Hello,
Which Operating System is the best to deal with Ruby/Rails ?
Thank's
/Cédric
For the most part, Ubuntu works well.
···
On 24 May 2017 at 00:43, Cédric <ruby@e-solutions.re> wrote:
Hello,
Which Operating System is the best to deal with Ruby/Rails ?
Thank's
/Cédric
Unsubscribe: <mailto:ruby-talk-request@ruby-lang.org?subject=unsubscribe>
<http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-talk>
Linux mint also better option.
···
On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Damian Simon Peter < damiansimonpeter@gmail.com> wrote:
For the most part, Ubuntu works well.
On 24 May 2017 at 00:43, Cédric <ruby@e-solutions.re> wrote:
Hello,
Which Operating System is the best to deal with Ruby/Rails ?
Thank's
/Cédric
Unsubscribe: <mailto:ruby-talk-request@ruby-lang.org?subject=unsubscribe>
<http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-talk>Unsubscribe: <mailto:ruby-talk-request@ruby-lang.org?subject=unsubscribe>
<http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-talk>
--
Thanks
Ramaprasad A R
9738735077
Skype : aprasad1221
The best OS to use for Ruby if you are using Rails is the same OS as the
server you are developing on to reduce the possibility to encounter
incompatibility bugs.
For example if you are using Ubuntu Server 16.04 for your
production/staging environments your best bet is to choose Ubuntu Desktop
16.04.
Another good option if you don't want/like Linux have a good machine or you
are not using an IDE is to use Vagrant that has Ubuntu Server (or whatever
you choose for your box) and you map a local folder to that server.
That way you only run your console commands in your Vagrant box and you
code in your host OS (which for example can be Windows).
If you are starting and you want to get better and more skilled (but have
to learn more and go through some growing pains) I would suggest to go with
a Linux distro for your development environment, that way you will be well
equipped to deal with server issues when those will appear.
Cheers, Bud.
I also heard people say Ubunty is the best for Rails.
As for me, I as a very beginner, already installed Rails on Win 10 and then
will see how will it all work..
···
On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 1:56 PM, Mugurel Chirica <chirica.mugurel@gmail.com> wrote:
The best OS to use for Ruby if you are using Rails is the same OS as the
server you are developing on to reduce the possibility to encounter
incompatibility bugs.For example if you are using Ubuntu Server 16.04 for your
production/staging environments your best bet is to choose Ubuntu Desktop
16.04.Another good option if you don't want/like Linux have a good machine or
you are not using an IDE is to use Vagrant that has Ubuntu Server (or
whatever you choose for your box) and you map a local folder to that server.
That way you only run your console commands in your Vagrant box and you
code in your host OS (which for example can be Windows).If you are starting and you want to get better and more skilled (but have
to learn more and go through some growing pains) I would suggest to go with
a Linux distro for your development environment, that way you will be well
equipped to deal with server issues when those will appear.Cheers, Bud.
Unsubscribe: <mailto:ruby-talk-request@ruby-lang.org?subject=unsubscribe>
<http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-talk>
Thank you very much for all your replies.
/Cédric
Cedric, something else to consider. The Linux version will likely have a
version of Ruby that you can install as a part of the package manager. Look
at the currently supported Ruby versions to ensure you're in that group.
You may, if you enjoy Ruby, want to compile a newer version than what the
OS natively provides.
Someone else said it well though; if you are going to put code on a server
you do not control, pick that OS and version of Ruby, no matter what. Being
"new and shiny" won't help if you code doesn't work.
Leam
···
On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 10:49 AM, Cédric <ruby@e-solutions.re> wrote:
Thank you very much for all your replies.
/Cédric
Unsubscribe: <mailto:ruby-talk-request@ruby-lang.org?subject=unsubscribe>
<http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-talk>
Not sure telling someone they have to learn Docker to learn Ruby will bring
more people into the fold. Even with VirtualBox you're making a new
person's burden heavy.
While Ruby on Windows isn't great, it can get them started.
