of sandwich places that do it, either figure it out from one of them, or feel free to ignore my request!"

What am I? A customer, or a sandwich-shop consultant?

If you don't get it, you simply don't get it.

As has been explained to you, the reason for the "Why" is not just idle curiousity. It's genuine interest, it could be that on hearing your justification then others may adopt the practice, Gpsoftware may immediately change the code to suit, etc etc.

If you can't be bothered to take the time to fully explain your needs and requirements then I doubt very much whether GPsoftware can be bothered implementing an idea based on a limited explanation.

If you are in fact so arrogant to presume that simply telling GPSoftware that they should implement something you (and so far you alone) have requested is enough then there's not much hope for you really.

Ridiculous analogies about sandwich shops do nothing to support your case - there's no comparison betweem a sandwich and a complex software tool such as Oopus.

People have taken the time to read your posts and ask for further information and clarification - continuing to deny them starts to look like you don't have any real reasons other than habit and are somewhat embarassed to admit it...

Hey Tanis... CLEARLY you're misinformed! Here in the states, all sandwhich shops have special rooms provided by the establishment where customers can congregate and discuss their ideas for new toppings, condiments and beverages, or get advice on good sandwhich combos...

I met a guy at a shop once who very nicely suggested that they might start putting pickles on their sandwhiches. One person suggested he just use some cucumbers from the salad bar sprinkled with a little vinegar, and the guy understandably scoffed at that... but then some other folk became interested and asked "well, just what kind of pickles do you want... sweet gherkins, sour dill, garlic dill, bread and butter pickles?".

Unfortunately, the guy just sort of went into a vauge retort about how vinegar was not a great ingredient for proper pickles, and how the 'salad cucumber' was not ideal either... and it all sounded reasonable although he didn't really explain anything.

A few weeks later, the fella could be seen mumbling and removing the large chopped pieces of garlic dill from his sandwhich that the shop owner decided to go with on his own after receiving no feedback from the guy or any other customers...

...such is life, i guess I "just don't get it" :sunglasses:

That's entirely different because C:\ is not a standard install point for applications and having stuff put there is ugly and gets in my way when I am navigating through C:, which I do a lot. If ActiveState Perl was hardcoded to install into %ProgramFiles% then I would not have even noticed, let alone complained, unless it was something like a 5GB install (where it is useful to be able to specify a different drive if you don't want all of that on the drive with your %ProgramFiles% folder).

Besides which, install paths are not the same as settings paths. Wherever you install an application to, you create shortcuts on the Start Menu which point to it to allow you to run the app. If the app is associated with file types or provides COM/ActiveX DLLs then it will write settings into the registry so that the OS and other applications can find the components wherever they are stored. Where is the Start Menu stored? In a well-known location. Where are the settings stored in the registry? In a well-known location. Otherwise how is anything going to find them?

So the very ability to install applications wherever you want comes from the fact that settings, or at least some settings, are written to well-known locations. Well-known but not necessarily hardcoded. You can move the physical locations of your Start Menu and Program Files directories, but only through modifying registry entries that are in a well-known location. Anything you can move must be pointed to from a well-known location so that it can be found. That's obvious, unless applications are expected to search the entire computer every time they are launched. Which may well be how you want the feature to work for all that you've told us so far.

There is no problem working out a way to do this technically. The problem is working out a way which will make you happy when you won't tell us the full story and have already rejected or ignored multiple ideas so far. It isn't a question of finding a random program and seeing how it does it. I would bet that they do it by putting a small setting in a well-known location -- the registry or the user's settings folder or the arguments to a shortcut -- which points to where the rest of the settings are.

Yet every time I mention this as a possibility you say nothing. We don't know whether it would satisfy you or not. We are left guessing what you might want.

All you will say is something vague about wanting to backup your settings and/or move some of them to another location. I have already put forward multiple ways that you can do both of those things, as well as ideas on things Opus could do differently to make it even easier/slicker, but in every single case you have either said that the idea doesn't work for reasons you refuse to reveal, or said nothing at all leaving us to wonder what it is you want exactly. You seem to expect us to magically come up with the correct answer without knowing what was wrong with our previous answers.

