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.
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).