Cannot install gems

Environment: Kubuntu Linux 13.4 | rvm 1.21.3 (stable) | ruby 1.8.7 (2013-06-27 patchlevel 374) [i686-linux]

I'm following the advice of the authors of /The Rspec Book/, and trying to recreate the environment (ruby-1.8.7 etc.) in which the book's code was run.

I can install gems in my ruby 2.0.0, but not in ruby 1.8.7. Here's an example of the problem -

Terminal output:
tomc@LT:/$ gem install rails-3.0.0 ERROR: Could not find a valid gem 'rails-3.0.0' (>= 0) in any repository ERROR: Possible alternatives: rails800 tomc@LT:/$

I'm getting that same "Could not find..." message with other gems.

Then I get this:

$ ping rubygems.org
PING rubygems.org (54.245.255.174) 56(84) bytes of data.
^C
--- rubygems.org ping statistics ---
29 packets transmitted, 0 received, 100% packet loss, time 28222ms

I don't have a deep understanding of any of this, being a rank amateur. It appears that I can get to some gems (for Ruby-2.0.0) but not for 1.8.7.

Can anyone explain this? May I expect the problem to get resolved as a matter of routine course?

t.

···

--

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tom Cloyd, MS MA
Cedar City / St. George, Utah, U.S.A: (435) 272-3332
<< tc@tomcloyd.com >> (email) << TomCloyd.com >> (website)
<< Sleightmind.com >> (mental health issues weblog)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Environment: Kubuntu Linux 13.4 | rvm 1.21.3 (stable) | ruby 1.8.7
(2013-06-27 patchlevel 374) [i686-linux]

I'm following the advice of the authors of /The Rspec Book/, and trying
to recreate the environment (ruby-1.8.7 etc.) in which the book's code
was run.

If you absolutely must... but 1.8.7 is <del>dead</del> retired.

I can install gems in my ruby 2.0.0, but not in ruby 1.8.7. Here's an
example of the problem -

Terminal output:
tomc@LT:/$ gem install rails-3.0.0 ERROR: Could not find a valid gem
'rails-3.0.0' (>= 0) in any repository ERROR: Possible alternatives:
rails800 tomc@LT:/$

I suspect you would have the same problem with ruby 2.0.0,
there is no rails-3.0.0 gem on rubygems.org.

Do you mean

  gem install rails -v 3.0.0

?

$ ping rubygems.org
PING rubygems.org (54.245.255.174) 56(84) bytes of data.
^C
--- rubygems.org ping statistics ---
29 packets transmitted, 0 received, 100% packet loss, time 28222ms

Same for me, but the site is running, and I can install gems.
Probably they don't allow ping.

Regards,
Marcus

···

Am 31.07.2013 05:20, schrieb Tom Cloyd:

--
GitHub: https://github.com/stomar/
PGP: 0x6B3A101A

Marcus - thanks for your help...

Environment: Kubuntu Linux 13.4 | rvm 1.21.3 (stable) | ruby 1.8.7
(2013-06-27 patchlevel 374) [i686-linux]

I'm following the advice of the authors of /The Rspec Book/, and trying
to recreate the environment (ruby-1.8.7 etc.) in which the book's code
was run.

If you absolutely must... but 1.8.7 is <del>dead</del> retired.

I'm well aware of this, but it IS the version used in the book, which we are urged to use. I will be running the book's code on Ruby 2.0.0 as well.

I can install gems in my ruby 2.0.0, but not in ruby 1.8.7. Here's an
example of the problem -

Terminal output:
tomc@LT:/$ gem install rails-3.0.0 ERROR: Could not find a valid gem
'rails-3.0.0' (>= 0) in any repository ERROR: Possible alternatives:
rails800 tomc@LT:/$

I suspect you would have the same problem with ruby 2.0.0,
there is no rails-3.0.0 gem on rubygems.org.

Do you mean

   gem install rails -v 3.0.0

Yes, that works. Regrettably, my life offers me irregular periods with which to work with Ruby, and in between these periods I forget things. I was clearly using the gem install command incorrectly.

?

$ ping rubygems.org
PING rubygems.org (54.245.255.174) 56(84) bytes of data.
^C
--- rubygems.org ping statistics ---
29 packets transmitted, 0 received, 100% packet loss, time 28222ms

Same for me, but the site is running, and I can install gems.
Probably they don't allow ping.

It appears I have been misled by Mr. Google!

Thanks for your help.

Tom

···

On 07/31/2013 06:00 AM, sto.mar@web.de wrote:

Am 31.07.2013 05:20, schrieb Tom Cloyd:

Well, they do say that, but that book was published in 2010, which means it was finished in 2009, starting when (2005?) that old code was the leading edge.

