On Thu, 08 Feb 2024 01:33:53 GMT, Scott Lurndal wrote:

> None of those ramifications matter in casual usage, such as here in this
> newsgroup.

You won’t object if some of us feel otherwise.

On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 23:58:29 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote in <uq15f5$1l0eh$1@dont-email.me>:

> On Wed, 07 Feb 2024 23:15:43 GMT, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>
>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
>>
>>>On Wed, 07 Feb 2024 20:48:56 GMT, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>
>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
>>>>
>>>>>This is why we say “*nix”, not “Unix”. We leave the “Unix” trademark
>>>>>to the lawyers and those with enough money to pay them. We just get on
>>>>>and do our work on “*nix” systems.
>>>>
>>>> That's why 'you' say it. Don't speak for others.
>>>
>>>I certainly wouldn’t speak for those who weren’t even alive when I first
>>>started using a *nix system.
>>
>> I doubt you'll find many of those here. I was using computers in 1974
>> and unix in 1979.
>
> With such a long history of being so cavalier about the term, you must
> have been cautioned at some point about the legal implications of such
> trademark usage. It would have been mentioned in just about every AT&T
> publication.

As Janis hints at elsethread: at some point
it was decided (adjudicated?) that "Unix"
is a generic term, and UNIX(R) is
the actual trademark.

So Linux is a Unix but not UNIX(R)...

(MacOS Darwin FreeBSD might be
UNIX(R) -- is it certified, and
do they pay the licensing fee?)

[ I feel dirty posting this without any
actual C topics in comp.lang.c, so I've set
the followup to comp.unix.programmer... ]

--
-v

On 08/02/2024 00:45, Michael S wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 23:53:22 +1100
> "Gary R. Schmidt" <grschmidt@acm.org> wrote:
>
>> On 07/02/2024 18:17, Richard Harnden wrote:
[SNIP]
>>>
>>> Wasn't it SHLIB_PATH on HP/UX?
>>>
>> It still is. (Yes, some of us have to maintain these boxes because,
>> although they were all amortised a decade or two ago, someone in a
>> bank/taxation department/insurance company/&c knows that replacing
>> them will be an expensive and time consuming process. So they'll be
>> replaced
>> - after they collapse into a pile of rust - in a mad panic with
>> Linux boxes with something written in a mad rush in Python/PHP/Perl -
>> by people who don't understand the requirements, briefed by people
>> who don't understand the requirements - that sort of does the same
>> job the old machines did, if you squint really, really hard. And
>> /don't/ get audited by anyone competent. However, that one's
>> *really* unlikely. :-) )
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Gary B-)
>
> It does not have to be replaced with new solution even after original
> hardware died.
> https://www.stromasys.com/solution/charon-par/
>
> For those that are currently on IPF variant of HP-UX, working hardware
> is still easily available. However when it wouldn't be, I'd expect
> that the same company will provide emulation solution. My theory is
> that they already have it done, but as long as "real" HW is available
> they are afraid to sell IPF emulators because of legal concerns.
>
Oh, we know about Charon. It's not that great, and does not give what
is needed in the enterprise space.

Also, it costs real money, not the sort of monopoly money that can be
hidden away in a few more VMs and paying consluttants. :-)

And while there are still sources of used metal out there, the stuff is
getting very long in the tooth, I expect that once what is in use starts
to die then most of what can be sourced will have the same problems.
And it's not like they're planning ahead for the inevitable failures,
that's far too expensive to be considered, this year, at least[1].

Hopefully I'll be well-recovered before the rust hits the floor. ;-)

Cheers,
Gary B-)

1 - FVO "this year" that equal "every year".

On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 01:50:54 -0000 (UTC), vallor wrote:

> As Janis hints at elsethread: at some point it was decided
> (adjudicated?) that "Unix"
> is a generic term, and UNIX(R) is the actual trademark.

Too similar to get away with that excuse.

> So Linux is a Unix but not UNIX(R)...

I prefer “*nix”, or alternatively as a recognition that Linux is very much
an ecosystem unto itself now, just define “Linux-compatible” as the new
standard.

