Proposing: A new Ruby Windows installer

ruby-talk
1

I understand projects like the Ruby Installer for Windows exists, but
what I'm wondering is:

Why not have AllInOneRuby with gems embedded into it call a gem that has
the Ruby bits and a local copy of Ruby and then follow up with Gems.
From there your home free, correct? You could even just to get going
have the AllInOneRuby installer simply do a wget and pull down the Ruby
bits and put them into a folder and set the path. Eventually it would
seem though pulling down the actual Ruby bits in a gem is the "Ruby" way
to do this.

The Ruby Windows Installer seems to lag behind the general releases. It
would seem the senario I just described would be more up to date. The
Python guys have their installers down to s science now, it seems like
Ruby is lagging a bit here (the Windows side of it anyway).

Just shooting ideas around so don't shoot the messenger.

- The Enterprise Astronaut

···

--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

2

Because it'd be a waste. Better would be to have people actually
volunteer to help Curt keep the release up to date.

-austin

···

On 5/23/06, Enterprise Astronaut <enterpriseastro@enterprise.ch> wrote:

I understand projects like the Ruby Installer for Windows exists, but
what I'm wondering is:

Why not have AllInOneRuby with gems embedded into it call a gem that has
the Ruby bits and a local copy of Ruby and then follow up with Gems.
From there your home free, correct? You could even just to get going
have the AllInOneRuby installer simply do a wget and pull down the Ruby
bits and put them into a folder and set the path. Eventually it would
seem though pulling down the actual Ruby bits in a gem is the "Ruby" way
to do this.

--
Austin Ziegler * halostatue@gmail.com
               * Alternate: austin@halostatue.ca

3

The latest installer will probably be the last time there will be this
much lag. Curt decided to redesign the installer so that subsequent
releases will be much faster. That is why things took so long. Plus he
has been extremely busy.

I recently have been helping him and am now very familiar with the
installer as well as NSIS which the installer is written with. When
the next version of Ruby is released I'll be sure to help Curt if he
needs it to get the installer out quickly.

Ryan

···

On 5/23/06, Enterprise Astronaut <enterpriseastro@enterprise.ch> wrote:

I understand projects like the Ruby Installer for Windows exists, but
what I'm wondering is:

Why not have AllInOneRuby with gems embedded into it call a gem that has
the Ruby bits and a local copy of Ruby and then follow up with Gems.
From there your home free, correct? You could even just to get going
have the AllInOneRuby installer simply do a wget and pull down the Ruby
bits and put them into a folder and set the path. Eventually it would
seem though pulling down the actual Ruby bits in a gem is the "Ruby" way
to do this.

The Ruby Windows Installer seems to lag behind the general releases. It
would seem the senario I just described would be more up to date. The
Python guys have their installers down to s science now, it seems like
Ruby is lagging a bit here (the Windows side of it anyway).

Just shooting ideas around so don't shoot the messenger.

- The Enterprise Astronaut

4

Ryan Leavengood already beat me to answering this, but I thought I couldn't
hurt to repeat it.

The lag this time around is an anomaly. The 1.8.2 release of the one-click
installer, for example, was out within a week of the ruby release. But there
were a number of problems with the way it was built that was making it
harder to be timely.

So, as Ryan pointed out, I completely rewrote the build system with the goal
of reducing the turnaround time. Withe the new build system it should be
possible to reduce that lag time to a few days.

Also as Austin pointed out, it would be much better to join the one-click
installer team. I have been asking for help repeatedly over the years
without much response. So far, only Ryan Leavengood and Shashank Date have
helped. There's a lot that could be done, but without more help, the I have
to keep the scope limited.

I like the idea of providing the one-click Ruby distro as a zip file (in
addition to a traditional installer). In fact, this is the way that Instant
Rails uses the one-click ruby installer.

Curt

PS
   Pulling down Ruby in a gem would be a problem -- a chicken and egg
problem -- as RubyGems needs Ruby to execute, and needs an existing Ruby
installation in which to place the gems that it installs.

···

On 5/23/06, Enterprise Astronaut <enterpriseastro@enterprise.ch> wrote:

I understand projects like the Ruby Installer for Windows exists, but
what I'm wondering is:

Why not have AllInOneRuby with gems embedded into it call a gem that has
the Ruby bits and a local copy of Ruby and then follow up with Gems.
From there your home free, correct? You could even just to get going
have the AllInOneRuby installer simply do a wget and pull down the Ruby
bits and put them into a folder and set the path. Eventually it would
seem though pulling down the actual Ruby bits in a gem is the "Ruby" way
to do this.

The Ruby Windows Installer seems to lag behind the general releases. It
would seem the senario I just described would be more up to date. The
Python guys have their installers down to s science now, it seems like
Ruby is lagging a bit here (the Windows side of it anyway).