It may hold true that you might understand the code better if you work in the same versions, however, how long can that possibly hold true for? Hopefully, the authors will come up with an update (it *is* needed for the code alone).

But I also think that admonition is false. You do not need to use their exact same versions at all to get good learning from that book. The best way I've found is to treat it not as a reference, but as a text book.

Here, really, lies the question: do you want to curtail your learning chances by adhering strictly to a (strong) suggestion from a book that is out of date, or get on with learning things using what is current?

···

On Jul 31, 2013, at 10:48 AM, Tom Cloyd <tomcloydmsma@gmail.com> wrote:

Marcus - thanks for your help...

On 07/31/2013 06:00 AM, sto.mar@web.de wrote:

Am 31.07.2013 05:20, schrieb Tom Cloyd:

Environment: Kubuntu Linux 13.4 | rvm 1.21.3 (stable) | ruby 1.8.7
(2013-06-27 patchlevel 374) [i686-linux]

I'm following the advice of the authors of /The Rspec Book/, and trying
to recreate the environment (ruby-1.8.7 etc.) in which the book's code
was run.

If you absolutely must... but 1.8.7 is <del>dead</del> retired.

I'm well aware of this, but it IS the version used in the book, which we are urged to use. I will be running the book's code on Ruby 2.0.0 as well.

Tamara,

Thanks for your thoughtful and useful response, which I only just now saw. Much appreciated.

My root problem is that I'm a busy psychotherapist, with little time but a strong desire to keep learning about programming and ruby. Having watched ruby a lot, and used it very successfully for a few important personal projects and explorations, I'm more than sold on its value to me. Then, watching rspec and cucumber for a while, and having finally become convinced that I need to learn test-driven development, I buy the rspec book, as it appears to be the best way up the mountain.

But I labor always with the handicap of being a perpetual amateur in this domain, so my judgment here is not what I would like. I'm grateful to have access to this and other related discussion lists, for that reason. I continue to marvel at the fact that people genuinely like helping others. In my own field, I do a lot of free advising. Just can't resist, so I DO "get it".

After some thought, I reached the same conclusion you advise above: going ahead with current versions risks little, and the learning is surely going to be more reliably relevant to the current state of things. PLUS, if/when I'm bewildered by something, I can come here. And, so far, there have been no problems.

I'm enjoy the book enormously. It's far more valuable to me than I anticipated. All in all, a great experience. Finding time to make progress continues to be a problem. I just have to do a little at a time.

Tom

···

On 07/31/2013 07:19 PM, Tamara Temple wrote:

On Jul 31, 2013, at 10:48 AM, Tom Cloyd <tomcloydmsma@gmail.com> wrote:

Marcus - thanks for your help...

On 07/31/2013 06:00 AM, sto.mar@web.de wrote:

Am 31.07.2013 05:20, schrieb Tom Cloyd:

Environment: Kubuntu Linux 13.4 | rvm 1.21.3 (stable) | ruby 1.8.7
(2013-06-27 patchlevel 374) [i686-linux]

I'm following the advice of the authors of /The Rspec Book/, and trying
to recreate the environment (ruby-1.8.7 etc.) in which the book's code
was run.

If you absolutely must... but 1.8.7 is <del>dead</del> retired.

I'm well aware of this, but it IS the version used in the book, which we are urged to use. I will be running the book's code on Ruby 2.0.0 as well.

Well, they do say that, but that book was published in 2010, which means it was finished in 2009, starting when (2005?) that old code was the leading edge.

It may hold true that you might understand the code better if you work in the same versions, however, how long can that possibly hold true for? Hopefully, the authors will come up with an update (it *is* needed for the code alone).

But I also think that admonition is false. You do not need to use their exact same versions at all to get good learning from that book. The best way I've found is to treat it not as a reference, but as a text book.

Here, really, lies the question: do you want to curtail your learning chances by adhering strictly to a (strong) suggestion from a book that is out of date, or get on with learning things using what is current?

--

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tom Cloyd, MS MA
Cedar City / St. George, Utah, U.S.A: (435) 272-3332
<< tc@tomcloyd.com >> (email) << TomCloyd.com >> (website)
<< Sleightmind.com >> (mental health issues weblog)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Tamara,

Thanks for your thoughtful and useful response, which I only just now saw. Much appreciated.

My root problem is that I'm a busy psychotherapist, with little time but a strong desire to keep learning about programming and ruby. Having watched ruby a lot, and used it very successfully for a few important personal projects and explorations, I'm more than sold on its value to me. Then, watching rspec and cucumber for a while, and having finally become convinced that I need to learn test-driven development, I buy the rspec book, as it appears to be the best way up the mountain.

