Anyone here running the OS? Any anecdotes to share, good or bad?
E
[1] Rubyx is a Linux distro controlled by a Ruby script.
http://www.rubyx.org/
Is this distribution still maintained?
-g.
George,
Yes it is.
Andrew Walrond just send a message to the mailing list regarding a new
release very soon.
It is still very new of course. It shows a lot of promise though.
Imagine having Ruby as a given on the system. And Ruby access to the
package database. Makes writing services very clean. And packaging as
well.
···
On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 09:00:11PM +0900, George Moschovitis wrote:
Is this distribution still maintained?
-g.
--
Danie Roux *shuffle* Adore Unix
When I was peeking at it at last time, I found it quite strange that it
uses rar as its package archive format.
I'm not that orthodox about using only free software, but why to use a
propietary one with no reason? Moreover, apart from that, why to do
something in non-standard way without reason? Even if it's better than
tar.* there can't be a significant difference. I remember that I
extracted a (bz2'd) tarball of mine, re-archived with rar, and it just
grew bigger...
Apart from that, the package manager seemed to be quite clever. I also
wrote one, sharing the same basic idea, just not in ruby, but sh + c...
Csaba
···
On 2005-02-25, Danie Roux <droux@tuks.co.za> wrote:
On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 09:00:11PM +0900, George Moschovitis wrote:
Is this distribution still maintained?
-g.
George,
Yes it is.
>> Is this distribution still maintained?
>>
>> -g.
>
> George,
>
> Yes it is.When I was peeking at it at last time, I found it quite strange that it
uses rar as its package archive format.I'm not that orthodox about using only free software, but why to use a
propietary one with no reason? Moreover, apart from that, why to do
something in non-standard way without reason? Even if it's better than
tar.* there can't be a significant difference. I remember that I
extracted a (bz2'd) tarball of mine, re-archived with rar, and it just
grew bigger...Apart from that, the package manager seemed to be quite clever. I also
wrote one, sharing the same basic idea, just not in ruby, but sh + c...
It is going under a complete rewrite (still in Ruby AFAIK). The new
version will probably debut under a new name (Heretix seemed to win
out on the ML). Andrew mentioned some sort of release (preview or
not?) this week-end though as hes accomplished a lot already and has
gone through having a case of the flu I would not hold him to any
deadline.
I have been waiting on this release to begin real work on enabling
installation under the home directory of a user (not unlike
gobo-linux). I hope this will allow Heretix/Rubyx to become more
accessible to people who can't or don't want to install a separate OS
from the one they use now (limited to Linux of course, probably 2.6
too). I have all kinds of crazy ideas but this is one I want to take a
stab at (I have yet to see how easy it will be with the new design).
Also notable, WhiteWater has been working great but a new P2P system,
DRUSS, is in the works. I don't think a parallel Heretix + DRUSS
release will happen but keep you eyes open for this one.
Csaba
Brian.
···
On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 15:04:59 +0900, Csaba Henk <csaba@phony_for_avoiding_spam.org> wrote:
On 2005-02-25, Danie Roux <droux@tuks.co.za> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 09:00:11PM +0900, George Moschovitis wrote:
It is going under a complete rewrite (still in Ruby AFAIK). The new
version will probably debut under a new name (Heretix seemed to win
out on the ML). Andrew mentioned some sort of release (preview or
not?) this week-end though as hes accomplished a lot already and has
gone through having a case of the flu I would not hold him to any
deadline.
Sound interesting!
I have been waiting on this release to begin real work on enabling
installation under the home directory of a user (not unlike
gobo-linux). I hope this will allow Heretix/Rubyx to become more
accessible to people who can't or don't want to install a separate OS
from the one they use now (limited to Linux of course, probably 2.6
too). I have all kinds of crazy ideas but this is one I want to take a
stab at (I have yet to see how easy it will be with the new design).
Hm, given that it's a source-based distro, why can't you just specify
any directory as root dir? The installer can chroot to any dir to do the
job, as far as it's mounted read/write...
Or you mean, that no root privileged action is done during this type of
installation? If the user does't have root acces, how will she use it
then? Otherwise, why is it good to refrain from privileged moves? Chroot
is safe enough imho, if you just care about not messing up the base
system...
Csaba
···
On 2005-02-27, Brian Mitchell <binary42@gmail.com> wrote:
> It is going under a complete rewrite (still in Ruby AFAIK). The new
> version will probably debut under a new name (Heretix seemed to win
> out on the ML). Andrew mentioned some sort of release (preview or
> not?) this week-end though as hes accomplished a lot already and has
> gone through having a case of the flu I would not hold him to any
> deadline.Sound interesting!
And it just got more interesting. Some details have emerged on some
new features... I would read the archives of the Rubyx-ML and join
(more appropriate place for certain conversations).
