Very few things, if any, REQUIRE an installer on Windows; it's just common (and annoying) that most software is distributed this way for that platform.
I for one prefer that the developer of an application takes responsibility for its installation. That way you can blame them if it does not work. On Linux distros many packages are close to uselesss because they are outdated or have been modified in weird ways incompatible with tutorials and documentation. This is especially true for all scientific software.
I prefer that all my software is installed and updated in one fell swoop, with one single package manager, instead of requiring myriad installers, uninstallers, and update daemons that run in the background for practically each and every program, just sitting there wasting CPU cycles.
If you dislike outdated software, try switching to a Testing or Unstable version of your operating system, or choosing a distro that packages less conservatively (Arch or Fedora, for instance).
Distribution maintained packages are a really bad idea. You start to realize this once you are not in control of the box you are working on (have no root access). Suddenly you are faced with CentOS 6.5 because some proprietary piece of software depends on a specific gcc version / libc version. Or you can't upgrade the cluster easily because parts of the legacy code depends on specific package versions (boost, gcc). So people invent Spack and before that modules just so that they don't have to depend on the specific package versions they are stuck with. macOS and windows got it right, just distribute all dependencies that you need and don't make any assumptions on the underlying system. Everything else sucks and Linux is a prime example of that.
In short: Once you've worked with a large enough number of nighmarish Linux installations, you treat them as adversarial systems and wish you could install software just by clicking through a few screens.
I understand that you feel powerless and miss your own home PC where you are free to do what you like. However, the same could be true for software where you install by clicking if someone locked it so that you don't have administrator access and then neglected the system.
I don't know about macOS, but doesn't most software on Linux require installation? I think the most common ways to distribute software are (1) as a package for your distribution's package manager (which the package manager installs, typically requiring superuser privileges), (2) as source code that you make & install, (3) as prebuilt binaries that you are meant to unpack and install. "Unpack and run from where they are" binaries do of course exist but aren't they less common than those 3 other types?
Installation yes; installer no. To install VSCode on Debian, you would add the apt repository to your apt configuration, run apt update && apt upgrade, then apt install ______. On Windows, most software comes in the form of an installer instead of being installed with a system package manager.
The difference is whether you have to click through one of those wizard things to get the program you want.
