intents/aspirations of developers for free versus non-free platforms
I have only recent seen this thread and have only read the last two pages or so, but I think the experiences of user of free (as in speech) versus non-free platforms stems from the goals of software developers for these two paradigms.
As Zugu states, when he finds software _which he can use_ with his OS of choice, he gets a binary which was created so as to be easily installed on his OS. This binary was intentionally created by the developers to be so easily installed. The developers may just be trying to help a great deal of people, realizing the tremendous installed user base for Zugu's OS of choice (the open-source community releases many packages for Windows platforms, check out gnu-win). They may also have a commercial motive, where it again behooves them to tailor their release to the largest installed user base, and also, perhaps, to restrict the freedom of others to experience or share these packages. If their interest is commercial, they invest financial resources to do this tailoring, perhaps as their primary vocation.
Many software developers in the open-source community decided to create a particular package because they desired a solution currently unprovided, or perhaps not provided in an open-source format. Once they created a solution, they wished to share this solution with the world. Their criterion on whether to release this code is not "Will everyone be able to effortlessly incorporate my solution?", but rather, "This solution works well for me. Perhaps there are others out there for whom this solution will also work well." Since he is only working with his particular platform, he does not know if it will, in fact, work well for others. Perhaps he realizes that his solution solves a very small-niche problem, rarely encountered and useful to few. If developing software is not his primary vocation, it is not realistic to expect him to make sure it can run on any system save his own, and certainly not as a binary package.
It is undesirable for him to release his solution as a binary tailored to a particular software environment if he wishes to share his solution with the entire world. But because he is sharing his solution (the algorithm, the source code) with the world, there is no need for him to do this. If others run into a similar problem, and notice his source code, they can "tailor" it to their systems, or if they have the knowledge and desire to help others, can tailor it to the OS with a large installed user base.
As noted above, many people wish to make these solutions more accessible to the masses. Mozilla and others release binaries for Windows platforms, because they are interested in gaining interest amongst those in the large installed user base, for whatever reason.
Because others pick up the solutions and and tailor them to different environments, it may take time for the solution to "percolate" through the community to an easily installable state for a given OS. If the effort is non-commercial, it may take longer. If the solution exists in a non-free format, it may never reach those using a free OS.
I also do not wish to compile and/or modify others' code, though I can and have in the past, because I desired the solution on my free OS, and it was possible for me to do so. I do not know enough about the internals of operating systems to understand how easy or difficult it would be to have all of the packages installed, removed, and upgraded cleanly if they were all handled as binaries compiled for my particular OS. Given the effort involved for the developers, and the much smaller installed user base for a particular free OS (linux has a much smaller, and fragmented (at least at a guaranteed binary compatibility level installed user base) it may only make sense for a non-free, commercial OS, precisely those for which make use of this software model. I do realize one of Zugu's points, in that the rapid evolution of the more central aspects of the OS that takes place in a typical free OS would make such constant binary support unrealistic for many volunteer developers.
There is a trade-off being made. The long-term support Ubuntu server OS is intended to be used for years without upgrade. Most recent versions of some software may not be easily integrated. I would guess that integration would be greatly aided with the offered paid support (see how this ties in with previous observations). Individual or client desktop installations can be expected to be upgrade more often and can install newer versions of applications. Many users, myself included, actually look forward to and enjoy that 6-month upgrade event. I must applaud Ubuntu for making it so easy. I installed 6.06 online (humorously using the windows-tailored instlux package), and was then able to easily do online upgrades through 6.10 and to 7.04 using their update manager (I used debian in the past, but I once "shot myself in the head" doing a dist-upgrade, when the more-configurable debian asked too many questions, and I accepted too many default/"safe" suggestions.
I have never run into a problem for which one of the of the packages in Ubuntu's repositories has not offered a solution. I do make use of some repositories not enabled by default, but have never run into breakage, that I can recall. There was that one X-org update fiasco *chuckle*, but they say never again.
I should also add that I have always found a solution for these same problems using a windows OS (and in binary format), but often only because the open-source community has tailored free windows solutions from freely available source code. I do find that for some problems, especially those involving compilers and unix shells, I am a bit more efficient using the linux offerings.
I helped write some code to solve small-niche problems in low-energy nuclear scattering. My advisor and I have agreed that our code will be shared with the world through the GPL (version 3 *chuckle*). Our source code is written in FORTAN-77, and intended to be used with GNU's compilers. That way, anyone in the world will be able to easily make use of it, especially if they come from regions of the world where commercial compilers, commercial code, and commercial OSs are not realistic options. As opposed to commercial alternatives, which may make processes marginally easier for some, this approach is intended to make it possible and still reasonably simple for all.
It seems to me that the OSs have evolved in the ways they have for good reasons, both valid, as evidenced by their "survival" and growth within their respective niches. Individual users should abide and enjoy life in the "environments" in which they flourish. The point of using an OS is to make use of applications, fulfilling desires and solving problems. It also seems to me that the more "environments" one observes, the greater the likelihood of finding a best fit. I understand the desire to flourish and encourage others to seek "flourishment". In most cases, this is not a zero-sum game, and their achievement of it does not detract from my own.
What I like about the free software model is the enhanced degree of possibility (yeah, that sounds like freedom to me), the interplay between the complimentary notions of self-actualization and belonging to a community in getting problems solved and desires met. The undesirable outcome noted by Zugu does not seem to have impacted me. A friend once told me that frustration results from desires being impeded (seems simple enough). I suppose you can either change your desires (maybe?) (Buddhism?) or find/create a solution. It seems that in your case, Zugu, since a solution exists, and you have expressed no additional frustrations that would accompany this solution, you should pursue it. As noted, the free software so many of us enjoy will probably still be available to you with that OS, and in your desired binary format. If not, and there is no non-free counterpart, you and others can ask for it from the free software community. In general, they like to help people. I see no downside for you. Go be happy.
I should add that one can accept the frustration *grin*