> (MacOS Darwin FreeBSD might be UNIX(R) -- is it certified, and do they
> pay the licensing fee?)

No. Only Apple does. So the BSDs are no more “Unix” (or “UNIX®”) than
Linux is.

On 2/7/2024 11:34 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes:
>
>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 07/02/2024 14:09, David Brown wrote:
>>>> On 07/02/2024 10:56, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>>>> On 07/02/2024 05:41, candycanearter07 wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/5/24 12:13, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-02-05, candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> But the tools are *still preinstalled*, so installers can definitely
>>>>>>>> rely on compiling stuff.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, they aren't. It's common for devel tools not to be part of the base
>>>>>>> system of a distro.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wait really?
>>>>>
>>>>> If you install Windows you don't get Visual Studio and you have to
>>>>> install it separately. If you install Linux you get gcc and other
>>>>> development tools, and I don't think there's even a way of setting up
>>>>> the install to say you don't want them.
>>>>>
>>>> There are several hundred Linux distributions, not including the niche
>>>> ones or outdated ones.  Have you tried them all?
>>>> Most "normal user" oriented distros do not have gcc or related tools
>>>> installed by default, nor do most server systems, or firewall systems, or
>>>> small installations.  Installing the tools is usually very simple
>>>> ("apt-get install build-essentials", or equivalent), but they are not
>>>> included by default in the installation.
>>>>
>>> I've installed Linux several times on a desktop machine. I can never
>>> remember being given an option to not install gcc.
>>
>> Which is beside the point. You said you "get gcc and other development
>> tools". Which distribution(s) did you install?
>
> Did you reply via email by accident, or would you rather not answer
> here?
>

Glad to see that you are not dead.

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 07/02/2024 17:34, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes:
>
>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 07/02/2024 14:09, David Brown wrote:
>>>> On 07/02/2024 10:56, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>>>> On 07/02/2024 05:41, candycanearter07 wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/5/24 12:13, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-02-05, candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> But the tools are *still preinstalled*, so installers can definitely
>>>>>>>> rely on compiling stuff.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, they aren't. It's common for devel tools not to be part of the base
>>>>>>> system of a distro.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wait really?
>>>>>
>>>>> If you install Windows you don't get Visual Studio and you have to
>>>>> install it separately. If you install Linux you get gcc and other
>>>>> development tools, and I don't think there's even a way of setting up
>>>>> the install to say you don't want them.
>>>>>
>>>> There are several hundred Linux distributions, not including the niche
>>>> ones or outdated ones.  Have you tried them all?
>>>> Most "normal user" oriented distros do not have gcc or related tools
>>>> installed by default, nor do most server systems, or firewall systems, or
>>>> small installations.  Installing the tools is usually very simple
>>>> ("apt-get install build-essentials", or equivalent), but they are not
>>>> included by default in the installation.
>>>>
>>> I've installed Linux several times on a desktop machine. I can never
>>> remember being given an option to not install gcc.
>>
>> Which is beside the point. You said you "get gcc and other development
>> tools". Which distribution(s) did you install?
>
> Did you reply via email by accident, or would you rather not answer
> here?
>
Me. Yes sorry.
I've lost Google groups. Thunderbird has a "reply" button whch means
"email" and its too easy to press "reply" if you're not terribly used to
it. I did that to KT as well and he wondered why I was replying via email.
--
Check out Basic Algorithms and my other books:
https://www.lulu.com/spotlight/bgy1mm

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:

> On Wed, 07 Feb 2024 11:10:09 +0000, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>
>> It's not uncommon to have Linux installs without gcc.
>
> The very first non-Apple PC I bought was a Shuttle small-form-factor unit
> that came with a copy of Mandrake 9.1 “Discovery Edition” in the box. (Go
> on, look up that name and version. That should give you an idea of how
> long ago it was.)

No need to look. I has been using Mandrake for a while at that time!

--
Ben.

Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:

> On 07/02/2024 17:34, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes:
>>
>>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 07/02/2024 14:09, David Brown wrote:
>>>>> On 07/02/2024 10:56, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>>>>> On 07/02/2024 05:41, candycanearter07 wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/5/24 12:13, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-05, candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> But the tools are *still preinstalled*, so installers can definitely
>>>>>>>>> rely on compiling stuff.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, they aren't. It's common for devel tools not to be part of the base
>>>>>>>> system of a distro.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wait really?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you install Windows you don't get Visual Studio and you have to
>>>>>> install it separately. If you install Linux you get gcc and other
>>>>>> development tools, and I don't think there's even a way of setting up
>>>>>> the install to say you don't want them.
>>>>>>
>>>>> There are several hundred Linux distributions, not including the niche
>>>>> ones or outdated ones.  Have you tried them all?
>>>>> Most "normal user" oriented distros do not have gcc or related tools
>>>>> installed by default, nor do most server systems, or firewall systems, or
>>>>> small installations.  Installing the tools is usually very simple
>>>>> ("apt-get install build-essentials", or equivalent), but they are not
>>>>> included by default in the installation.
>>>>>
>>>> I've installed Linux several times on a desktop machine. I can never
>>>> remember being given an option to not install gcc.
>>>
>>> Which is beside the point. You said you "get gcc and other development
>>> tools". Which distribution(s) did you install?
>> Did you reply via email by accident, or would you rather not answer
>> here?
>>
> Me. Yes sorry.
> I've lost Google groups. Thunderbird has a "reply" button whch means
> "email" and its too easy to press "reply" if you're not terribly used to
> it. I did that to KT as well and he wondered why I was replying via
> email.

An easy mistake to make. So what Linux distributions did you install
that gave you gcc by default? The ones I've used, don't (though it's
trivial to add build tools later).

--
Ben.

On 08/02/2024 11:55, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On 07/02/2024 17:34, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes:
>>>
>>>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 07/02/2024 14:09, David Brown wrote:
>>>>>> On 07/02/2024 10:56, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>>>>>> On 07/02/2024 05:41, candycanearter07 wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/5/24 12:13, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-05, candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> But the tools are *still preinstalled*, so installers can definitely
>>>>>>>>>> rely on compiling stuff.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, they aren't. It's common for devel tools not to be part of the base
>>>>>>>>> system of a distro.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Wait really?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you install Windows you don't get Visual Studio and you have to
>>>>>>> install it separately. If you install Linux you get gcc and other
>>>>>>> development tools, and I don't think there's even a way of setting up
>>>>>>> the install to say you don't want them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are several hundred Linux distributions, not including the niche
>>>>>> ones or outdated ones.  Have you tried them all?
>>>>>> Most "normal user" oriented distros do not have gcc or related tools
>>>>>> installed by default, nor do most server systems, or firewall systems, or
>>>>>> small installations.  Installing the tools is usually very simple
>>>>>> ("apt-get install build-essentials", or equivalent), but they are not
>>>>>> included by default in the installation.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I've installed Linux several times on a desktop machine. I can never
>>>>> remember being given an option to not install gcc.
>>>>
>>>> Which is beside the point. You said you "get gcc and other development
>>>> tools". Which distribution(s) did you install?
>>> Did you reply via email by accident, or would you rather not answer
>>> here?
>>>
>> Me. Yes sorry.
>> I've lost Google groups. Thunderbird has a "reply" button whch means
>> "email" and its too easy to press "reply" if you're not terribly used to
>> it. I did that to KT as well and he wondered why I was replying via
>> email.
>
> An easy mistake to make. So what Linux distributions did you install
> that gave you gcc by default? The ones I've used, don't (though it's
> trivial to add build tools later).
>
Whilst I've installed Linux many times the names of the distributions
aren't very meaningful to me, the machines are mostly long since
discarded, and I couldn't rightly tell you. But one name I remember is
"Ubuntu". You take what is usually an old machine which has come to the
end of its useful life as Windows computer, but still has a bit of kick
in it and can become a Linux box. So I try to go for a lightweight
distribution which won't stress it out. It chugs through and gives an
install. And don't think there is any tick box or option which says
"don't install gcc". Now other people have said I'm wrong about this,
and of course as programmer I need gcc and wouldn't be interested in
that tick box anyway. But I'm pretty sure you do get gcc by default and
if you had to take special action I would have remembered it.
--
Check out Basic Algorithms and my other books:
https://www.lulu.com/spotlight/bgy1mm

On 07/02/2024 20:36, thiago wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 16:03:45 +0000, bart wrote:
>
>> By 'Build System', I mean a convenient or automatic way to tell a
>> compiler which source and library files comprise a project, one that
>> doesn't involve extra dependencies.
>>
>> This proposal comes under 'convenient' rather than 'automatic'. (I did
>> try an automatic scheme in the past, but that only worked for specially
>> written projects.)

