Installing a compiler by default

[Peter Garrett]

On Fri, 9 Jun 2006 15:43:26 +0200 (CEST)
"Murray Cumming" <murrayc at murrayc.com> wrote:

> In some rare cases we must unfortunately choose between ease of use and
> some feature. This is not such a choice - people are still free to install
> build-essentials. So there's no need to be nasty about it.

My intention was not to be nasty at all - sorry if it looked that way.

My intention was, and is, to challenge the mind set that thinks things
that are invisible to most users should be buried by default.

I stand by that. I am not a person who started using Linux from a
technical backgound. You would expect such a user as I am to be all in
favour of making the user experience easier, and I am in fact in favour of
that.

There is no way that including a compiler and related tools in any way
impacts the user experience for the beginner. Where it *does* impact that
user is when the user finds that the tools are missing, and has to go
looking for help.

As it happens, my very minor contribution to Ubuntu has been in that
helping capacity.

if I sounded rude it is because I am tired of seeing the distribution
moving towards a "you don't need that" attitude.

I fully support Ubuntu being easy to use. I also fully support Ubuntu
retaining and facilitating the advancement in knowledge of its users, in
part because those users are potentially the future of Free Software.

If Ubuntu persists in removing functionality or hiding it, I will, with
great regret, move to a distribution where I can confidently and
predictably help to steer beginners towards greater knowledge, as far as I
am able.

If I remained silent, i would be assenting. The community needs to be
reminded occasionally that Ubuntu can be a springboard for newcomers to
development and community participation. If this offends those who read
these admonitions, I'm afraid that isn't my problem.

In all sincerity,

Peter

 -- 


"Hyperlinks subvert hierarchy."

-The Cluetrain Manifesto