What are some of the better linux distro's for ruby development? I know some seem to have crippled packages or missing current versions and such. I am just looking for a solid linux distro to install so i can really get to know Ruby.
Thanks,
-Nick
Use RVM to manage your ruby versions, then you'll find all the Linux
distro are same for Ruby development.
If you're newbie to Linux, use ubuntu 10.10 will be a good choice.
···
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 10:40 AM, Nick Hird <boondox@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote:
What are some of the better linux distro's for ruby development? I know some
seem to have crippled packages or missing current versions and such. I am
just looking for a solid linux distro to install so i can really get to know
Ruby.
--
Twitter: @ghosTM55
Facebook.com/ghosThomas
Mechanism, not policy
Hi,
I use Debian sid, and see no problem developing in Ruby.
matz.
···
In message "Re: Best Linux Distro for Ruby?" on Sun, 2 Jan 2011 11:40:20 +0900, Nick Hird <boondox@sdf.lonestar.org> writes:
What are some of the better linux distro's for ruby development? I know
some seem to have crippled packages or missing current versions and such.
I am just looking for a solid linux distro to install so i can really get
to know Ruby.
Thanks,
-Nick
Nick Hird wrote in post #971817:
What are some of the better linux distro's for ruby development? I know
some seem to have crippled packages or missing current versions and
such.
I am just looking for a solid linux distro to install so i can really
get
to know Ruby.
Thanks,
-Nick
I've been using Arch Linux and Ruby 1.9.2 for development, and also have
some sites deployed on Rackspace without any problems. I originally
came to Arch from FreeBSD.
···
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/\.
Nick Hird wrote in post #971817:
What are some of the better linux distro's for ruby development?
I use Ubuntu, everything's fine.
···
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/\.
I think Ubuntu is a little confusing to new Ruby developers. I
personally wouldn't recommend it. Some things that bug me about it
(coming from a Windows background using Ruby)
1. Ubuntu has a Ruby 1.9.1 package that you can install, which is
really Ruby 1.9.2 but when you install it using Synaptic Package Manager
the system also installs Ruby 1.8.7 and then requires you to fiddle
with the symbolic links on the path of Gem and Ruby executables. Also,
the --update flag for ruby commands wont work if you install that way.
Its annoying.
2. RVM may be the way to go but Ubuntu doesn't have a default package
for installing it via Synaptic Package Manager. Another annoyance.
So, im investigating other distros. My guess is that astandard install
of Debian will be the way to go. Fedora seemed a little behind the
times on providing recent packages also.
If I am going to use RVM then I'll use a system which seems to expect it
.
···
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
I've got rvm set up on Funtoo, Mac OSX and FreeBSD.
Funtoo portage, Darwin ports, and FreeBSD ports of ruby 1.8.7 and
1.9.2 are up to date and work as expected. FreeBSD is set up with
multiple jails with both system based ruby and rvm installed.
If your worried about what you call crippled packages consider using a
source based OS or just use rvm to build the source for you.
···
~
On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 8:44 PM, Thomas Yao <t.yao426@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 10:40 AM, Nick Hird <boondox@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote:
What are some of the better linux distro's for ruby development? I know some
seem to have crippled packages or missing current versions and such. I am
just looking for a solid linux distro to install so i can really get to know
Ruby.Use RVM to manage your ruby versions, then you'll find all the Linux
distro are same for Ruby development.
If you're newbie to Linux, use ubuntu 10.10 will be a good choice.--
Twitter: @ghosTM55
Facebook.com/ghosThomasMechanism, not policy
Or kubuntu 
···
On Jan 2, 5:44 am, Thomas Yao <t.yao...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 10:40 AM, Nick Hird <boon...@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote:
If you're newbie to Linux, use ubuntu 10.10 will be a good choice.
Hello djangofan!
Nothing wrong with a software developer looking up and installing some
dependencies once in awhile. rvm is simply a set of bash scripts.
does it matter if you install it via git directly or synaptic.
···
On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 4:10 PM, Jon W. <djangofan@gmail.com> wrote:
If I am going to use RVM then I'll use a system which seems to expect it
If you go with Debian, please check out sid distribution. Sid is more experimental than standard but has mono-vbnc available while standard doesn't. I once had sid running for nearly two years with no problems.
···
-----Original Message-----
From: Jon W. [mailto:djangofan@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 09, 2011 17:10
To: ruby-talk ML
Subject: Re: Best Linux Distro for Ruby?
I think Ubuntu is a little confusing to new Ruby developers. I
personally wouldn't recommend it. Some things that bug me about it
(coming from a Windows background using Ruby)
1. Ubuntu has a Ruby 1.9.1 package that you can install, which is
really Ruby 1.9.2 but when you install it using Synaptic Package Manager
the system also installs Ruby 1.8.7 and then requires you to fiddle
with the symbolic links on the path of Gem and Ruby executables. Also,
the --update flag for ruby commands wont work if you install that way.