> We already had some similar topics here. I think I have sugested
> pragma source.
>
>
>
>
> I am using a build system that is a C program.
>
> This is the "build" file I use to build cake. It works on
> windows and linux. gcc etc..
>
> https://github.com/thradams/cake/blob/main/src/build.c

That certainly looks easier on the eye than most makefiles I've seen!

You seem to have solved the problem I had where here:

xcc build.c
build

I had to transfer the name of the compiler used (xcc) and make it known
to build.exe.

I tried to do it by looking at args[0]. You use compiler-specific macros
that each compiler exposes, and bake the results into the generated
build.exe.

But this limits the supported compilers to the ones you enumerated.

(I tried adding mine, but I found a bug where its identifier, __MCC__,
which is a predefined macro, doesn't work with 'defined'. I got around
that temporarily, but I haven't yet tried it out on a project.)

You've also easily turned what looked to me a two-step process into one
by using &&:

xcc build.c && build

with variations depending on compiler.

Of course makefile diehards will say this doesn't beat just typing:

make

but that doesn't really have cross-compiler support unless it's
built-in, somehow, to each makefile. (You can use any compiler you like
so long it's called 'gcc'!)

The answer here is to just supply a 2-line makefile that contains
something like 'xcc build.c && build'.

>
> I will call "pragma module" as automaticaly source discover.
> We can break the build in sub problems, one of then is source
> code discovery.
> The build I am using has a manual list of sources.
>
> #define SOURCE_FILES \
> " file1.c " \
> " file2.c " \
> ...
>
>
> The other problems are for instance, settings, like flags etc.
>
>
> I also have "#pragma directory" to inform where the include dir are.
>
> I think everthing should be controled with pragmas then we have a
> choice to use a separated file, for instance a file just with
> pragma modulo, or include pragma module inside normal source code.
>
> I am not sure you realized this, but it is possible to create a tool,
> with a C preprocessor that can scan source and discovery all the
> sources automatically.

My experimental code posted in the other Build thread used an array like
this instead of #defines:

char* source_files[] = {
"file1.c",
...

What's the advantage of using the preprocessor? (Where you have to be
more careful with syntax.)

On 08/02/2024 13:32, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> On 08/02/2024 11:55, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

>> An easy mistake to make.  So what Linux distributions did you install
>> that gave you gcc by default?  The ones I've used, don't (though it's
>> trivial to add build tools later).
>>
> Whilst I've installed Linux many times the names of the distributions
> aren't very meaningful to me, the machines are mostly long since
> discarded, and I couldn't rightly tell you. But one name I remember is
> "Ubuntu". You take what is usually an old machine which has come to the
> end of its useful life as Windows computer, but still has a bit of kick
> in it and can become a Linux box. So I try to go for a lightweight
> distribution which won't stress it out. It chugs through and gives an
> install. And don't think there is any tick box or option which says
> "don't install gcc". Now other people have said I'm wrong about this,
> and of course as programmer I need gcc and wouldn't be interested in
> that tick box anyway. But I'm pretty sure you do get gcc by default and
> if you had to take special action I would have remembered it.

If you install Ubuntu desktop, then it might have gcc by default (it's a
long time since I've used "pure" Ubuntu). Other distributions may be
different.

People who use Linux as their preferred system usually pick their
distributions with a bit of care and thought, and use it on appropriate
computers. While it is certainly true that an old and outdated Windows
machine can be given new life when the Windows installation is scraped
and replaced by Linux, for developers using Linux it is normally an
active choice. The last three main development machines I have had at
work have never had Windows on them - they were bought for Linux, and
used only with Linux.