But I labor always with the handicap of being a perpetual amateur in this domain, so my judgment here is not what I would like. I'm grateful to have access to this and other related discussion lists, for that reason. I continue to marvel at the fact that people genuinely like helping others. In my own field, I do a lot of free advising. Just can't resist, so I DO "get it".

After some thought, I reached the same conclusion you advise above: going ahead with current versions risks little, and the learning is surely going to be more reliably relevant to the current state of things. PLUS, if/when I'm bewildered by something, I can come here. And, so far, there have been no problems.

I'm enjoy the book enormously. It's far more valuable to me than I anticipated. All in all, a great experience. Finding time to make progress continues to be a problem. I just have to do a little at a time.

Tom

···

On 07/31/2013 07:19 PM, Tamara Temple wrote:

On Jul 31, 2013, at 10:48 AM, Tom Cloyd <tomcloydmsma@gmail.com> wrote:

Marcus - thanks for your help...

On 07/31/2013 06:00 AM, sto.mar@web.de wrote:

Am 31.07.2013 05:20, schrieb Tom Cloyd:

Environment: Kubuntu Linux 13.4 | rvm 1.21.3 (stable) | ruby 1.8.7
(2013-06-27 patchlevel 374) [i686-linux]

I'm following the advice of the authors of /The Rspec Book/, and trying
to recreate the environment (ruby-1.8.7 etc.) in which the book's code
was run.

If you absolutely must... but 1.8.7 is <del>dead</del> retired.

I'm well aware of this, but it IS the version used in the book, which we are urged to use. I will be running the book's code on Ruby 2.0.0 as well.

Well, they do say that, but that book was published in 2010, which means it was finished in 2009, starting when (2005?) that old code was the leading edge.

It may hold true that you might understand the code better if you work in the same versions, however, how long can that possibly hold true for? Hopefully, the authors will come up with an update (it *is* needed for the code alone).

But I also think that admonition is false. You do not need to use their exact same versions at all to get good learning from that book. The best way I've found is to treat it not as a reference, but as a text book.

Here, really, lies the question: do you want to curtail your learning chances by adhering strictly to a (strong) suggestion from a book that is out of date, or get on with learning things using what is current?

--

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tom Cloyd, MS MA
Cedar City / St. George, Utah, U.S.A: (435) 272-3332
<< tc@tomcloyd.com >> (email) << TomCloyd.com >> (website)
<< Sleightmind.com >> (mental health issues weblog)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

That is great, Tom. I want to point out that (at least to me) *THE* single most important statement in that book comes at the end of Robert Martin's forward and *really* gets to the heart of the matter.

···

On Aug 12, 2013, at 12:24 PM, Tom Cloyd <tomcloydmsma@gmail.com> wrote:

On 07/31/2013 07:19 PM, Tamara Temple wrote:

On Jul 31, 2013, at 10:48 AM, Tom Cloyd <tomcloydmsma@gmail.com> wrote:

Marcus - thanks for your help...

On 07/31/2013 06:00 AM, sto.mar@web.de wrote:

Am 31.07.2013 05:20, schrieb Tom Cloyd:

Environment: Kubuntu Linux 13.4 | rvm 1.21.3 (stable) | ruby 1.8.7
(2013-06-27 patchlevel 374) [i686-linux]

I'm following the advice of the authors of /The Rspec Book/, and trying
to recreate the environment (ruby-1.8.7 etc.) in which the book's code
was run.

If you absolutely must... but 1.8.7 is <del>dead</del> retired.

I'm well aware of this, but it IS the version used in the book, which we are urged to use. I will be running the book's code on Ruby 2.0.0 as well.

Well, they do say that, but that book was published in 2010, which means it was finished in 2009, starting when (2005?) that old code was the leading edge.

It may hold true that you might understand the code better if you work in the same versions, however, how long can that possibly hold true for? Hopefully, the authors will come up with an update (it *is* needed for the code alone).

But I also think that admonition is false. You do not need to use their exact same versions at all to get good learning from that book. The best way I've found is to treat it not as a reference, but as a text book.

Here, really, lies the question: do you want to curtail your learning chances by adhering strictly to a (strong) suggestion from a book that is out of date, or get on with learning things using what is current?

Tamara,

Thanks for your thoughtful and useful response, which I only just now saw. Much appreciated.