···
On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 12:23 PM, Konstantin Kozhin <konstantin@profitco.ru> wrote:
Hi,
My 5 cents regarding virtualisation solution.
For ruby (or any other language) development docker is much more
convenient than virtualbox.
One more confusing, contradictory opinion to add to the mix:
You might *not* want to use Windows, unless that is your target environment, because some gems (Ruby libraries) behave differently, or just plain don’t work, under Windows.
If you don’t have a “Target Environment”, a place that your code is supposed to run other than your development box, and you are learning Rails or web development generally as opposed to just Ruby, then I would definitely recommend installing VirtualBox under Windows, and putting some sort of Linux on it.
That way you can have a (virtual) server to deploy to when you “release” your code to “production”. In other words, use a virtual server to give you a pretence of what you would have if you were developing a web site for real.
···
From: ruby-talk [mailto:ruby-talk-bounces@ruby-lang.org] On Behalf Of leam hall
Sent: 24 May 2017 15:55
To: ruby@e-solutions.re; Ruby users
Subject: Re: OS to develop with Ruby/Rails
Cedric, something else to consider. The Linux version will likely have a version of Ruby that you can install as a part of the package manager. Look at the currently supported Ruby versions to ensure you're in that group. You may, if you enjoy Ruby, want to compile a newer version than what the OS natively provides.
Someone else said it well though; if you are going to put code on a server you do not control, pick that OS and version of Ruby, no matter what. Being "new and shiny" won't help if you code doesn't work.
Leam
On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 10:49 AM, Cédric <ruby@e-solutions.re<mailto:ruby@e-solutions.re>> wrote:
Thank you very much for all your replies.
/Cédric
Unsubscribe: <mailto:ruby-talk-request@ruby-lang.org<mailto:ruby-talk-request@ruby-lang.org>?subject=unsubscribe>
<http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-talk>
Click here to view Company Information and Confidentiality Notice.<http://www.jameshall.co.uk/index.php/small-print/email-disclaimer>
Hi,
My 5 cents regarding virtualisation solution.
For ruby (or any other language) development docker is much more convenient
than virtualbox.
The main problem of using a virtual server is code syncing problem between
local machine and virtual server. With docker it is possible to use local
folders inside docker container without all those ftp, sftp, rsync,
dropbox, etc.
In docker containers you may have any os or environment setup you need.
I'm running rails apps in debian docker containers under macos x. With
docker host os doesn't matter.
···
On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 6:05 PM Andy Jones <Andy.Jones@jameshall.co.uk> wrote:
One more confusing, contradictory opinion to add to the mix:
You might **not** want to use Windows, unless that is your target
environment, because some gems (Ruby libraries) behave differently, or just
plain don’t work, under Windows.If you don’t have a “Target Environment”, a place that your code is
supposed to run other than your development box, and you are learning Rails
or web development generally as opposed to just Ruby, then I would
definitely recommend installing VirtualBox under Windows, and putting some
sort of Linux on it.That way you can have a (virtual) server to deploy to when you “release”
your code to “production”. In other words, use a virtual server to give
you a pretence of what you would have if you were developing a web site for
real.*From:* ruby-talk [mailto:ruby-talk-bounces@ruby-lang.org] *On Behalf Of *leam
hall
*Sent:* 24 May 2017 15:55
*To:* ruby@e-solutions.re; Ruby users
*Subject:* Re: OS to develop with Ruby/RailsCedric, something else to consider. The Linux version will likely have a
version of Ruby that you can install as a part of the package manager. Look
at the currently supported Ruby versions to ensure you're in that group.
You may, if you enjoy Ruby, want to compile a newer version than what the
OS natively provides.Someone else said it well though; if you are going to put code on a server
you do not control, pick that OS and version of Ruby, no matter what. Being
"new and shiny" won't help if you code doesn't work.Leam
On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 10:49 AM, Cédric <ruby@e-solutions.re> wrote:
Thank you very much for all your replies.
