Let me try to make this clear...

Synaptic and all package managers put the downloads in one place:
/var/cache/apt/archives/. You can see them in any file manager or from
the command line, however, the names are a bit cryptic. If you click
on them they will probably install. If you remember what you searched
for in Synaptic you can go back there and do the same search again. If
it is installed there will be a green block beside the name. If it is
red you can't install it because of something missing or other errors.

Before you close Synaptic look at the properties (right click) and on
the third tab, "Installed Files" you will see everything that Synaptic
put into your system to make that item work. If it is a non-menu,
command line, app (and I try to avoid them myself!) then one of those
installed files will be the name of the main executable. You can then
start the app by typing that into a terminal window - you might need
to be root (sudo before the name).

If the box before the name is blank then for some reason the
application didn't install. Got to Synaptics preferences on the menu
bar and check the second last box: "Apply changes in a terminal
window". Try again and watch carefully for any error messages.

Can you give us an example of something that you installed that did
not show up on the menu? If you find this happening often then you may
be an adventurous soul who is trying to install something that is not
what you hoped it would be. Or you just may have been unlucky. There
are many items in the repositories which are obscure and useful only
to people with advanced skills and peculiar interests. You probably
don't want them...

If it is a commandline application then it will not appear in the menus.
Otherwise it will, but it is not always where you might expect it. I have
seen the rare instance of an application that does not appear at all, but
it has been a long time.

You can right click on the KDE icon (start button) and choose Edit
Applications to create your own launcher. Sometimes they are actually there
but you need to check a box to make them appear or you may have to choose
an icon and type the launch command to make a launcher. Items can be
dragged and dropped from one group to another, as well.

Most problems of this sort are due to commandline applications, items
installed outside of the repos and applications from other desktop
environments which may not appear where you might expect them.

My problem is that I have so many apps installed that they are hard to
find.

Are we supposed to top post or bottom post or do the administrators mind
either way?

Hi Roy, I do not know how to get to the Edit Applications you mentioned
because if you mean by the start button the K icon (I'm using KDE
12.04), I can't find any application akin to edit applications. Still
checking though. Plus, how would I really know whether an
application was designed to open with the command line only - how would
a person be able to tell?

I was able to go into the terminal and run the
program called kmenuedit. It is supposed to be the menu editor for KDE,
but it does not show up anywhere, as far as I can tell, in the large K
menu (the application launcher menu for KDE). I also noticed that I
have an application called Main Menu installed on my system. I could
open that up via the terminal and it also is not showing up in the "main
menu" under the large K icon. I think the application called Main Menu
is for Gnome perhaps, whereas the one called kmenuedit is for KDE, so
I'm thinking I should un-install Main Menu and see if that makes a
difference. These programs do not show up under the Main Menu or
kmenuedit applications either. Still trying to figure it out...

Well executable programs in Linux are not called executable. Mainly Micro Soft
has them as exe files. So lets throw away the windows way of thinking. The
packages of the programs that you installed to move to your tool bar are easy.
May I please point out
to https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MenuBar and http://www.iloveubuntu.net/ubuntu-1204\
-lts-released-and-reviewed.
It is just a matter to change how things are in Linux compare to windows. I know it must be frustrating. I been there, and getting mad on I could do this
and why I can't do that. Just relax and go with the flow of learning a great
program.

It takes awhile to get used to any new operating system, whether it is
Linux, Windows or OS/X. There are differences that take getting used to and
to a some extent you need to *not* apply what you know from another OS. You
need to immerse yourself in the new one and try not to make comparisons
because of course the other is easier if you already know it.

Linux has no executables or many binary files and scripts can be executable
with permissions. File types themselves are almost useless. They tell you
what kind of file it is but Linux does not need a suffix to make it work.
You can remove .jpg from a file name in Windows and the OS won't know what
to do with it. Do that in Linux and the OS will still treat it like a jpg.

I think the file type in question is .deb, used in Debian systems for
package installation. They are not executables, if you check the
permissions in a file manager. They require a package manager to open,
apt-get, dpkg, aptitude, Synaptic, Gdebi, or Software Centre. They are not
usable in non-Debian systems such as Fedora. A deb is just a container file
with all of the packages needed to install an application and the
information about where to put it.

Windows and Linux are fundamentally different. Linux has no registry. It
keeps user space and root space separate with different permissions for
each. Applications are installed to root. Config files can go in either
root or user space, or both, depending on the level of access needed.
Windows is starting to mimic this with W7, but permissions are still not to
the same level. Linux is not trying to copy Windows. It is built on Unix
which is pre-Windows. It is going its own direction and the same can be
said for Windows. Vive la difference!

So the message is that neither is better. They are just different and the
best way to deal with that is to get used to the differences and embrace
them.

I'm using the term "executables" in
the completely generic sense. If you click on an icon or the name of a
file and it executes a program, to me that is executable. Isn't that
an acceptable definition? And you know, to be honest, I like the
suffixes in Windows - although I understand Linux does not use them.
Possibly one of the few things that Windows actually has better than
Linux? For example, in the Windows environment, there are a great many
things you can figure out by the suffix in terms of what programs will
open a file (.wpd for the older WordPerfect files, for example). Of
course, I do realize the LibreOffice will open most of those word
processing files anyway. However, maybe Linux is more secure without
the suffixes, maybe that would be a big issue.

Anyway, I understand why you say to just try to tackle Linux, but when,
of necessity you use Windows at work and such, and also decided to learn
Linux, most of us will have to know the similarities and the differences
in order to learn both systems the best. At least, that's my
experience. I like to keep in my mind both the similarities and the
differences.

I understand the distinction between Windows-based
"executables" and Linux, but when I say executables, I'm referring to
the graphical environment whereby you can click on an icon or the name
of an application and have it open (hence "execute" a program). Why
wouldn't that terminology also be ok in Linux, even though all
"executables" cannot be identified by their suffix, as they can be in
Windows? To me, comparisons between Linux and Windows are valuable by
pointing out the similarities and the differences because new users
really won't learn Linux well without being able to make the
comparisons, it seems, unless they have never used Windows in the first
place.

I understand the distinction between Windows-based
"executables" and Linux, but when I say executables, I'm referring to
the graphical environment whereby you can click on an icon or the name
of an application and have it open (hence "execute" a program). Why
wouldn't that terminology also be ok in Linux, even though all
"executables" cannot be identified by their suffix, as they can be in
Windows? To me, comparisons between Linux and Windows are valuable by
pointing out the similarities and the differences because new users
really won't learn Linux well without being able to make the
comparisons, it seems, unless they have never used Windows in the first
place.