Installing a compiler by default

[Peter Garrett]

On Fri, 9 Jun 2006 23:56:41 +1000
Alexander Jacob Tsykin <stsykin at gmail.com> wrote:

> 
> On Friday 09 June 2006 22:51, Peter Garrett wrote:
> > On Fri, 09 Jun 2006 13:38:50 +0200
> > Jan Claeys <lists at janc.be> wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > Only experienced users should ever need a compiler...
> >
> > Right - and how do people become "experienced" ?
> >
> > By using things like compilers I guess...
> >
> As a computer user who is experienced, know how to program a bit, and can use 
> a compiler, I can safely say that there seems to be little point in learning 
> this for the sake of it. It was useful for me, because I like to install some 
> extra packages, but I don't think this applies to many people (just gut 
> feel). A computer is just a tool, a very useful one, but it's important to 
> remember that most people only want to learn as much as they need to to get 
> the job done. Being experienced with compiling is not inherently positive, it 
> is only so when it is useful.

Of course - but my point was more to the effect that, amongst other
things, using gcc / g++/ make , etc. are some of the things that *can* be
learnt, and I can't, for the life of me, see why people should have to
jump through yet another hoop to get this functionality.  Interestingly,
as Derek points out, if you want to use Python, Ubuntu bends over
backwards to accommodate you. Language wars are boring though .. ;-P

Personal note: Until Dapper, my favourite window manager ( Fluxbox) was
broken in Ubuntu - the issue was to do with fonts, and is documented in
the ubuntu-users list archives. I compiled my own, and made a checkinstall
deb of it, using the latest source from http://fluxbox.org . I was pretty
happy to be able to work around the bug by doing so. I submitted a bug
report and gave a walk-through of the work-around on the ubuntu-users list.

( for instance see
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ubuntu.user/69004/match=slow+fluxbox 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-users/2005-May/036501.html
https://launchpad.net/distros/ubuntu/+source/fluxbox/+bug/1866 )

Another example:
Until Dapper, installing Mac-on-Linux involved compiling your own modules.
And so on...

Dapper doesn't have the Fluxbox  bug now ( not by my efforts - the version
used has solved the issue) and MoL is much easier, with the relevant
modules available in  packages. Without the compiler though, I would
have been waiting for months. ( In fact over a year )

You don't need to be a programmer to benefit from a compiler. Besides, why
should we make it more difficult to access these tools, when it would be
easy to include them by default? 

1)Who would be hurt by such a policy? 
2)Who would be confused by it? 
3)How would it make Ubuntu any less friendly to new users?

People who don't need build-essential will never notice. People who *do*
need it will either have to know the package name, and how to install it,
or become part of the cavalcade of people on the help channels and lists
asking "Where is the compiler?" ...

As I've suggested elsewhere, if the package is not included in Edgy, then
point to it with a message, when the hapless user tries to compile
something.

( No, i don't mean an animated "Clippy the Penguin" saying "You appear to
be trying to compile "foo" ...  ;-)


Peter

-- 


"Hyperlinks subvert hierarchy."

-The Cluetrain Manifesto