I'm very confused as to what you're referring to... in all three of your sentences.

What are you confused about exactly?

You're quoting me quoting something I disagree with and then saying you agree.

Your second sentence has a double-negative that essentially says people who didn't need it would notice it if it were installed by default.

I don't know what you mean by "the other point raised."

I don't know what the reason for leaving it out is, you could ask the maintainers?
If you need it, then you should be able to install it, and if you don't know how to install it, then this is a good time to learn?
If you don't need it installed, then this is a moot point.
If this bothers you, then submit a change to Ubuntu.
If this really bothers you, and Ubuntu won't change it, then use another distro.
aysiu, this is not a personal attack. I am using your questions to let people know what their options are.

The maintainers have already made up their minds about this after a long discussion.

I just happen to disagree with them about it. It doesn't bother me personally (I don't use build-essential), but it bothers me for other people who have to always ask, "Why can't I use make in Ubuntu?"

If you understand the use of make you should be capable of installing it. Long arguments on subjective issues are useless. You've already wasted more of our time than it would have taken for you to install what you needed. That fact alone says it all. Get a life and move on.

It's not about me installing make. I know how to do it.

But a lot of new users get confused when they were able to use make in every other Linux distro and then not in Ubuntu. Then they have to Google around to find out how to install it in Ubuntu. It's a pain in the ass for every single user who has to do it (They don't know the command is They may not also know that build-essential is on both the Desktop CD and Alternate CD and you don't need an internet connection to install it).

It's not about one or two users posting in this thread. It's about a whole slew of new Ubuntu users who get confused by build-essential's absence.

"If you understand the use of make you should be capable of installing it. Long arguments on subjective issues are useless. You've already wasted more of our time than it would have taken for you to install what you needed. That fact alone says it all. Get a life and move on."

Wrong, when I was new to ubuntu, I went to Nvidia's website to see what i had to do for my graphics card. there was instructions. Now I can follow instructions no problem. Except this dos like thingy told me the command Make is invalid. I was really confused. Fast forward a few months later I understand Make and now I'm developing with Linux, but it was initially very discouraging and I wasted a lot of time reinstalling Linux thinking something was messed up. It also doesn't help all the non-Ubuntu instructions include make and the distinction between Ubuntu and the rest of linux didn't seem clear becuase i assumed a derivative meant it included everything PLUS more, not somethings but not others. Sure thats a bad assumption, but I assume I was at one point the average linux noob, and if thats Ubuntu's audience then obstacles (like making most of the documentation out there worthless), why are they in there? Anyone know what they decided for Edgy?

You may indeed be even less capable than I thought. Your wasting our time with with fanatical subjectivity and a lack of objective knowledge is proved by the fact that this post is #54 for a subject barely worth three responses. I Won't be responding to this post again and will avoid comment or consideration when ever I see Method9455 is in the mix.

What's fanatical subjectivity?

Agree with fragos = "objective knowledge"?
Disagree with fragos = "fanatical subjectivity"?

Just when it was getting good!

I came here looking for help w/ Archlinux because their forum is generally full of a lack of answers and a general overtone of superiority, but their isn't much here on the distro, either. I happen to love it because I've been able to use alot of *nix documentation on it, as well as the excellent (IMO) package manager.

BUT.. needless to say, when I come to a file conflict on INSTALLATION(! - of Arch), I have to consider the possibility that I'm ready to try s/thing new. I've heard alot about Ubuntu and decided to check out this specific forum only to see that it will be quite a change from Arch. I'm very familiar w/ using "make" and "make install", etc, and to see this kind of debate over s/thing that is seemingly easy enough to do is discouraging. I'm not coming straight from windoze, so learning a distribution that doesn't use what I'm familiar w/ WILL be a bit of a pain to read through the documentation that is consistent to ONLY this distro. So I have to agree that the "ease of use" is exactly why so many criticize me and my love for Linux.

I'm not the type to simply skip over a distro just because it's different than what I'm used to. If that were the case, I never would've jumped into Linux from the windoze world to begin w/. A good debate *usually* brings out some great OBJECTIVE knowledge (like there's any other kind) while at the same time, the subjective opinions are to be expected due to our very nature of being competitive. These forums have really helped me and many others and should not be considered a "waste of time" just because s/one wants to get defensive about the distro that THEY are comfy w/.