[Fwd: Re: Installing a compiler by default]
Christofer C. Bell
christofer.c.bell at gmail.com
Fri Jun 9 06:55:01 UTC 2006
On 6/8/06, Matthew Kuiken <matt.kuiken at verizon.net> wrote:
> 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.
This sounds like a documentation issue to me, though. Make it a tool
tip people see during the install or something then. I'd expect
people installing the server edition to know what they're doing. The
desktop edition provides a perfect environment for displaying
information about these kinds of things.
Personally, I'm against installing the compiler by default.
"I trust the Democrats to take away my money, which I can afford. I
trust the Republicans to take away my freedom, which I cannot."
More information about the ubuntu-users