My root problem is that I'm a busy psychotherapist, with little time but a strong desire to keep learning about programming and ruby. Having watched ruby a lot, and used it very successfully for a few important personal projects and explorations, I'm more than sold on its value to me. Then, watching rspec and cucumber for a while, and having finally become convinced that I need to learn test-driven development, I buy the rspec book, as it appears to be the best way up the mountain.

But I labor always with the handicap of being a perpetual amateur in this domain, so my judgment here is not what I would like. I'm grateful to have access to this and other related discussion lists, for that reason. I continue to marvel at the fact that people genuinely like helping others. In my own field, I do a lot of free advising. Just can't resist, so I DO "get it".

After some thought, I reached the same conclusion you advise above: going ahead with current versions risks little, and the learning is surely going to be more reliably relevant to the current state of things. PLUS, if/when I'm bewildered by something, I can come here. And, so far, there have been no problems.

I'm enjoy the book enormously. It's far more valuable to me than I anticipated. All in all, a great experience. Finding time to make progress continues to be a problem. I just have to do a little at a time.

Tom

You nailed it. That sense of good design - craftsmanship, in short - it what got me INTO Ruby, and then again, after some months of slow deliberation, into RSpec/Cucumber. I'm a sucker for good thinking and lean design. I'm totally loving what I'm learning, just about good programming practice, from the RSpec book. As a perpetual amateur, this is the best stuff I've yet encountered, and it's already serious changing how I think about the personal programs I write. I'm very grateful!

t.

···

On 08/12/2013 09:26 PM, Tamara Temple wrote:

On Aug 12, 2013, at 12:24 PM, Tom Cloyd <tomcloydmsma@gmail.com> wrote:

On 07/31/2013 07:19 PM, Tamara Temple wrote:

On Jul 31, 2013, at 10:48 AM, Tom Cloyd <tomcloydmsma@gmail.com> wrote:

Marcus - thanks for your help...

On 07/31/2013 06:00 AM, sto.mar@web.de wrote:

Am 31.07.2013 05:20, schrieb Tom Cloyd:

Environment: Kubuntu Linux 13.4 | rvm 1.21.3 (stable) | ruby 1.8.7
(2013-06-27 patchlevel 374) [i686-linux]

I'm following the advice of the authors of /The Rspec Book/, and trying
to recreate the environment (ruby-1.8.7 etc.) in which the book's code
was run.

If you absolutely must... but 1.8.7 is <del>dead</del> retired.

I'm well aware of this, but it IS the version used in the book, which we are urged to use. I will be running the book's code on Ruby 2.0.0 as well.

Well, they do say that, but that book was published in 2010, which means it was finished in 2009, starting when (2005?) that old code was the leading edge.

It may hold true that you might understand the code better if you work in the same versions, however, how long can that possibly hold true for? Hopefully, the authors will come up with an update (it *is* needed for the code alone).

But I also think that admonition is false. You do not need to use their exact same versions at all to get good learning from that book. The best way I've found is to treat it not as a reference, but as a text book.

Here, really, lies the question: do you want to curtail your learning chances by adhering strictly to a (strong) suggestion from a book that is out of date, or get on with learning things using what is current?

Tamara,

Thanks for your thoughtful and useful response, which I only just now saw. Much appreciated.

My root problem is that I'm a busy psychotherapist, with little time but a strong desire to keep learning about programming and ruby. Having watched ruby a lot, and used it very successfully for a few important personal projects and explorations, I'm more than sold on its value to me. Then, watching rspec and cucumber for a while, and having finally become convinced that I need to learn test-driven development, I buy the rspec book, as it appears to be the best way up the mountain.

But I labor always with the handicap of being a perpetual amateur in this domain, so my judgment here is not what I would like. I'm grateful to have access to this and other related discussion lists, for that reason. I continue to marvel at the fact that people genuinely like helping others. In my own field, I do a lot of free advising. Just can't resist, so I DO "get it".

After some thought, I reached the same conclusion you advise above: going ahead with current versions risks little, and the learning is surely going to be more reliably relevant to the current state of things. PLUS, if/when I'm bewildered by something, I can come here. And, so far, there have been no problems.

I'm enjoy the book enormously. It's far more valuable to me than I anticipated. All in all, a great experience. Finding time to make progress continues to be a problem. I just have to do a little at a time.

Tom

That is great, Tom. I want to point out that (at least to me) *THE* single most important statement in that book comes at the end of Robert Martin's forward and *really* gets to the heart of the matter.

--

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tom Cloyd, MS MA
Cedar City / St. George, Utah, U.S.A: (435) 272-3332
<< tc@tomcloyd.com >> (email) << TomCloyd.com >> (website)
<< Sleightmind.com >> (mental health issues weblog)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~