The packaging for Linux and Windows is currently a problem; it works, but not in the way that users are used to. This alpha release just gets Standalone out the door and on the desktops of eager users. I've filed a ticket for this (https://www.zotero.org/trac/ticket/1761), and I'm sure it'll be cleared up by the final release of Standalone.

Also:

Yet, where to install the application so that I could run it from the menu itself and save the pdf's that need to be associated with it.

Getting an arbitrary program into the programs menu is really your business—presumably you should know how to do that on your OS of choice.

I'm not sure what you mean by the second part, but note that, regardless of where the executable is located, Zotero data is stored in the ~/.zotero directory on Linux by default, so the lack of an installer doesn't have any effect on where the data goes.

For what it's worth, Windows will definitely get an installer before the final version of Zotero standalone. I don't know if the Linux version will—even Firefox itself is distributed as a tarball, with different distros packaging it as appropriate. I'm not sure we want to get into the business of building distro-specific packages.

@Dan:

I don't have any issues with alpha software. FYI, I use nightly builds of nearly everything I use. I am aware of the issues with using alpha software but I am not prepared if the developers throw in a tar.gz format at linux users which refuses to compile or packaged :)

This place is not meant for trolling but it would have been worthwhile to include an option for ppa which is integrated with routine updates and hence there is no risk of loosing data.

Again apologies but Firefox centric behaviour is hard to explain. There are choices that I have made and with good reasons. Had Zotero not come in with high enough recommendations and a genuine need for it, I wouldn't have bothered to stick around here. But if the developers are keen for a good product, they ought to have thick enough skins to take a bit of criticism for having their heads in the sands approach. I call this stupidity to refuse support to other browsers (and distros).

@Adam, yes I have been able to integrate this in the menu; thanks. However, the big issue is that once another update comes in, I am not sure whether my data would stick on in the upgrade; for the time being I have been able to run it but it's not installed.

I don't have any issues with alpha software. FYI, I use nightly builds of nearly everything I use.

That's great, but my point was that you have no idea what the final package will resemble—since we don't, either—and shouldn't post as if you do.

I am not prepared if the developers throw in a tar.gz format at linux users which refuses to compile or packaged

Frankly, I think you're mostly confused here. A whole lot of software is distributed in tarball form, including Firefox and Thunderbird, which are pretty top-flight applications put out by an organization with a lot of resources.

However, the big issue is that once another update comes in, I am not sure whether my data would stick on in the upgrade

I've already explained that the location of the executable has no relation to the location of the data—which is the case, by the way, for pretty much any software.

And yeah, I'm done here.