Installing a compiler by default

[Rocco Stanzione]

On Friday 09 June 2006 09:54, Alexander Jacob Tsykin wrote:
> > I disagree with this.  The ability to build software from its source -
> > which you have the power to modify - is one of the great things about
> > running Linux, which is too often overlooked.  Even if you don't have the
> > skill to modify the source, or understand it if you read it, it's
> > empowering to know that it's available and to have the tools at your
> > disposal to do what you please with it.
>
> I disagree completely. The computer does not make me feel empowered, it is
> a tool uniquely suited for its task, a bit like a screwdriver (an expensive
> one ;) ), that's all. There is no need to spend time, effort, and disk
> space, making the tool more versatile than it needs to be. Ubuntu already
> has a relatively large footprint, there is no need at all to make it
> larger, as it is completely trivial to install teh build-essentials package
> if you wantneed to, and you don't even need an internet connection as the
> packages are stored on the cd. If you know enough about linux to be able to
> compile competently, then you can be safely expected to know this. If you
> don't, maybe you shouldn't be compiling kernel modules, considering the
> potential to break something.

But a computer is, and should be, a lot more versatile than a screwdriver.  
The number of things a computer can do in theory is practically infinite, and 
only with a compiler can you make a computer do absolutely anything a 
computer can do.  Obviously most of our users aren't going to be using a 
compiler to unlock the vast potential of their machines, but the power to do 
so is one of the most important differences between an open source operating 
system and, say, Windows, even if it's just a philosophical difference to 
most users.

Rocco