Basically, what you are saying is that your entire Linux experience is a
few installations long ago, to briefly play around with it on throw-away
machines. And you think that is sufficient to insist that /you/ know
details when actual long-term Linux users tell you differently?

On 08/02/2024 15:35, David Brown wrote:
> On 08/02/2024 13:32, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>> On 08/02/2024 11:55, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>
>>> An easy mistake to make.  So what Linux distributions did you install
>>> that gave you gcc by default?  The ones I've used, don't (though it's
>>> trivial to add build tools later).
>>>
>> Whilst I've installed Linux many times the names of the distributions
>> aren't very meaningful to me, the machines are mostly long since
>> discarded, and I couldn't rightly tell you. But one name I remember is
>> "Ubuntu". You take what is usually an old machine which has come to
>> the end of its useful life as Windows computer, but still has a bit of
>> kick in it and can become a Linux box. So I try to go for a
>> lightweight distribution which won't stress it out. It chugs through
>> and gives an install. And don't think there is any tick box or option
>> which says "don't install gcc". Now other people have said I'm wrong
>> about this, and of course as programmer I need gcc and wouldn't be
>> interested in that tick box anyway. But I'm pretty sure you do get gcc
>> by default and if you had to take special action I would have
>> remembered it.
>
> If you install Ubuntu desktop, then it might have gcc by default (it's a
> long time since I've used "pure" Ubuntu).  Other distributions may be
> different.
>
> People who use Linux as their preferred system usually pick their
> distributions with a bit of care and thought, and use it on appropriate
> computers.  While it is certainly true that an old and outdated Windows
> machine can be given new life when the Windows installation is scraped
> and replaced by Linux, for developers using Linux it is normally an
> active choice.  The last three main development machines I have had at
> work have never had Windows on them - they were bought for Linux, and
> used only with Linux.
>
> Basically, what you are saying is that your entire Linux experience is a
> few installations long ago, to briefly play around with it on throw-away
> machines.  And you think that is sufficient to insist that /you/ know
> details when actual long-term Linux users tell you differently?
>
Baby X was developed for Linux. I've used it seriously and not just
played around. But whilst I've been given powerful Linux machines to use
at university, I've never felt the need for a powerful Linux system for
hobby use. But you can run a lot of extremely interesting programs on
fairly low powered machines.
I don't often install Linux. Usually only when I retire a Windows
machine, though I have tried virtual Linux installations under Windows.
Sadly this doesn't work well. I don't have no experience at all. Because
of the realities of UK economic life, whilst I can easily afford to buy
a second computer I can't easily afford to buy a bigger house, and I've
only got room for one computer, and I find I can't work on laptops. So
whilst I have a Linux machine, it's not currently set up and usable.
--
Check out Basic Algorithms and my other books:
https://www.lulu.com/spotlight/bgy1mm

Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:

> On 08/02/2024 11:55, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 07/02/2024 17:34, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>> Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 07/02/2024 14:09, David Brown wrote:
>>>>>>> On 07/02/2024 10:56, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 07/02/2024 05:41, candycanearter07 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/5/24 12:13, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-02-05, candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> But the tools are *still preinstalled*, so installers can definitely
>>>>>>>>>>> rely on compiling stuff.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No, they aren't. It's common for devel tools not to be part of the base
>>>>>>>>>> system of a distro.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Wait really?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you install Windows you don't get Visual Studio and you have to
>>>>>>>> install it separately. If you install Linux you get gcc and other
>>>>>>>> development tools, and I don't think there's even a way of setting up
>>>>>>>> the install to say you don't want them.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There are several hundred Linux distributions, not including the niche
>>>>>>> ones or outdated ones.  Have you tried them all?
>>>>>>> Most "normal user" oriented distros do not have gcc or related tools
>>>>>>> installed by default, nor do most server systems, or firewall systems, or
>>>>>>> small installations.  Installing the tools is usually very simple
>>>>>>> ("apt-get install build-essentials", or equivalent), but they are not
>>>>>>> included by default in the installation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've installed Linux several times on a desktop machine. I can never
>>>>>> remember being given an option to not install gcc.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which is beside the point. You said you "get gcc and other development
>>>>> tools". Which distribution(s) did you install?
>>>> Did you reply via email by accident, or would you rather not answer
>>>> here?
>>>>
>>> Me. Yes sorry.
>>> I've lost Google groups. Thunderbird has a "reply" button whch means
>>> "email" and its too easy to press "reply" if you're not terribly used to
>>> it. I did that to KT as well and he wondered why I was replying via
>>> email.
>> An easy mistake to make. So what Linux distributions did you install
>> that gave you gcc by default? The ones I've used, don't (though it's
>> trivial to add build tools later).
>>
> Whilst I've installed Linux many times the names of the distributions
> aren't very meaningful to me, the machines are mostly long since discarded,
> and I couldn't rightly tell you. But one name I remember is "Ubuntu".