Its annoying.
2. RVM may be the way to go but Ubuntu doesn't have a default package
for installing it via Synaptic Package Manager. Another annoyance.
So, im investigating other distros. My guess is that astandard install
of Debian will be the way to go. Fedora seemed a little behind the
times on providing recent packages also.
If I am going to use RVM then I'll use a system which seems to expect it
.
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
Hi Jon,
I've got a CentOS 5 server running Ruby 1.9.2 no problem. The only
package available is 1.8.5, so I needed to build from source, but it's
straighforward enough. (I'm from Windows, moved to Linux a few months
ago knowing nothing about 'nix - a little investigation with; a few
good books, and mostly googling, got me the information required to
build from source with required dependencies installed first.)
I also have Ubuntu 10.04 and 10.10 locally with RVM installed on both
and running different Ruby versions with different Gem's. Everything
works fine.
I want to try to build from source on Ubuntu - because I want to
learn, (I've decided Windows is crap (especially for ruby) IMHO since
moving to *nix - but in the meantime, RVM is ideal for me on Ubuntu.
Best
Paul
···
On Jan 9, 10:10 pm, "Jon W." <django...@gmail.com> wrote:
I think Ubuntu is a little confusing to new Ruby developers. I
personally wouldn't recommend it. Some things that bug me about it
(coming from a Windows background using Ruby)1. Ubuntu has a Ruby 1.9.1 package that you can install, which is
really Ruby 1.9.2 but when you install it using Synaptic Package Manager
the system also installs Ruby 1.8.7 and then requires you to fiddle
with the symbolic links on the path of Gem and Ruby executables. Also,
the --update flag for ruby commands wont work if you install that way.
Its annoying.2. RVM may be the way to go but Ubuntu doesn't have a default package
for installing it via Synaptic Package Manager. Another annoyance.So, im investigating other distros. My guess is that astandard install
of Debian will be the way to go. Fedora seemed a little behind the
times on providing recent packages also.If I am going to use RVM then I'll use a system which seems to expect it
Jon ..Ubuntu is little good call for begginers...but if u want developer
seriously I recommend a light distro like Arch or Debian XFCE..But is just
my favorites...keep going with ubuntu and lear something about the package
system and search in google .
···
2011/1/9 Stu <stu@rubyprogrammer.net>
On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 4:10 PM, Jon W. <djangofan@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> If I am going to use RVM then I'll use a system which seems to expect it
>Hello djangofan!
Nothing wrong with a software developer looking up and installing some
dependencies once in awhile. rvm is simply a set of bash scripts.
does it matter if you install it via git directly or synaptic.
Gentoo is good choice. I install ruby 1.9.2 from source code.
···
-------------------------------------------------------
Blog: http://douhua.im
Twitter: http://twitter.com/genedna
Website: http://douhua.im
-------------------------------------------------------
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 11:25 PM, paul h <paul@hollyer.me.uk> wrote:
On Jan 9, 10:10 pm, "Jon W." <django...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think Ubuntu is a little confusing to new Ruby developers. I
> personally wouldn't recommend it. Some things that bug me about it
> (coming from a Windows background using Ruby)
>
> 1. Ubuntu has a Ruby 1.9.1 package that you can install, which is
> really Ruby 1.9.2 but when you install it using Synaptic Package Manager
> the system also installs Ruby 1.8.7 and then requires you to fiddle
> with the symbolic links on the path of Gem and Ruby executables. Also,
> the --update flag for ruby commands wont work if you install that way.
> Its annoying.
>
> 2. RVM may be the way to go but Ubuntu doesn't have a default package
> for installing it via Synaptic Package Manager. Another annoyance.
>
> So, im investigating other distros. My guess is that astandard install
> of Debian will be the way to go. Fedora seemed a little behind the
> times on providing recent packages also.
>
> If I am going to use RVM then I'll use a system which seems to expect it
Hi Jon,I've got a CentOS 5 server running Ruby 1.9.2 no problem. The only
package available is 1.8.5, so I needed to build from source, but it's
straighforward enough. (I'm from Windows, moved to Linux a few months
ago knowing nothing about 'nix - a little investigation with; a few
good books, and mostly googling, got me the information required to
build from source with required dependencies installed first.)I also have Ubuntu 10.04 and 10.10 locally with RVM installed on both
and running different Ruby versions with different Gem's. Everything
works fine.I want to try to build from source on Ubuntu - because I want to
learn, (I've decided Windows is crap (especially for ruby) IMHO since
moving to *nix - but in the meantime, RVM is ideal for me on Ubuntu.Best
Paul
Check out ArchLinux, their package is pretty much pristine and tracks
1.9 (current 1.9.2-p136)
···
2011/1/13 meaglith <genednaparadox@gmail.com>:
Gentoo is good choice. I install ruby 1.9.2 from source code.
