Linux and Open Source... What is still missing?
Christofer C. Bell
christofer.c.bell at gmail.com
Sun Nov 19 13:26:13 UTC 2006
On 10/26/06, Derek Broughton <news at pointerstop.ca> wrote:
> YAGNESH N DESAI wrote:
> > If I list what ubuntu is missing from developer's viewpoint then
> > first would be latest GCC compiler out of box ( forget the IDE part. )
> It's an argument that will probably last a lifetime (at least Ubuntu's).
> The average user _doesn't_ need a compiler - you don't get one with
> Windows. A developer isn't an average user. Perhaps the simplest fix
> might be to change the package name "build-essential" to "compile-tools"
> > I am not a developer but when all the software are available as
> > source one would always ask for GCC 3.x compiler.
> All the software most users need is already available as a binary package.
cbell at circe:~$ gcc --version
gcc (GCC) 4.0.3 (Ubuntu 4.0.3-1ubuntu5)
Copyright (C) 2006 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO
warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
cbell at circe:~$
What am I missing? This is even newer than 3.x, and no, a compiler
should not be installed out of the box (IMO). An idea to include
build-essential in the default install was proposed by Matt Zimmerman
on ubuntu-devel. I'm not sure where that discussion went, but I'm
hopeful it didn't conclude that the build tools should be included
with a stock installation.
I think Derek is right in that developers are not "average users" and
frankly, if you're writing software, you should know how to get a
compiler installed on your chosen Linux. I think it's really a
stretch to say that folks developing on Linux shouldn't need to have
some command of, well, Linux.
"George 'Macaca' Allen is like the place kicker that blew the winning
field goal at the Super Bowl. He's why the Republicans lost control
of the Senate."
More information about the ubuntu-users