Ubuntu does not, as far as I can tell, install gcc by default.

> But I'm pretty sure you do
> get gcc by default and if you had to take special action I would have
> remembered it.

You remember that gcc was installed by default often enough that you
were prepared to claim it as a general rule about Linux, but you can't
remember any of the distributions that did it... Oh well, we'll never
know now.

--
Ben.

On 2024-02-08, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
>> Whilst I've installed Linux many times the names of the distributions
>> aren't very meaningful to me, the machines are mostly long since
>> discarded, and I couldn't rightly tell you. But one name I remember
>> is "Ubuntu".
>
> Ubuntu does not, as far as I can tell, install gcc by default.

It doesn't. At least not in the past decade (14.04 forward). It may
have at one point in the past; but I only started using it *maybe* at
10.04 (more likely 12.04; certainly by 14.04).

Now, that is not to say you might not get the option at the tail end of
the installation process to select it (amongst other tools), ala
Debian's tasksel step.

--
|_|O|_|
|_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|O|O|O| PGP: DDAB 23FB 19FA 7D85 1CC1 E067 6D65 70E5 4CE7 2860

On 08/02/2024 16:50, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:

>> But I'm pretty sure you do
>> get gcc by default and if you had to take special action I would have
>> remembered it.
>
> You remember that gcc was installed by default often enough that you
> were prepared to claim it as a general rule about Linux, but you can't
> remember any of the distributions that did it... Oh well, we'll never
> know now.

You're being unfair.

Let's say I've used a dozen versions of prepackaged Linux (eg. as
monolithic image, or already installed), which have always had gcc. And
another dozen that I've had to install myself.

If those asked whether I wanted gcc added, then I really can't remember.
Usually there were 1000 packages to install; you just let it get on with
it and install the lot.

BTW if gcc /isn't/ installed, do you still get a bunch of standard C
headers in /usr/include? If so, what do you have to select to not
install them?

Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes:
>Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
>

>> Whilst I've installed Linux many times the names of the distributions
>> aren't very meaningful to me, the machines are mostly long since discarded,
>> and I couldn't rightly tell you. But one name I remember is "Ubuntu".
>
>Ubuntu does not, as far as I can tell, install gcc by default.

You are correct, Ubuntu does not install gcc by default.

bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:

>BTW if gcc /isn't/ installed, do you still get a bunch of standard C
>headers in /usr/include? If so, what do you have to select to not
>install them?

$ rpm -q -f /usr/include/stdio.h
glibc-headers-2.18-19.fc20.x86_64

An optional package. glibc will be installed, of course,
but the delvelopment package(s) (containing headers, link-time
libraries, etc) are optional.

On 2024-02-08, bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
> On 08/02/2024 16:50, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>> But I'm pretty sure you do
>>> get gcc by default and if you had to take special action I would have
>>> remembered it.
>>
>> You remember that gcc was installed by default often enough that you
>> were prepared to claim it as a general rule about Linux, but you can't
>> remember any of the distributions that did it... Oh well, we'll never
>> know now.
>
> You're being unfair.
>
> Let's say I've used a dozen versions of prepackaged Linux (eg. as
> monolithic image, or already installed), which have always had gcc. And
> another dozen that I've had to install myself.

