Installing a compiler by default

[Shawn McMahon]

On Sat, 2006-06-10 at 07:04 +1000, Peter Garrett wrote:

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

If you consider "security best practices" to be "religion", then I guess
yes, your lack of knowledge of them may be the source of your confusion.

I recommend reading "Practical Unix and Internet Security", available
from O'Reilly and Associates, as a good starting point.

> 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?

It reduces the security for ALL our users, to increase convenience for a
miniscule fraction

I am not denying that there is a problem that needs to be fixed; I'm
simply saying that your proposed solution isn't the right one.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/sounder/attachments/20060609/e645c316/attachment-0001.pgp