Installing a compiler by default

[Matt Galvin]

On 6/13/06, Matt Zimmerman <mdz at ubuntu.com> wrote:
> I think that the cost is trivial and the benefit, while not a magic bullet
> for the problem of users getting Ubuntu working with their hardware, is
> substantial.

agreed

> We're not pursuing a minimal system, which only includes things which are
> needed by a typical user, but a system which is useful to many, many users,
> whether they are Linux enthusiasts or computer novices.  If we can enable
> more users at a trivial cost, we do that.
[snip]
> I agree, but that isn't the question at hand.  The question is, will it help
> enough users to justify the cost?

It probably will.

> We're talking about megabytes versus enabling users.  To my mind, it takes a
> lot of megabytes to offset the benefit of one more Ubuntu user who is
> thrilled at getting their system up and working to their satisfaction.

I have to admit, thinking back, when I first started using Ubuntu I
wondered why there was no compiler installed since I *expected* it to
be there. Ultimately, to me, I don't think it can really hurt to have
these things installed (I always install them, same as many other
people anyway). As it has been pointed out before most other distros
install them and users *expect* them to be there. If we can give users
a more pleasent experience and provide them with the tools they
*expect* to be there then we should.

-- 
Matt T. Galvin
mgalvin on irc.freenode.net
http://people.simplifiedcomplexity.com/~mgalvin/
Ubuntu Documentation Team Member