One of the main points of GNU/Linux distros having developed binary
packaging system was so that users didn't have to get sources and build
stuff themselves.

That was the the big thing: use our distro and everything is prebuilt
and easy!

The distros made a point of the compiler being unnecessary, and just
being another set of packages.

Finding a dozen different binary distros that package the compiler
as a non-optional base package seems like a historic impossibility.

Malcolm probably said yes when prompted for dev tools and doesn't
remember.

--
TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal
Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca

On 08/02/2024 17:31, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> On 08/02/2024 15:35, David Brown wrote:
>> On 08/02/2024 13:32, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>> On 08/02/2024 11:55, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>
>>>> An easy mistake to make.  So what Linux distributions did you install
>>>> that gave you gcc by default?  The ones I've used, don't (though it's
>>>> trivial to add build tools later).
>>>>
>>> Whilst I've installed Linux many times the names of the distributions
>>> aren't very meaningful to me, the machines are mostly long since
>>> discarded, and I couldn't rightly tell you. But one name I remember
>>> is "Ubuntu". You take what is usually an old machine which has come
>>> to the end of its useful life as Windows computer, but still has a
>>> bit of kick in it and can become a Linux box. So I try to go for a
>>> lightweight distribution which won't stress it out. It chugs through
>>> and gives an install. And don't think there is any tick box or option
>>> which says "don't install gcc". Now other people have said I'm wrong
>>> about this, and of course as programmer I need gcc and wouldn't be
>>> interested in that tick box anyway. But I'm pretty sure you do get
>>> gcc by default and if you had to take special action I would have
>>> remembered it.
>>
>> If you install Ubuntu desktop, then it might have gcc by default (it's
>> a long time since I've used "pure" Ubuntu).  Other distributions may
>> be different.
>>
>> People who use Linux as their preferred system usually pick their
>> distributions with a bit of care and thought, and use it on
>> appropriate computers.  While it is certainly true that an old and
>> outdated Windows machine can be given new life when the Windows
>> installation is scraped and replaced by Linux, for developers using
>> Linux it is normally an active choice.  The last three main
>> development machines I have had at work have never had Windows on them
>> - they were bought for Linux, and used only with Linux.
>>
>> Basically, what you are saying is that your entire Linux experience is
>> a few installations long ago, to briefly play around with it on
>> throw-away machines.  And you think that is sufficient to insist that
>> /you/ know details when actual long-term Linux users tell you
>> differently?
>>
> Baby X was developed for Linux. I've used it seriously and not just
> played around. But whilst I've been given powerful Linux machines to use
> at university, I've never felt the need for a powerful Linux system for
> hobby use. But you can run a lot of extremely interesting programs on
> fairly low powered machines.

Certainly you can.

> I don't often install Linux. Usually only when I retire a Windows
> machine, though I have tried virtual Linux installations under Windows.
> Sadly this doesn't work well. I don't have no experience at all. Because
> of the realities of UK economic life, whilst I can easily afford to buy
> a second computer I can't easily afford to buy a bigger house, and I've
> only got room for one computer, and I find I can't work on laptops. So
> whilst I have a Linux machine, it's not currently set up and usable.

OK.

Of course it is completely up to you what you use, and how you use it.
But it is wrong to view /your/ ways of doing things as though they are
the "normal" way. You can freely install Linux on an older machine and
use Windows on newer ones, and you would not be the only one doing that
- but it is not by any means the normal situation for people who do
serious development on Linux.

And it is absolutely fine if you only install Linux very occasionally,
and only one or two distros, and only long ago - but it is /not/ fine
for you to think that you are right, and others are wrong, about the
process.