The only thing that is clear is that you have unusual and very specific requirements which you won't tell anybody. Given that, and the dismissed or ignored ideas so far, how am I or GPSoftware supposed to know if a particular method of moving the settings folder, or automating its backup beyond what you can do already, will be what you want, even if a random program is found which lets you move its settings in some way? (Presumably one of the ways I've suggested already.) You won't enter into a discussion about it and won't even mention one specific example or method or program. There's more than one way of doing it, you've ignored or dismissed the obvious ways of doing it, so tell us how you want it to work. Or give us more detail on what you're actually trying to do so that we have a better chance of coming up with something which does what you want. If you can't do either of those things then we're stuck.

If you want this feature and believe it is a good idea, why are you concealing every possible detail of it? Don't you see that is counterproductive? Are we supposed to keep suggesting ideas with no other feedback until you say 'yes' to one of them? Are we playing a software-requirements version of Guess Who? (Is the feature wearing glasses???)

You seem very defensive about why you want things to work in a particular way. Why can't you talk about it in public?

You keep saying that discussion of your idea is outside the scope of this forum, yet apparently you are happy to engage in this meta-discussion. If you have the time and will, and think the forum is suitable, for talking about talking about your idea then why not actually talk about it instead? This thread could've been over by now and the idea passed to GPSoftware and implemented for the next release. Instead we're talking about sandwich toppings.

This forum is precisely for members of the user community to discuss ideas (among other things). Explaining why and how you want something to work is very much in scope and even if it wasn't you could talk about it in the CoffeeShop forum where almost anything goes. An idea properly discussed by multiple interested people will be fleshed out more than one discussed by only two people. Better solutions may come up, or people may have slightly different but related requirements which the idea could be expanded to accommodate, resulting in a change which pleases more than just one person.

Even if you explained it to me in a private email thread you would still have to explain it to GPSoftware since it is they who change Opus, not me. Explaining the details to me in a private discussion will not get you any closer to seeing the feature implemented except that I, with my new found understanding, may then try to convince other people in the public discussion. (And I'm not volunteering to act as the proxy advocate for a feature I'm not going to use.)

If you are not prepared to explain in public, yet are prepared to write several long posts which say nothing other than that you are not prepared to explain, then the only conclusion seem to be that there isn't any good reason for wanting the feature and not using one of the suggested alternatives. In which case the forum will forget about the issue entirely and it will never even hit GPSoftware's radar let alone be implemented.

(Unless you contact GPSoftware directly. The link is in my signature if you want to. I imagine their response will be the same as the forum's if you're not willing to explain what you want in detail and why you want it and why the suggested alternatives don't work for you.)

I'm not going to participate in this thread any more unless it evolves out of meta-discussion and back to discussing the actual feature. All we're doing right now is talking about talking about the idea, and going around in circles at that, so I'm done. If the discussion moves into the realms of something useful in terms of improving Opus and making Opus users happier than I will jump back in.

Have you even read what I said?

NO! I am not happy with this meta-discussion! That is precisely why I proposed taking it off the forum several days ago!

Please, pretty-please, actually read what I wrote several days ago!

"When I say I see a drawback, that's just me"

"If DOpus developers decide this is not a top priority, no problem, life goes on and I respect their business decisions."

"If DOpus doesn't implement this feature, it probably won't stop me from evaluating it or even recommending it and purchasing it."

Indeed, I've happily helped GPSoft identify a bug on a different issue, I've since moved on to entirely different stuff**. Please feel free to move on to other issues as well. It's not that I am afraid or ashamed to talk to you about it, it is simply boring, off-topic, and not relevant here.

**(see entirely different question here: [Is DOpus right for me?:: history of last N raw commands), please feel free to respond)

Thanks

Sorry, but I think it is 'you' that have not really been reading what some of 'us' have been writing... this forum is EXACTLY the place for the very discussions you quite strangely seem to be avoiding. Such discussions are one of the main reasons for this forums existence... I do think that this thread has degenerated into pointless conversation, and should probably be locked... but I hope you don't let this runaway topic dissuade you from either Opus or the forums. We're generally a really progressive and cooperative bunch here, it's just that I think your unwillingness to openly discuss ideas you yourself have raised on a forum MEANT for this purpose has some of us confused about what you hope to achieve by particpating on the forums...