/Cédric
Unsubscribe: <mailto:ruby-talk-request@ruby-lang.org?subject=unsubscribe>
<http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-talk>Click here to view Company Information and Confidentiality Notice.
<http://www.jameshall.co.uk/index.php/small-print/email-disclaimer>Unsubscribe: <mailto:ruby-talk-request@ruby-lang.org?subject=unsubscribe>
<http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-talk>
Good point Leam, however, there is a "gotcha" - most of the versions of Ruby installed as part of a distro tend to be "locked down", to the point of refusing to allow the user to install Gems, for example. So, back to version mangers then!
I have used Ruby on Rails on Windows (was XP at the time) - my problem with Rails, is/was that it keeps changing so that stuff that used to work does not work any more. I know bug-fixes etc are necessary, but keeping Rails up to date seemed to be a full time job.
···
On 24/05/2017 15:55, leam hall wrote:
Cedric, something else to consider. The Linux version will likely have a version of Ruby that you can install as a part of the package manager. Look at the currently supported Ruby versions to ensure you're in that group. You may, if you enjoy Ruby, want to compile a newer version than what the OS natively provides.
Someone else said it well though; if you are going to put code on a server you do not control, pick that OS and version of Ruby, no matter what. Being "new and shiny" won't help if you code doesn't work.
Leam
On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 10:49 AM, Cédric <ruby@e-solutions.re > <mailto:ruby@e-solutions.re>> wrote:
Thank you very much for all your replies.
/Cédric
Unsubscribe: <mailto:ruby-talk-request@ruby-lang.org
<mailto:ruby-talk-request@ruby-lang.org>?subject=unsubscribe>
<http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-talk
<http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-talk>>Unsubscribe: <mailto:ruby-talk-request@ruby-lang.org?subject=unsubscribe>
<http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-talk>
--
Patrick Bayford
For ruby (or any other language) development docker is much more convenient
than virtualbox.
I disagree. IMO installing a Linux in a VM once and then working there
is much easier than fiddling with Docker, learning all the commands,
handle registry etc.
The main problem of using a virtual server is code syncing problem between
local machine and virtual server.
Not, if you do all the work in the VM. With VirtualBox you can even
use the seamless mode and have windows from the host and guest on the
screen.
With docker it is possible to use local
folders inside docker container without all those ftp, sftp, rsync, dropbox,
etc.
You can mount directories in a VirtualBox guest. That is as easy as
doing it with Docker.
In docker containers you may have any os or environment setup you need.
I'm running rails apps in debian docker containers under macos x. With
docker host os doesn't matter.
That statement is not accurate. If you need specific Linux kernel
features you need a host that has at least those features required by
the container. Also, I have yet to see how a Linux container runs on a
Windows docker host.
Kind regards
robert
···
On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 6:23 PM, Konstantin Kozhin <konstantin@profitco.ru> wrote:
--
[guy, jim, charlie].each {|him| remember.him do |as, often| as.you_can
- without end}
http://blog.rubybestpractices.com/
Ah, true! I'm used to having root. Though to be honest i try to stay near
the standard library when I can. That reduces the gems and change exposure
footprint.
···
On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Patrick Bayford <pbayford@talktalk.net> wrote:
Good point Leam, however, there is a "gotcha" - most of the versions of
Ruby installed as part of a distro tend to be "locked down", to the point
of refusing to allow the user to install Gems, for example. So, back to
version mangers then!I have used Ruby on Rails on Windows (was XP at the time) - my problem
with Rails, is/was that it keeps changing so that stuff that used to work
does not work any more. I know bug-fixes etc are necessary, but keeping
Rails up to date seemed to be a full time job.
> For ruby (or any other language) development docker is much more
convenient
> than virtualbox.I disagree. IMO installing a Linux in a VM once and then working there
is much easier than fiddling with Docker, learning all the commands,
handle registry etc.
You don't have to learn Docker commands - there is a GUI for that called
Kitematiс. It is a part of Docker Toolbox.
Starting a docker container is a matter of seconds, installing linux vm
takes minutes. Time saving is worth switching to Docker.
