Linux

That's what aptitude does. It says "these things are dependencies that are missing. Do you want to install them?" And you can say yes, no, or ask it to try to find a different fix. And idk what you mean by that's a lot of work. If a dev can't be bothered to tell people how to install their program then idk how they expect people to use their software.

I would rather Linux just be able to detect what's missing and install it for me. In the case of a lot of missing components, what it says is missing will be named completely different from the package you need to install which makes it really hard.

That does happen, but Linux doesn't have anything to do with installing packages, your package manager does. If this package was installed through apt for example, it would also download all of the dependencies. But this package is using a makefile to build and install, therefore it has nothing to do with your package manager.

Tldr: use the package manager, and don't use DIY packages if you don't want to DIY

Additional package managers like flatpak and nix solve different issues:

• dependency mismatch: let's say libreoffice and this package require a different version of glibc -> flatpak downloads both versions and symlinks them in a different location in order for each package to have the correct version while not impacting your system and the glibc your DE is using

• newer packages: Debian freezes packages for 2+ years, flatpak gives you a fresh version

• easier packaging for developers: you can package for flatpak instead of having to maintain packages for every popular package manager and distro

There are two specific problems I see here for the mentioned binaries.

1. The software is packaged as a generic archive, no format like rpm or deb the system package manager could/does handle. Thus, the package manager of your system does neither know that you've installed this binary nor what it depends on. The developer could have at least mentioned on which exact system the Linux binaries are supposed to work, e.g. Ubuntu 22.04, so that the user knows, that they might have issues running it on a different system.
2. The developer could have built and packed it in a way that it can be installed by the package manager of a specific distribution. Launchpad or OBS are made for this purpose. The other option, wrapping it as a flatpak, works too, but may bloat the system of the user as different versions of the same libraries are installed (system generic + flatpak version).

Nonetheless, as a Linux user, you are encouraged to build directly from source.