You complain XDG makes assumptions while we are discussing software that makes the assumption that $USER has no say over $HOME. At least XDG is user configurable.
XDG allows for a superior partitioning. If you don´t like it, you are likely to complain about Linux as well. XDG separates config, run state, cache and data, which is quite reasonable for a Linux system as that is what Linux does.
---
> If I want a specific program’s config directory somewhere other than the XDG setting, that’s not possible.
1. $XDG_CONFIG_DIRS even allows for more multiple paths to be searched.
2. You could even override XDG-vars per application in a launch script or in the shortcut.
> If I want all my config, cache, and local stores in per-program directories, XDG makes that impossible.
You can set all the relevant $XDG_vars to $HOME and all your foo stuff ends up in $HOME/foo. Or symlink from $HOME.
The XDG world gives you options, while the non-XDG world doesn´t.
---
XDG could have opted for user overridable utils instead of variables. But you have already lots of options now.
XDG allows for a superior partitioning. If you don´t like it, you are likely to complain about Linux as well. XDG separates config, run state, cache and data, which is quite reasonable for a Linux system as that is what Linux does.
---
> If I want a specific program’s config directory somewhere other than the XDG setting, that’s not possible.
1. $XDG_CONFIG_DIRS even allows for more multiple paths to be searched.
2. You could even override XDG-vars per application in a launch script or in the shortcut.
> If I want all my config, cache, and local stores in per-program directories, XDG makes that impossible.
You can set all the relevant $XDG_vars to $HOME and all your foo stuff ends up in $HOME/foo. Or symlink from $HOME.
The XDG world gives you options, while the non-XDG world doesn´t.
---
XDG could have opted for user overridable utils instead of variables. But you have already lots of options now.