Installing a compiler by default

[Matt Zimmerman]

On Fri, Jun 16, 2006 at 01:50:12PM -0500, Christofer C. Bell wrote:
> Perhaps it does need to be renamed, perhaps it doesn't.  I have it
> installed on all 3 of my Ubuntu systems.  Regardless, the installation
> of the compiler is a *documentation* issues, not a *usability issue*.
> The compiler does not need to be installed by default.  The target
> audience are folks that want a "useful Linux desktop environment that
> Just Works(tm)".  This audience is not a developer community and does
> not need a compiler.
> 
> The target audience of a compiler is the development community.  These
> folks should not need hand holding to the same degree as end users.
> They should be able to find and read system documentation and that
> documentation should include how to easily install the compiler (and
> yes, it *is* easy to do).
> 
> In my opinion, Stephan Hermann <sh at sourcecode.de> has summed up my
> feelings regarding this issue more clearly than I ever could.

Yes, this argument has been made several times in the past as well, such
that I addressed it in my original message before any discussion took place.

A compiler might be easily considered a developer tool on Windows, where
drivers arrive as precompiled objects, but in Linux, users who don't know
how to program a line of C use a C compiler regularly.  There, it's
infrastructure.

-- 
 - mdz