# Article on oreilly.net on how to build Unix tools with Ruby **URL:** \ **Category:** ruby-talk\ **Created:** [19 September 2003 21:00 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/article-on-oreilly-net-on-how-to-build-unix-tools-with-ruby/8163 "2003-09-19T21:00:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 4\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Mike\_Stok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/50afbb/32.png) [@Mike\_Stok](https://rubytalk.org/u/Mike_Stok)\ **Post date:** [24 September 2003 11:18 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/article-on-oreilly-net-on-how-to-build-unix-tools-with-ruby/8163/21 "2003-09-24T11:18:42Z")
In article [20030923200517.A36392@freeze.org](mailto:20030923200517.A36392@freeze.org), > > - Gavin Sinclair [gsinclair@soyabean.com.au](mailto:gsinclair@soyabean.com.au) [2003-09-23 17:16]: > > > > > > 1. I wish he’d mentioned the option of using #!/usr/bin/env ruby > > > > instead of #!/usr/local/bin/ruby. > > > > > > Can someone please explain to me what /usr/bin/env/ruby does? > > Speaking of env, does this work on linux when options are passed > to ruby? > > I’m not at a linux terminal right now, but when the shebang is: > > /usr/bin/env ruby -w > > I get the error that ruby -w is not found. > The gnu manual says that it should work, but it certainly > doesn’t work as it does on FreeBSD or Sun. One way of getting arounf env’s ignoring ARGS iff you are just doing -w is to put $VERBOSE = true after the shebang line. See [http://mail.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-sh-utils/2002-04/msg00020.html](http://mail.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-sh-utils/2002-04/msg00020.html) for an explanation. Hope this helps, Mike > **···** > > Jim Freeze [jim@freeze.org](mailto:jim@freeze.org) wrote: > > > On Wednesday, 24 September 2003 at 8:24:36 +0900, Michael W Thelen wrote: > > > > > > On Wednesday, September 24, 2003, 2:33:01 AM, Paul wrote: > > – > [mike@stok.co.uk](mailto:mike@stok.co.uk) | The “`Stok’ disclaimers” apply. > [http://www.stok.co.uk/~mike/](http://www.stok.co.uk/~mike/) | GPG PGP Key 1024D/059913DA > [mike@exegenix.com](mailto:mike@exegenix.com) | Fingerprint 0570 71CD 6790 7C28 3D60 > [http://www.exegenix.com/](http://www.exegenix.com/) | 75D2 9EC4 C1C0 0599 13DA ---
**Author:** ![Gavin\_Sinclair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/db5fbb/32.png) [@Gavin\_Sinclair](https://rubytalk.org/u/Gavin_Sinclair)\ **Post date:** [24 September 2003 22:20 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/article-on-oreilly-net-on-how-to-build-unix-tools-with-ruby/8163/22 "2003-09-24T22:20:04Z")
> Hal Fulton wrote: (re: runix) > . > > > Finally I decided: It’s an interesting and fun activity, but it’s not > > a high priority for me. I myself am rapidly moving away from Windows, > > and it’s not usually wise to invest in the past. > Then think of it as an investment in the future. Just as you leave one > OS for another today, you may do the same in the future, even if going > from one flavor of \*nix to another. I’ve run into assorted iratation > because different 'nix do not implement all utilities quite the same > way. Whether it be grep with slighly different switches, or some > version of ifconfig, or whatever, it’s nice to have a known set of tools > that Do The Right Thing wherever they are. The GNU utilities? > […] Gavin > **···** > > On Thursday, September 25, 2003, 4:57:35 AM, James wrote: ---
**Author:** ![David\_Garamond2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/8dc957/32.png) [@David\_Garamond2](https://rubytalk.org/u/David_Garamond2)\ **Post date:** [25 September 2003 04:32 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/article-on-oreilly-net-on-how-to-build-unix-tools-with-ruby/8163/23 "2003-09-25T04:32:05Z")
Gavin Sinclair wrote: > > The aim at the time was to implement a free set of Unix-like tools > > for Windows (without the heavyweight solution of Cygwin). > > There are other (lightweight) solutions anyway: mingw and unixtools. > I see no point in a Ruby project for this; it doesn’t solve any > problems that I’ve seen come up on the list. Of course the main reason for Perl Power Tools, Runix, rpt, etc. would be only-for-fun hacking (or, in Perl lingo, “hubris”). After all, when Ruby is available in a platform, wouldn’t a C compiler be too? Also, most of the Unix tools are already established and the fast-to-prototype-and-change nature of Ruby wouldn’t help much here. > **···** > > – > dave ---
**Author:** ![Jim\_Freeze2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e480ec/32.png) [@Jim\_Freeze2](https://rubytalk.org/u/Jim_Freeze2)\ **Post date:** [24 September 2003 13:13 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/article-on-oreilly-net-on-how-to-build-unix-tools-with-ruby/8163/24 "2003-09-24T13:13:47Z")
Yes, that is our current work around. It’s probably the better convention because it is reliable for all platforms. > **···** > > On Wednesday, 24 September 2003 at 20:18:42 +0900, Mike Stok wrote: > > > In article [20030923200517.A36392@freeze.org](mailto:20030923200517.A36392@freeze.org), > > > > > I get the error that ruby -w is not found. > > > The gnu manual says that it should work, but it certainly > > > doesn’t work as it does on FreeBSD or Sun. > > > > One way of getting arounf env’s ignoring ARGS iff you are just doing -w > > is to put > > > > $VERBOSE = true > > > > after the shebang line. See > > ## – Jim Freeze > > All things are possible, except skiing thru a revolving door. [Previous page](https://rubytalk.org/t/article-on-oreilly-net-on-how-to-build-unix-tools-with-ruby/8163.md?page=1)