It's quite simple... when you make a post asking if something works or could be 'made' to work a particular way to suit your liking, and ppl respond asking you to provide ideas on how it might best be implemented to meet 'your' idea of 'useful' - it's just plain couerteous to entertain the conversation. You made a reply to me specifically before about 'extending the right of a personal opinion to others...' which I found just as odd as your reluctance to have an actual discussion. I wasn't sure if you meant 'personal opinion' regarding the sort of functionality you had been asking about and advocating... or 'personal opinon' regarding your apparent dislike for talking about it in any detail here on the forums...

  • If it was about your 'opinion' that Dopus would do well to have the sort of feature you've asked about, well then I never made any comment depriving you of your right to that opinion, so I find your comment strange. Nobody else here needs to 'agree' with your idea(s) or support your request in order to have useful discussions about them. I think Nudel said something earlier to the effect of 'if you were to open up the dialog and actually 'have a discussion' about what you want and why other ways of getting a similar end result just don't cut the mustard' then maybe others would join in the discussion and the net result of THAT might be a more rounded out idea for a feature request that even MORE ppl might come to like and see value in... as well as more readily meet 'your needs'... which seem to be pretty specific.

  • If it was about your 'opinion' that you had asked not to discuss your ideas or other feelings on the subject after your initial post here on the forums, and you felt like myself and/or some others were badgering you into having a conversation you don't want to have... well then I'm sorry. I will respect that opinion and not ask any more questions of you...

But I will leave you with a final thought...

[quote="dreftymac"]When I buy a sandwich at the local lunch place, and I ask to make a substitution on the toppings, I expect to hear either: "yes", "no", or "yes, but we charge extra for that" ... I do not expect to hear "why?"

Even if they offer an alternate topping that they think should be "good enough" ... I do not expect it to be forced down my throat or to be badgered into giving detailed reasons for why the "good enough" is not "good enough" for me.

If they say to me "that might be a good idea, but you need to tell us how we can change our sandwich making process to meet your preferences" ... all I can say is, "there are plenty of sandwich places that do it, either figure it out from one of them, or feel free to ignore my request!"

What am I? A customer, or a sandwich-shop consultant?[/quote]
No, you're not a consultant... and nobody has asked you to be. You need to remember that while GPsoft do particpate here sometimes, this is a user-run forum. Enthusiastic fans and users spend ALOT of time here discussing ideas and offering help to other users - old and new. MANY new features in Opus are a direct result of the type of discussion that has NOT taken place here in this thread... So keep in mind that your questions about perfecting the sandwhich was made to 'other customers' and NOT the sandwhich shop 'owner'.

Seeing that you don't seem to like discussing your ideas, I for one will be sure not to aggravate you and will stick to the 'yes or no' answers you've asked for if you decide to continue posting here on this 'discussion forum'... which I hope you do.

I'm more than happy to discuss stuff that's actually likely to produce useful information, and it's relevant to using DOpus.

(See here for example: [Is DOpus right for me?:: history of last N raw commands)).

Notice how no one interrogated anyone else for complete and thorough justification on "why" they would want such a feature in the first place.

It doesn't have to be purely "yes/no" ... just try to stay on topic, that's all I'm asking.

We have a number of admins here who are more than capable of determining what is and isn't 'on-topic' thanks.

You're welcome. I'm also happy to let people ask me personal questions about why I do or do not like this or that hypothetical yet-to-be-implemented-feature that no one seems to want or even have a clue about in the first place besides me.

Just don't be surprised if I consider such questions off topic, and I don't ask a capable admin for permission not to explain.

:smiley:

Sorry, I said I would ignore this thread but I can't resist following up:

[quote="dreftymac"](See here for example: [Is DOpus right for me?:: history of last N raw commands)).

Notice how no one interrogated anyone else for complete and thorough justification on "why" they would want such a feature in the first place.