-------------------------------------------------------
Blog: http://douhua.im
Twitter: http://twitter.com/genedna
Website: http://douhua.im
-------------------------------------------------------On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 11:25 PM, paul h <paul@hollyer.me.uk> wrote:
On Jan 9, 10:10 pm, "Jon W." <django...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think Ubuntu is a little confusing to new Ruby developers. I
> personally wouldn't recommend it. Some things that bug me about it
> (coming from a Windows background using Ruby)
>
> 1. Ubuntu has a Ruby 1.9.1 package that you can install, which is
> really Ruby 1.9.2 but when you install it using Synaptic Package Manager
> the system also installs Ruby 1.8.7 and then requires you to fiddle
> with the symbolic links on the path of Gem and Ruby executables. Also,
> the --update flag for ruby commands wont work if you install that way.
> Its annoying.
>
> 2. RVM may be the way to go but Ubuntu doesn't have a default package
> for installing it via Synaptic Package Manager. Another annoyance.
>
> So, im investigating other distros. My guess is that astandard install
> of Debian will be the way to go. Fedora seemed a little behind the
> times on providing recent packages also.
>
> If I am going to use RVM then I'll use a system which seems to expect it
Hi Jon,I've got a CentOS 5 server running Ruby 1.9.2 no problem. The only
package available is 1.8.5, so I needed to build from source, but it's
straighforward enough. (I'm from Windows, moved to Linux a few months
ago knowing nothing about 'nix - a little investigation with; a few
good books, and mostly googling, got me the information required to
build from source with required dependencies installed first.)I also have Ubuntu 10.04 and 10.10 locally with RVM installed on both
and running different Ruby versions with different Gem's. Everything
works fine.I want to try to build from source on Ubuntu - because I want to
learn, (I've decided Windows is crap (especially for ruby) IMHO since
moving to *nix - but in the meantime, RVM is ideal for me on Ubuntu.Best
Paul
I have installed Ruby, Rails, and related dependencies on Ubuntu 10.04,
10.10 and ArchLinux. ArchLinux was a bit easier. I ended up purging
everything I had installed from the Ubuntu repositories and just relied
solely on RVM.
Regardless of the distro I believe using RVM is a good course of action.
Not only for being able to switch between versions, but because it has many
more useful features available. You can still use your distro's package
manger and repositories, but RVM's sole purpose is really a ruby/rails
package manager, so is more feature rich in terms of how you install/manage
ruby/rails.
I guess my opinion here would be to stick with whatever distro you like...
and rely on RVM.
Culley
···
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 12:40 PM, Jonas Pfenniger (zimbatm) < jonas@pfenniger.name> wrote:
Check out ArchLinux, their package is pretty much pristine and tracks
1.9 (current 1.9.2-p136)2011/1/13 meaglith <genednaparadox@gmail.com>:
> Gentoo is good choice. I install ruby 1.9.2 from source code.
> -------------------------------------------------------
> Blog: http://douhua.im
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/genedna
> Website: http://douhua.im
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 11:25 PM, paul h <paul@hollyer.me.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Jan 9, 10:10 pm, "Jon W." <django...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > I think Ubuntu is a little confusing to new Ruby developers. I
>> > personally wouldn't recommend it. Some things that bug me about it
>> > (coming from a Windows background using Ruby)
>> >
>> > 1. Ubuntu has a Ruby 1.9.1 package that you can install, which is
>> > really Ruby 1.9.2 but when you install it using Synaptic Package
Manager
>> > the system also installs Ruby 1.8.7 and then requires you to fiddle
>> > with the symbolic links on the path of Gem and Ruby executables.
Also,
>> > the --update flag for ruby commands wont work if you install that
way.
>> > Its annoying.
>> >
>> > 2. RVM may be the way to go but Ubuntu doesn't have a default
package
>> > for installing it via Synaptic Package Manager. Another annoyance.
>> >
>> > So, im investigating other distros. My guess is that astandard
install
>> > of Debian will be the way to go. Fedora seemed a little behind the
>> > times on providing recent packages also.
>> >
>> > If I am going to use RVM then I'll use a system which seems to expect
it
>> Hi Jon,
>>
>> I've got a CentOS 5 server running Ruby 1.9.2 no problem. The only
>> package available is 1.8.5, so I needed to build from source, but it's
>> straighforward enough. (I'm from Windows, moved to Linux a few months
>> ago knowing nothing about 'nix - a little investigation with; a few
>> good books, and mostly googling, got me the information required to
>> build from source with required dependencies installed first.)
>>
>> I also have Ubuntu 10.04 and 10.10 locally with RVM installed on both
>> and running different Ruby versions with different Gem's. Everything
>> works fine.
>>
>> I want to try to build from source on Ubuntu - because I want to
>> learn, (I've decided Windows is crap (especially for ruby) IMHO since
>> moving to *nix - but in the meantime, RVM is ideal for me on Ubuntu.
>>
>> Best
>>
>> Paul
>>
>>
>>
>