On 08/02/2024 18:10, bart wrote:
> On 08/02/2024 16:50, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>> But I'm pretty sure you do
>>> get gcc by default and if you had to take special action I would have
>>> remembered it.
>>
>> You remember that gcc was installed by default often enough that you
>> were prepared to claim it as a general rule about Linux, but you can't
>> remember any of the distributions that did it...  Oh well, we'll never
>> know now.
>
> You're being unfair.
>
> Let's say I've used a dozen versions of prepackaged Linux (eg. as
> monolithic image, or already installed), which have always had gcc. And
> another dozen that I've had to install myself.
>
> If those asked whether I wanted gcc added, then I really can't remember.
> Usually there were 1000 packages to install; you just let it get on with
> it and install the lot.
>

It's fine to say you can't remember - or that you don't care. It is not
fine to say I've installed Linux a couple of times in the past, and gcc
is always included in the default install - and repeat the assertion
when others (who know better) say differently.

> BTW if gcc /isn't/ installed, do you still get a bunch of standard C
> headers in /usr/include? If so, what do you have to select to not
> install them?
>

You might get some headers, but not many - most come as part of
development tool packages, or "development" versions of libraries, or as
a "kernel headers" package. You might accidentally install some of
these, or you might install something else that has a dependency on a
compiler.

On Thu, 08 Feb 2024 11:55:02 +0000, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

> So what Linux distributions did you install that gave you gcc by
> default?

An obvious one would be something like Gentoo, where you build everything
you install from source. So development tools would naturally be
considered an essential part of the base install.

On Thu, 08 Feb 2024 17:25:34 GMT, Scott Lurndal wrote:

> $ rpm -q -f /usr/include/stdio.h

Hah. Never typed that often enough to discover that “rpm -q -f” can be
shortened to “rpm -qf”? ;)

bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:

> On 08/02/2024 16:50, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>> But I'm pretty sure you do
>>> get gcc by default and if you had to take special action I would have
>>> remembered it.
>> You remember that gcc was installed by default often enough that you
>> were prepared to claim it as a general rule about Linux, but you can't
>> remember any of the distributions that did it... Oh well, we'll never
>> know now.
>
> You're being unfair.
>
> Let's say I've used a dozen versions of prepackaged Linux (eg. as
> monolithic image, or already installed), which have always had gcc. And
> another dozen that I've had to install myself.
>
> If those asked whether I wanted gcc added, then I really can't
> remember. Usually there were 1000 packages to install; you just let it get
> on with it and install the lot.

Would you then claim, knowing that you can't really remember, that (and
you cut this part) "If you install Linux you get gcc and other
development tools, and I don't think there's even a way of setting up
the install to say you don't want them"? I contend you probably
shouldn't.

And if, in the face of quite a few responses pointing out that this is
not usual, would you simply say "sorry, I may be misremembering"? I
contend you probably should.

> BTW if gcc /isn't/ installed, do you still get a bunch of standard C
> headers in /usr/include? If so, what do you have to select to not install
> them?

I can't say what happens without specifics. There are hundreds of Linux
distributions.

This is exactly why I was curious about what prompted Malcolm's
confident statement about what comes with "Linux" -- it runs contrary to
my limited experience.

--
Ben.

On 09/02/2024 00:58, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:

>> BTW if gcc /isn't/ installed, do you still get a bunch of standard C
>> headers in /usr/include? If so, what do you have to select to not install
>> them?
>
> I can't say what happens without specifics. There are hundreds of Linux
> distributions.
>
> This is exactly why I was curious about what prompted Malcolm's
> confident statement about what comes with "Linux" -- it runs contrary to
> my limited experience.

Not to mine. I thought the big deal with Linux compared with Windows was
that it came with compilers, headers and libraries at least for C.

Now that advantage may be just by chance?

bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>On 09/02/2024 00:58, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>
>>> BTW if gcc /isn't/ installed, do you still get a bunch of standard C
>>> headers in /usr/include? If so, what do you have to select to not install
>>> them?
>>
>> I can't say what happens without specifics. There are hundreds of Linux
>> distributions.
>>
>> This is exactly why I was curious about what prompted Malcolm's
>> confident statement about what comes with "Linux" -- it runs contrary to
>> my limited experience.
>
>Not to mine. I thought the big deal with Linux compared with Windows was
>that it came with compilers, headers and libraries at least for C.
>
>Now that advantage may be just by chance?
>

Now, you are just being disingenuous. It's on the installation media
and the user installing it selects whether to include it or not. Yes,
linux distributions come with compilers, headers and libraries.