It doesn't have to be purely "yes/no" ... just try to stay on topic, that's all I'm asking.[/quote]

Nobody asked you why you wanted the CLI/history thing because:

[ol][li]We understood why it was useful without the need for further explanation. That happens sometimes! Other times we don't understand at first and ask for more information so that we can get a clearer picture. We're not mind readers but, equally, we don't ask people questions that we already know the answers to just for the sake of it.
[/li]
[li]The thing you asked for in the other thread is not already possible, unlike the subject of this discussion where, as far as you have allowed us to understand the issue, you can already solve the problem in the ways that have been put forward.[/li][/ol]

If you had properly explained why you wanted to move and/or backup your configuration in a way that isn't already possible, and entertained discussion on the details of how it should work, then I suspect the feature would have been implemented by now. It is probably a trivial change to make, but: (a) It can't be made until the requirements are properly understood; (b) No code change should be made unless there is a good reason for it as every change can introduce new bugs. As noone but yourself understands the requirements or the benefit of the change, the change will not be made (unless someone else comes along and puts forward the case).

Clearly you think the feature is useful and relevant, else you would not have mentioned it or called the lack of it a major deficiency (or whatever the phrase was), so I don't see how a discussion which would've resulted in that feature being added to Opus (assuming your reasons for needing it weren't crazy, obviously) could possibly be seen as irrelevant or unuseful.

[quote="dreftymac"]Just don't be surprised if I consider such questions off topic, and I don't ask a capable admin for permission not to explain.

:smiley:[/quote]

Equally, if you start a thread asking for a feature which you say is a big deal, don't be surprised yourself when other people are surprised that you refuse to support what you put forward with even the smallest of details.

Boaahhh, nice thread. Now its my turn :astonished:

I can provide at least one reason for having the configs of programs in one location. It will reduce the backup script from (Pseudo-Code)

copy a_config to backup\a_setting
copy b_config to backup\b_setting
copy c_config to backup\c_setting
copy d_config to backup\d_setting

to

copy config to backup\setting

As you may see the latter is easy, clean and maintainable. Not like the first one.

For the programs this would mean that they indeed have a pointer to the configs, but this pointer is not worth to backup because it can be restored at install, like some of guys here have said

That is may point of view.

Remark:

I have read through this thread twice!!! And indeed the issue was not that someone is unwilling to understand but the lack of reasons. If someone has tons of reasons and examples she/he shall post it here and everyone interested will look at them and maybe they are convinced. That is what this forum is for.

Additionally, the sandwich shop is exactly an example for explaining the reasons of a request. In every restaurant or similar I know you are welcome to tell your opinion, make change proposals, etc., they even have special forms for that. BUT you always have to explain WHY if you REALLY want to have changed it. Otherwise the owner will dismiss it, because she/he may see no benefit. Why and how do companies make surveys? Because they want to know WHAT and WHY things have to be changed.

Hopefully this reply is deemed useful for EVERYONE :wink:

Thanks! :slight_smile:

[quote]It will reduce the backup script from (Pseudo-Code)

copy a_config to backup\a_setting
copy b_config to backup\b_setting
copy c_config to backup\c_setting
copy d_config to backup\d_setting

to

copy config to backup\setting[/quote]

IMO, the top script is more lines but is very similar, or maybe even less, effort.

If you reinstall a program or move to a new computer and reinstall everything, you don't have to edit the top script, provided it's well written (i.e. works relative to %APPDATA% or a similar path).

With the bottom script, if you reinstall a program or a computer you have to tell each installer where you want each program's config to be kept again. (Of course, an update install won't require that as the installer can look up the existing settings dir, but the top script is still no more effort in that case.)

You only have to edit the top script if you start or stop using an application completely. When you do edit it you provide the same amount of information as you would if an installer asked where you'd like the settings to be. (Though I admit it can take time to track down where a program stores its settings. So asking in the installer does add 'discoverability' which is definitely good. The installer could just say "this is where your settings are", though.)

It also stops people who don't know any better moving their settings to silly locations, like Program Files, and means fewer questions are asked during the install, both of which are minor pluses, but pluses all the same.

Just my personal take on it, though. I'm not the gatekeeper who decides whether this gets implemented or not.

