Well, I was just saying that it's frustrating when people are in a situation where they could install an application in a few moments if they were only allowed to, but instead are obliged to retrieve and compile the dependencies as well as the application itself from source, replicating the work already done by the packagers, with the only difference in the outcomes of these two activities currently being that the former will put files in special places whereas the latter will put them in user-writeable places, and with no difference in the outcomes if the package manager could just install stuff in a user-nominated place anyway. (I'm not advocating that users would get to install their own stuff centrally.)
In other words, when the choice between wasting a few minutes of "admin time" and a few hours or days of "user time" once again goes against the user, this usually plays out fairly badly after a while because people tend to find their own ways of working around constraints that they don't regard as acceptable: that's just the way people deal with social or institutional restrictions. So when some project group suddenly has their own server running their own choice of software, and where their manager is more or less able to shout down various people in the hierarchy about needing to get the job done, and where some administrator has to go and negotiate a compromise, no-one should really be particularly surprised that it reached that stage.
That said, I very much have the impression that people are continually surprised at such events because they either fail to anticipate predictable human behaviour or because they believe that the policies that deter such behaviour will act as a sufficient deterrent. Consequently, from such a static viewpoint and contradicting common experience, any need for more flexibility surely cannot exist for those people. (They presumably wonder why that administrator couldn't just go and tell that manager to shut down his server.)
I do acknowledge that some compromises exist and that virtualisation in the broadest sense of the term recurs frequently, so that in the Debian environment an administrator could enable something like schroot, for example, but then again, I get the impression that if users have to ask for something like that, they may well not get it. In any case, I think it is absurd that when the bulk of the work done by a package manager could be delivered for arbitrary filesystem locations and for arbitrary users, one should be forced to reach for the virtualisation sledgehammer. What next? Running "make install" only puts things under /usr because one can always create another virtual machine?