Installing a compiler by default

[Peter Garrett]

On Fri, 9 Jun 2006 15:30:40 -0400
Shawn McMahon <smcmahon at eiv.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 04:53:12PM +1000, Peter Garrett said:
> > 
> > But why go to the trouble of doing that or something like it, when you
> > could easily *just install the tools by default*.... !
> 
> Why bother having repositories of things we don't install, when we could
> easily *just install everything by default and turn it off*.
> 
> Your argument could be made for every single package.
 
Sorry - that's absurd. The fact is that the build-essential tools are on
the CD already - and Matt Zimmerman has sensibly suggested that they should
be installed. 

You are twisting the meaning of my post. Obviously I'm not suggesting that
everything be installed by default.

I don't understand the resistance to installing gcc and friends. Is there
some kind of religious controversy involved of which I'm unaware? 

To reiterate:

What harm does it do? 
Why should it not be installed and available?
How does the existence of compiling tools in a default install adversely
affect ordinary users?

Peter

 -- 


"Hyperlinks subvert hierarchy."

-The Cluetrain Manifesto