... so in other words, the person gave what was (in his or her opinion) a legitimate rationale, and you say why you disagree, gee! I didn't see that coming! ...

... so in other words, inexperienced people are protected from themselves, and people who do know exactly what they are doing are also protected from themselves. Perhaps we can just outlaw trial-and-error mistakes and independent thought entirely?

Yes, exactly, it's your personal opinion. I think your opinions are 100% flawless ... for you.

... and they wondered why I didn't want to elaborate ... :confused:

@xbprm: Good post, it is useful and I agree with you.

Just to be clear, I do not mind sharing ideas and even taking a survey or even having people explain why my idea(s) may not be so good (especially if they offer alternatives or explanations to help me learn something I may not have realized before).

I would never, however, expect to take a company survey where (at the end of the survey) the company (or enthusiasts of the company) persistently nag me to "justify" why I answered the way I did or berate me for not engaging in a game of en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regress_argument.

If someone hears your counter-explanation, and they still don't change their mind, and they say they don't feel like discussing it anymore, at some point you have to just respectfully agree to disagree.

[quote="nudel"]
If you reinstall a program or move to a new computer and reinstall everything, you don't have to edit the top script, provided it's well written (i.e. works relative to %APPDATA% or a similar path).[/quote]

And what to do if the program doesn't provide such environment variable? Dig into the registry? I could do that but I think 90% of all users don't!

[quote="nudel"]
With the bottom script, if you reinstall a program or a computer you have to tell each installer where you want each program's config to be kept again.[/quote]

Yes, but how often do you reinstall windows from scratch? If you don't do it every day I think its worth it.

[quote="nudel"]
You only have to edit the top script if you start or stop using an application completely.[/quote]

Second script I do not have to change at all :wink:

[quote="nudel"]
When you do edit it you provide the same amount of information as you would if an installer asked where you'd like the settings to be. (Though I admit it can take time to track down where a program stores its settings. So asking in the installer does add 'discoverability' which is definitely good. The installer could just say "this is where your settings are", though.).[/quote]

Not every program stores its settings in xml like DOpus does (Great feature for someone who likes to dig into settings like me)

For normal users you have the normal install and for people like me or dreftymac you have the custom install, where you can make your make very own settings/wishes.

One more reason I have which someone I think has already mentioned. I am very keen on experimenting with programs. Push them to the limit etc. So if I do change settings I would like to find them easily every time I search for them. If they are distributed all over my various hard disk, ini-files, registry settings I always have to search (Lotus Notes is very bad example BTW). If I would know that they are at a certain location it would make comparisons of changes much more comfortable.

[quote="nudel"]
Just my personal take on it, though. I'm not the gatekeeper who decides whether this gets implemented or not.[/quote]

I think we have said enough. If someone would provide more reasons we can make a submission to GPSoft and hope for the best.

@dreftymac:

yes

no

maybe (bonus response)

...take your pick :slight_smile:

Someone gave their rationale and I replied saying, "but have you considered this?" What is wrong with that? If an idea is put forward but there might be a better way to it, for reasons that hadn't been considered yet, should we all ignore that and still stick to the original plan? If their way actually is better, for reasons I haven't considered, then they can explain that.

People who know exactly what they are doing can still do what they want via the methods I've described, which seem to have advantages to them as well.

I've backed up my reasoning with logical arguments.

Your opinions may be flawless to you as well, but you are not the only Opus user in the world. If a change is going to be added I believe it should be looked at critically and alternatives explored. You seemed to be set on things working in a certain way without thinking of the alternatives, which I don't think is a good way to design features, so I challenged that by asking some questions. Is that so wrong??

I had assumed, since you rejected the alternatives and seemed to feel very strongly about it, that you had good, logical reasons for wanting things to work differently. Perhaps I was wrong. I wanted to understand those reasons. If they made sense to me I'd change my mind.

If you had nothing to add to the discussion then you could've just said so, instead of pretending that there was a variety of reasons behind your thinking which you just couldn't tell anyone.