>
> I have been waiting on this release to begin real work on enabling
> installation under the home directory of a user (not unlike
> gobo-linux). I hope this will allow Heretix/Rubyx to become more
> accessible to people who can't or don't want to install a separate OS
> from the one they use now (limited to Linux of course, probably 2.6
> too). I have all kinds of crazy ideas but this is one I want to take a
> stab at (I have yet to see how easy it will be with the new design).Hm, given that it's a source-based distro, why can't you just specify
any directory as root dir? The installer can chroot to any dir to do the
job, as far as it's mounted read/write...Or you mean, that no root privileged action is done during this type of
installation? If the user does't have root acces, how will she use it
then? Otherwise, why is it good to refrain from privileged moves? Chroot
is safe enough imho, if you just care about not messing up the base
system...
chroot require root privileges as you mentioned. My project will not
... at least I am going to try not to. Go read the Rubyx ML archives
where I outline this further.
starts here (I also mention it in a few other threads):
http://lists.walrond.org/pipermail/rubyx/2005-February/000867.html
I know this is trying to cut around the chroot step which is easy but
I want this available w/o root access on any machine. There is no
reason one needs root access to install some of their own programs
(ever seen ~/bin ?)... why not make it easy and just let them have an
entire custom distribution? I am also still brainstorming. I did do a
little work on it but decided to delay for the upcoming release. If
you have any better ideas on how to execute this please tell as I am
going in with almost no experience with this kind of thing.
Csaba
Brian.
···
On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 19:05:04 +0900, Csaba Henk <csaba@phony_for_avoiding_spam.org> wrote:
On 2005-02-27, Brian Mitchell <binary42@gmail.com> wrote:
So you mean that I, as a non-priviliged user, do the install process and
finally I just type something like "rubyx-start" and it throws me a
shell which is installed under my home dir, and in which I type then
"gcc", "ruby", "ls", "httpd", whatsoever, it just finds these utils
properly under my home dir, with all of their components?
Well, that really sounds cool! Although the set of boxes where you have only
non-root access tends to coincide with the set of boxes where you are
constrained with a quota... 
Maybe such a feature would be more useful
with a uClibc based install...
Csaba
···
On 2005-02-27, Brian Mitchell <binary42@gmail.com> wrote:
chroot require root privileges as you mentioned. My project will not
.. at least I am going to try not to. Go read the Rubyx ML archives
where I outline this further.starts here (I also mention it in a few other threads):
http://lists.walrond.org/pipermail/rubyx/2005-February/000867.htmlI know this is trying to cut around the chroot step which is easy but
I want this available w/o root access on any machine. There is no
reason one needs root access to install some of their own programs
(ever seen ~/bin ?)... why not make it easy and just let them have an
entire custom distribution? I am also still brainstorming. I did do a
> chroot require root privileges as you mentioned. My project will not
> .. at least I am going to try not to. Go read the Rubyx ML archives
> where I outline this further.
>
> starts here (I also mention it in a few other threads):
> http://lists.walrond.org/pipermail/rubyx/2005-February/000867.html
>
> I know this is trying to cut around the chroot step which is easy but
> I want this available w/o root access on any machine. There is no
> reason one needs root access to install some of their own programs
> (ever seen ~/bin ?)... why not make it easy and just let them have an
> entire custom distribution? I am also still brainstorming. I did do aSo you mean that I, as a non-priviliged user, do the install process and
finally I just type something like "rubyx-start" and it throws me a
shell which is installed under my home dir, and in which I type then
"gcc", "ruby", "ls", "httpd", whatsoever, it just finds these utils
properly under my home dir, with all of their components?
That is my far distant target. I am hoping to get insight into it's
viability once I can get underway. This should be a good learning
experience if nothing else.
Well, that really sounds cool! Although the set of boxes where you have only
non-root access tends to coincide with the set of boxes where you are
constrained with a quota...
with a uClibc based install...
Right. I would like to create a tar ball that I can throw on a usb
flash drive so I won't have to invade root on every machine I come in
contact with. I think that could be done but a detail like that is not
the first thing I am worried about. Once I get the vanilla package
groups working I may make some alternatives available. Easily created
and edited build scripts would also make this an easy thing for the
end user to customize if needed. As I mention in the posts, I like the
idea of saying: "This application runs fine configured like this on
Rubyx." Don't have Rubyx? Then install it with this project. Have root
access? Well it should still work with chroot. No more incongruities
other that at the kernel and resource levels.
Csaba
Of course, this all comes with the disclaimer that is may not work at
all. I can't see every road block ahead. Help on this once I get the
initial work done would also be appreciated.
Brian.
···
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 17:04:57 +0900, Csaba Henk <csaba@phony_for_avoiding_spam.org> wrote:
On 2005-02-27, Brian Mitchell <binary42@gmail.com> wrote: