Counterpoint: The MVP is usually what ends up in production. If your code is a heap of garbage but chocolate-coated on the outside, you're gonna impress management and they'll want to push it live asap. Then the issues start exploding.

yes, a shitty foundation leads to shitty feature implementation. I've seen this everywhere from startups to Fortune 500 companies. Nobody cares about code quality, except maybe the one self-annointed gatekeeper who thinks he's making a difference and shitting on everyone's PRs delaying features. Get rid of that guy he serves no purpose

That guy keeps everything from collapsing.

involved conservationists and curators rarely get the recognition they deserve, but sometimes obstructionists are just that

Yeah, if the indentation style, variable name capitalization rules, structure of commits, 100% unit test coverage the guy knows is the absolute truth and top priority, a collapse of everything is imminent.

People don't care about quality in general unless it affects the bottom line. Not just code quality, but product too. Bugs? Who cares unless it costs us money. Security holes? only a problem if they're exploited... And it costs us money.

Spoken like a true MBA. Hope I never have to work with you.

Um, yeah, that's… IMHO exactly where an MVP is supposed to end up. The “VP” says that.

  "I actually like having visible directories, versus having to figure out where in /usr/share or /usr/local/ or ~/.local or /var an installer chose to sneak their files in."

You seem to be mixing together two concepts here:

1. The files created by the installer, which are handled by the package manager. I can consult my package manager for files created by a specific package: pacman -Ql package_name.

2. The files created after installation (user preferences, plugins). The program should follow the XDG specification.

I don't worry about where my distro package manager installs files.

Some install methods are outside of your package manager, but try to touch /usr or /opt or /var, like NVIDIA sh scripts and the likes.

And those should be avoided as much as possible because they're always problematic and break randomly. How could they not break, when the package manager doesn't even know they exist or what they depend on?

Well now we're going around in circles:

1. External install scripts that put stuff in system directories are sloppy and we don't like them

2. External install scripts that put stuff clearly-named non-hidden directory in your $HOME are better than the above

> Yes, they aren't hurting anyone, and yes they're following their passion

Good, you're able to explain why it shouldn't bother you. The next question is why does it bother you? Any explanations from your side?

"boosting of alternatives"

It's called benchmarking and it's part of presenting a tool. You should be able to explain what your tool has to offer over the alternatives.

I call this the ghost method, because you look like a ghost with your arms through the inverted duvet cover.

My girlfriend insists that the your head does not go inside. But why would you forgo all that fun?

I do that with my kid. For funsies. Also high in the list: snake bites foot (to put on his tights).