[quote="xbprm"][quote="nudel"]
If you reinstall a program or move to a new computer and reinstall everything, you don't have to edit the top script, provided it's well written (i.e. works relative to %APPDATA% or a similar path).[/quote]

And what to do if the program doesn't provide such environment variable? Dig into the registry? I could do that but I think 90% of all users don't![/quote]
%APPDATA% is a standard Windows env-var. If any program stores its settings in the standard location you can take advantage of the %APPDATA% env-var to make a script which isn't hardcoded to paths that may change by OS or username.

If the path to the settings folder is in the registry then a script could read that info, or you could just hardcode the path in the script. It's still something you would only need to edit if you changed usernames or machines, and in both those cases you would also need to re-supply the settings paths via the other method, so no disadvantage there as far as I can see.

[quote="xbprm"][quote="nudel"]
With the bottom script, if you reinstall a program or a computer you have to tell each installer where you want each program's config to be kept again.[/quote]

Yes, but how often do you reinstall windows from scratch? If you don't do it every day I think its worth it.[/quote]
Sure, but even if you don't, what is the disadvantage? The advantage, however small, is that you don't need to change anything when/if you reinstall software or move machines. If there's no disadvantage then you might as well go with the method that has the advantage.

The other much bigger advantage is that the longer script works with all software that stores its settings on disk. Very few programs let you configure where their settings are stored so writing a backup script which handles more cases seems an undeniable advantage to me.

[quote="xbprm"][quote="nudel"]
You only have to edit the top script if you start or stop using an application completely.[/quote]

Second script I do not have to change at all :wink:[/quote]
But you do still have to specify where the settings are stored in the installers of all your apps, if their installers even allow you do so. So the fact that you don't have to edit the second script does not mean there is less effort with that method. You've got to provide the same details, you just do it in different places with the two methods.

[quote="xpbrm"][quote="nudel"]
When you do edit it you provide the same amount of information as you would if an installer asked where you'd like the settings to be. (Though I admit it can take time to track down where a program stores its settings. So asking in the installer does add 'discoverability' which is definitely good. The installer could just say "this is where your settings are", though.).[/quote]

Not every program stores its settings in xml like DOpus does (Great feature for someone who likes to dig into settings like me)[/quote]
Indeed, but if a program doesn't store its settings in XML (or some kind of file on disk), you can't back up its settings using a file copy using either of the methods we're discussing, so that doesn't seem a pro or a con for either method.

That's a good point in general, but it doesn't apply to Opus. The important settings are in two easy to find directories: /dopusdata and /dopusglobaldata. The locations are different because some settings are per-user while others are per-machine.

I Repeat: I'm more than happy to discuss stuff that's actually likely to produce useful information, and it's relevant to using DOpus.

It's not a question of "ignoring a better way" ... the point is YOUR definition of "better way" does not necessarily coincide with someone else's -- that's true even if their only reason is "personal preference."

Yes! It's true, in the world of commercial software, "personal preference" is actually a legitimate reason for not liking something!

It's amazingly simple once you get the point.

You also seem to be assuming that anything that doesn't match your definition of "better way" must be supported by bad non-reasons. That would explain why you do not hesitate to say why something that works for you "seems undeniable advantage" ... as though "advantage to YOU" is all that counts.

This is just a bunch of crap. Because I don't feel like justifying my personal preferences to you, I am "pretending"?!

It's funny, you said you were leaving this meta-discussion, (the one that I asked be taken elsewhere a long time ago). Why are you continuing to add to the meta-convo with steaming piles of irrelevant ■■■■ like this? How do your off-topic guesses about whether I am "pretending" or not help me (or anyone else) learn more about DOpus? How is that "adding to the discussion?"

I Repeat: If you are truly astonished ... then I guess we simply don't see eye-to-eye on this specific issue.

Yes ... yes again, it seems like an advantage to YOU. Keyword: YOU. Even if "very few" apps do let you do this, some people may actually like the way the "very few" apps behave, and make a habit of preferring those "very few" apps over the "very many" apps that (in their opinion) get it wrong.

Not everyone just blindly follows the herd. Some people may actually like c:\perl. The "very few" people who do probably don't give a rat's ass whether you agree.

I Repeat: I will always prefer applications that don't enforce fixed assumptions about specific directories on the user's computer, over those that do. It's really just that simple.