build-essential

[John]

Jeff Waugh wrote:

><quote who="Matt Zimmerman">
>
>  
>
>>I think I've made the case in favour of a compiler fairly clear, but I
>>don't understand your argument against it.
>>    
>>
>
>We don't put music tagging software in the desktop, claim that 'many' users
>will use it, and those who don't use it, won't notice it. We draw a line.
>The same goes with build-essential. It is not true that 'many' users in our
>intended audience will use a compiler. We can claim it, but it's not true.
>
>So, the first part of my argument against it is that it's inappropriate for
>the DesktopSeed to begin with. Our intention with the DesktopSeed is to hit
>a sweet spot of commonality among our users, along with minimal install and
>on-CD size. build-essential just doesn't stack up - it's important for you
>and me, but not for the vast majority of our intended audience.
>
>Secondly, what we put on the Desktop CD - and more importantly, what we
>install by default - is a commitment. It's very hard to take something out
>once you've put it in. Suppose we include a whole raft of drivers and apps
>on the Ubuntu 5.4 CD, and realise that we have too much for the disk. What
>do we do? First against the wall is the ShipSeed, but what happens after
>that? Someone comes up with the bright idea that our desktop users don't
>care about compilers, so build-essential is removed. What happens when you
>do a CD-only upgrade?
>
>So while I was happy enough to put build-essential on the ShipSeed, I would
>not be at all happy to see it in the DesktopSeed. That selection of packages
>has a very specific goal, and build-essential does not fit. But it *will* be
>easy to find, install and use - ShipSeed is a great compromise.
>
>- Jeff
>
>  
>

Some while ago I worked at BankWest. I was employed to maintain and 
write programs, principally in PL/1, on the mainframe.

The PC tools I had:
An IBM desktop running NT4 Workstation, a 3270 emulator, Lotus 
SmartSute. REXX would have been handy (I used it on the mainframe, could 
have used it on the peecee).

All the programming staff had the same equipement.

I didn't do a survey, but I had worked in the bank in the 60s so I have 
some ifea of what goes in in the branches, and administration is 
basically administration. The branch staff undoubtedly ran pretty much 
the same software I did; the principal applications were hosted on 
OS/390. They'd have used a 3270 emulator to use the CICS frontend.

I did a little word processing; my documents were stored on an NT server 
and the network admins organised management of hardware, backups etc. I 
wouldn't think they had significant programming tools either.


Considering what is available in Linux today, and assuming the Bank's 
requirements are much the same, here's what I'd want were I to install 
Linux all round:
A Desktop environment.
A web browser.
An email client.
A 3270 emulator.
Office software - WP, SS, appointments etc.

Quite likely, I'd equip each branch with its own Big Thumper(s) and boot 
a brace of relatively  low-power peeces off the network and run them as 
terminals.

Much like we used the mainframes in the late 70s.


When I next set up a PC for my wife (she'd be at home with Windows if I 
allowed it), she'll get much the same software selection. No 3270 
emulator, of course, but possibly photo software.

In between we have the geeks, and they can reasonably be expected to 
fight their way out of the average paper bag.

Be sure, though, to ensure that the browser starts first time for new 
users, and opens on a document summarising the things that they need to 
know.


It is worth considering changing the installation process to offer to 
create a privileged user account *not root*, authorised to perform 
system consifuration & maintenance, and configuring sudo to ensure this 
user can do so without the root password.