Your arguments do not make even a little sense.

In what world does a user have to choose between 10 package managers? Each distro has exactly one. There are also only about three, maybe four main package managers out there.

A shell script being piped into bash has so many more ways to break than a package. And if yhe theory is that package managers are fickle (they aren't), then how does adding more complexity help?

It is much simpler, much safer, and easier to maintain a package than an install.sh, eapecially for a big project.

Configuration can be handled by a script, yes. Here's a crazy idea: Your package can include scripts for configuring the software. It's almost as if most packages do. The scripts/utilities could even restart a systemd service for you.

Unless you're talking about configuring your build, in which case we're dealing with an experienced developer who will have no trouble just cloning the repo and building from source.

My biggest issue is: if we're dealing with someone who can't use a package manager, we're dealing with someone who doesn't have the capacity to judge how safe a script downloaded off the internet is. This does not drive linux adoption, it drives botnet adoption.

It's crazy to me that even after seeing so many major software distributors choose `curl | sh` as their entry point, people like you will still argue to the ends of the earth that there’s no problem with the package manager ecosystem.

I'll stop there. I'm not interested in continuing this discussion when it's being conducted in bad faith.