Installing a compiler by default

[Alexander Jacob Tsykin]

On Saturday 10 June 2006 01:22, Peter Garrett wrote:
> > 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
>
not sure if that is true for Kubuntu (I don't do hat much with Python). Can 
somebody let me know, just personal curiosity.
> 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.
>
Awesome, and was it that much harder to start your walkthrough with "sudo 
apt-get install build-essential"?
> Another example:
> Until Dapper, installing Mac-on-Linux involved compiling your own modules.
> And so on...
>
But if now you don't have to, then it no longer applies. Even if it did, 
again, how hard is it to type "sudo at-get install build-essential", if you 
already know enough to compile kernel modules for specific hardware?
> 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 )
>
But you had it within easy reach. Just not installed by default
> 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?
>
Because of a) the security risk, which has been discussed a lot, so I won't 
repeat the details, and b) the fact that you do not include programs 
because "Why not?" Particularly when they introduce a security vulnerability. 
You include programs which the majority of your targetted users might need, 
and compiling tools just do not fit under this category with Ubuntu. I think 
everybody is in agreement here.
> 1)Who would be hurt by such a policy?
see above
> 2)Who would be confused by it?
nobody
> 3)How would it make Ubuntu any less friendly to new users?
nobody
>
> 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?" ...
>
and be told, so what is the problem. I like the solution of making 
help.ubuntu.com more accessible and well known though.
> 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.
>
a very constructive suggestion.

Sasha