[Fwd: Re: Installing a compiler by default]

[Matthew Kuiken]

Sorry Corey, I meant to send this to the list...

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	Re: Installing a compiler by default
Date: 	Thu, 08 Jun 2006 21:25:41 -0700
From: 	Matthew Kuiken <matt.kuiken at verizon.net>
To: 	Corey Burger <corey.burger at gmail.com>
References: 	<20060608164417.GI789 at alcor.net> 
<348bd6da0606081926m6fc2d64fi30bb1f9fd7664833 at mail.gmail.com>



Corey Burger wrote:
> On 6/8/06, Matt Zimmerman <mdz at ubuntu.com> wrote:
>> <snip>
>> I'm interested in hearing more opinions one way or the other, especially
>> from beyond the developer community.
>>
>> -- 
>>  - mdz
>
> I don't think shipping GCC truly makes sense. Lets look at the use cases:
>
> 1. Person compiling something to get them on the internet
> Ignore the fact that I have not seen a solid case where you can get
> the source without being on net already, nor a solid case where this
> is even necessary (I am sure there are, I just haven't looked at
> deeply), how many users are actually technically adept enough to do
> this?
>
> 2. Person wanting to compile some random stuff
> If you know what compiling is, you should probably already also know
> what to look for. The documentation team will fix the fact that our
> help says nothing about gcc or compiling for edgy. If I google "gcc
> ubuntu", the first hit I get is how to install build-essential.  Same
> with "compiling ubuntu".
>
> Problems mentioned by mdz
>
> 1. Linux systems ship with gcc
> Fedora ships on 5 cds. Mandriva ships with a mis-mash of GNOME and
> KDE. This is Ubuntu. We make choices because they have solid usecases,
> not because other people do it. (We should, of course, look at why
> they are doing it)
>
> 2. A great deal of distribution-agnostic documentation assumes the
> availability of gcc
> When it fails, people are going to one of two things: Give up or look
> for help. If they do the former, there is not much we can do and the
> latter is mostly already there (just the system help needs to be
> fixed)
>
> 3. Users who are new to Ubuntu have no idea how to install the
> necessary  packages for building a kernel module
>
> By the same argument, users who are new to Ubuntu are quite likely to
> have no idea how to compile either.
>
> Conclusion:
> I just don't see a compelling case where build essential is needed.
>
> Corey
>
As an embedded systems programmer who must work on Windows at my job, I 
know how to program, and I usually use gcc, as that is usually the 
micro-controller's compiler.  When I started using Linux, I started with 
Debian before moving to Ubuntu for hardware compatibility reasons.  I 
then wanted to start doing little C programs just to get the feel for 
programming on the system.

I had been using the system just long enough to know to use apt.  
'apt-get gcc' got me a compiler, but it was totally useless because 
there was no make, and no libraries.  It took a while longer to learn 
about the 'build-essential' package.  'build-essential' is not an 
intuitive need for someone who is just starting out programming in 
Linux, whether they are coming from another OS, or another flavor of Linux.

Consider me on the side of installation by default.  I see no problem 
with making the default install require the user to be a part of a group 
to use 'gcc' though, as long as the default user is automatically added 
to said group.

-Matt