The only one thing there to do with Docker - learn how to build own images
with shared volumes. It will take 1-2 hours (in my case) to read the
official docs.
> The main problem of using a virtual server is code syncing problem
between
> local machine and virtual server.Not, if you do all the work in the VM. With VirtualBox you can even
use the seamless mode and have windows from the host and guest on the
screen.
Working inside VM with GUI (Gnome, KDE, etc.) will eat much more resources
(CPU, memory, etc.) than running a Docker container.
> With docker it is possible to use local
> folders inside docker container without all those ftp, sftp, rsync,
dropbox,
> etc.You can mount directories in a VirtualBox guest. That is as easy as
doing it with Docker.
Agree.
> In docker containers you may have any os or environment setup you need.
>
> I'm running rails apps in debian docker containers under macos x. With
> docker host os doesn't matter.That statement is not accurate. If you need specific Linux kernel
features you need a host that has at least those features required by
the container. Also, I have yet to see how a Linux container runs on a
Windows docker host.
For web-development purposes Docker's functionality is quite enough. For
other cases may vary.
As I know, Docker Toolbox for Windows runs on VirtualBox or Hyper-V. Both
of them support linux kernels on Windows.
···
On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 12:13 PM Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> wrote:
On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 6:23 PM, Konstantin Kozhin > <konstantin@profitco.ru> wrote:
Can you share references to some documentation of this? What I found
so far about Docker on Windows was pretty vague. Maybe my search fu is
not at 100% today. Thank you!
Kind regards
robert
···
On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 11:48 AM, Konstantin Kozhin <konstantin@profitco.ru> wrote:
For web-development purposes Docker's functionality is quite enough. For
other cases may vary.
As I know, Docker Toolbox for Windows runs on VirtualBox or Hyper-V. Both of
them support linux kernels on Windows.
--
[guy, jim, charlie].each {|him| remember.him do |as, often| as.you_can
- without end}
http://blog.rubybestpractices.com/
Some docs you may find at
Docket Hyper-V:
As I heard the latest Docker for Windows uses native Windows containers on
the latest versions of Windows but I haven't tried it yet.
···
On Thu, 25 May 2017 at 14:24, Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> wrote:
On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 11:48 AM, Konstantin Kozhin > <konstantin@profitco.ru> wrote:
> For web-development purposes Docker's functionality is quite enough. For
> other cases may vary.
> As I know, Docker Toolbox for Windows runs on VirtualBox or Hyper-V.
Both of
> them support linux kernels on Windows.Can you share references to some documentation of this? What I found
so far about Docker on Windows was pretty vague. Maybe my search fu is
not at 100% today. Thank you!Kind regards
robert
--
[guy, jim, charlie].each {|him| remember.him do |as, often| as.you_can
- without end}
http://blog.rubybestpractices.com/Unsubscribe: <mailto:ruby-talk-request@ruby-lang.org?subject=unsubscribe>
<http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-talk>
Some docs you may find at
Overview of Docker Desktop | Docker DocsDocket Hyper-V:
Using Docker Tools on Windows with Hyper-V instead of Virtualbox
Thanks a lot!
As I heard the latest Docker for Windows uses native Windows containers on
the latest versions of Windows but I haven't tried it yet.
I followed the initial link to
Sign in to Docker Desktop | Docker Docs and from there to
Install Docker Desktop on Windows | Docker Docs - that does not
sound like native containers, at least Linux containers still seem to
be run in a VM. if you think about it that is the only way it can
work, as the Windows kernel does not exhibit the same API and
functionality as the Linux kernel. So, on Windows you actually have
overhead for the single VM that all containers share (will change in
the future) and the smaller overhead for Docker container itself. That
lets installing in a VM without any Docker look not so bad in
comparison.
Cheers
robert
···
On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 2:03 PM, Konstantin Kozhin <konstantin@profitco.ru> wrote:
--
[guy, jim, charlie].each {|him| remember.him do |as, often| as.you_can
- without end}
http://blog.rubybestpractices.com/