Installing a compiler by default

[Rocco Stanzione]

On Thursday 08 June 2006 9:26 pm, Corey Burger wrote:
> I don't think shipping GCC truly makes sense. Lets look at the use cases:
>
> 1. Person compiling something to get them on the internet
> Ignore the fact that I have not seen a solid case where you can get
> the source without being on net already, nor a solid case where this
> is even necessary (I am sure there are, I just haven't looked at
> deeply), how many users are actually technically adept enough to do
> this?

OK, my mom had a winmodem.  I got the drivers to her on a USB stick (could 
have been a floppy, a cd, etc.) and found myself with no way to compile the 
drivers.

> 2. Person wanting to compile some random stuff
> If you know what compiling is, you should probably already also know
> what to look for. The documentation team will fix the fact that our
> help says nothing about gcc or compiling for edgy. If I google "gcc
> ubuntu", the first hit I get is how to install build-essential.  Same
> with "compiling ubuntu".

I'd like to mention veterans here.  Veterans make up a not-insignificant 
percentage of Ubuntu users (this is an educated guess).  I use Linux because 
it empowers me to have as much control over my machine as my skills allow.  
The most important part of that is the availability of the source code, which 
is nearly meaningless to me without the ability to compile it.  I think this 
is a major factor in why so many distros feature gcc out of the box: out of 
the box, I can turn text files into applications, making any change I see fit 
if only I have the skill.

> Problems mentioned by mdz
>
> 1. Linux systems ship with gcc
> Fedora ships on 5 cds. Mandriva ships with a mis-mash of GNOME and
> KDE. This is Ubuntu. We make choices because they have solid usecases,
> not because other people do it. (We should, of course, look at why
> they are doing it)

I'm sure I saw it mentioned on this thread that gcc is on the cd, just not 
installed by default.  If that's the case, this point is moot - we won't save 
any cd space by not installing gcc.

> 2. A great deal of distribution-agnostic documentation assumes the
> availability of gcc
> When it fails, people are going to one of two things: Give up or look
> for help. If they do the former, there is not much we can do and the
> latter is mostly already there (just the system help needs to be
> fixed)

It will fail slightly less often if the necessary tools are at the user's 
fingertips.  That's fewer "screw it I'm going back to Windows".

> 3. Users who are new to Ubuntu have no idea how to install the
> necessary  packages for building a kernel module
>
> By the same argument, users who are new to Ubuntu are quite likely to
> have no idea how to compile either.

Users who are new to Linux (and are not developers) will often fit that 
description, but not all new Ubuntu users are new Linux users.  I've been 
around for a while, and I've been through a few distros, and it took me over 
a month to identify what packages had what.  To figure out, even, that the 
headers were in a different package than the source, which I was unaccustomed 
to.  Also that there's no package that contains the configured source for my 
currently running kernel, but that's neither here nor there.

> Conclusion:
> I just don't see a compelling case where build essential is needed.

I don't know that all of build-essential is being proposed, but I think that 
would increase the usefulness of a compiler enough to warrant consideration.  
I also think that (especially if the packages in question are already on the 
cd) the cost is small enough to need a compelling reason *not* to do it.

Thanks,

Rocco