5

Austin Ziegler wrote:

I understand projects like the Ruby Installer for Windows exists, but
what I'm wondering is:

Why not have AllInOneRuby with gems embedded into it call a gem that has
the Ruby bits and a local copy of Ruby and then follow up with Gems.
From there your home free, correct? You could even just to get going
have the AllInOneRuby installer simply do a wget and pull down the Ruby
bits and put them into a folder and set the path. Eventually it would
seem though pulling down the actual Ruby bits in a gem is the "Ruby" way
to do this.

Because it'd be a waste. Better would be to have people actually
volunteer to help Curt keep the release up to date.

Or maybe not, but in any event such a proposal needs to be matched with at least some proof-of-concept code. It's one thing to say, "Wouldn't it be nice if ... ?", quite another to put your money (so to speak) where your mouth is.

At the end of the day all these ideas mean people volunteering time and effort.

(Thanks, Curt!)

···

On 5/23/06, Enterprise Astronaut <enterpriseastro@enterprise.ch> wrote:

--
James Britt

"Simplicity of the language is not what matters, but
simplicity of use."

  - Richard A. O'Keefe in squeak-dev mailing list

6

Austin Ziegler wrote:

Because it'd be a waste. Better would be to have people actually
volunteer to help Curt keep the release up to date.

Why would it be a waste? A lot of time seems to be spent getting
FreeRide, SciTe, etc. all bundled up. That would be gone. I'm talking
about just putting Ruby on a Win32 box quick and easily via gems. No
need for an installer at all. Run the EXE and it always grabs the
latest gem. Seems like a lot less maintenance and heartache than the
way its being done currently.

···

--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/\.

7

Curt Hibbs wrote:

installer team. I have been asking for help repeatedly over the years
without much response. So far, only Ryan Leavengood and Shashank Date
have
helped.

Well, maybe this is the real problem with the Ruby community then?
Asking for assistance over a number of years to get help on an installer
package that I'm sure thousands of people, companies, etc. use daily and
coming back with mostly deaf echos is not ideal. This installer is a
fundamental piece of Ruby being accepted by a larger audience (sorry but
Windows is still the dominant platform out there). I know a lot of
developers/companies that unless they get a timely pretty installer
package they won't bother using it or allow it on a server. (I hear the
argument already "well we don't want those types of developers
anyway"... Don't we? Do we want critical mass or be a niche language?)

The point of my post was to eliminate the manual work that has to go
into a Ruby installer. Make it a lot more automated, flick a switch and
walk away. Even under ideal situations the Ruby Windows Installer is at
least a few days/weeks turn around time. Right now the 1.84 release is
going on 6 months. This is the reality right now. The release of a
Ruby installer should not be based on someone's agenda, it should be an
automated process. I appreciate what the team does and the endless work
they put into it but at some point the Ruby community will need to
mature in this regard.

From a company's perspective I have a lot better chance of having this
installed on a server based simply off of the organized, tidy webpage:

All the releases synced up, all the builds ready for download from one
location. Nice and easy. When I look at the Ruby download site I see a
mis-mash of info and links leading off to other sites- it looks
unprofessional at best. Again, I'm looking at this from a company's
eyes. First impressions mean a lot.

-The Enterprise Astronaut

···

--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/\.

8

Curt Hibbs wrote:

Also as Austin pointed out, it would be much better to join the one-click
installer team. I have been asking for help repeatedly over the years
without much response. So far, only Ryan Leavengood and Shashank Date have
helped. There's a lot that could be done, but without more help, the I have
to keep the scope limited.

Hi,

I read your message on the ruby-talk mailinglist. What kind of help do you need? I don't have a Visual C++ environment running, but as I understand it the environment can be downloaded for free nowadays (the express edition at least).

Regards,

Peter

9

I'm telling you from personal experience that it isn't all that hard
to bundle this stuff up, now that Curt has put the work into it that
he has. I came from knowing nothing about the installer (besides
having installed it myself) to be fixing bugs on it within a day. Of
course I have more experience with installers and Ruby than other
people, but I still think any competent developer could get up to
speed pretty quick.

But as James says, the best way to show us what you are talking about
is to put your money where your mouth is and implement it. Everything
you need for it is available online.

Ryan

···

On 5/23/06, Enterprise Astronaut <enterpriseastro@enterprise.ch> wrote:

Why would it be a waste? A lot of time seems to be spent getting
FreeRide, SciTe, etc. all bundled up. That would be gone. I'm talking
about just putting Ruby on a Win32 box quick and easily via gems. No
need for an installer at all. Run the EXE and it always grabs the
latest gem. Seems like a lot less maintenance and heartache than the
way its being done currently.

10

Curt Hibbs wrote:
> installer team. I have been asking for help repeatedly over the years
> without much response. So far, only Ryan Leavengood and Shashank Date
> have
> helped.

Well, maybe this is the real problem with the Ruby community then?
Asking for assistance over a number of years to get help on an installer
package that I'm sure thousands of people, companies, etc. use daily and
coming back with mostly deaf echos is not ideal. This installer is a
fundamental piece of Ruby being accepted by a larger audience (sorry but
Windows is still the dominant platform out there). I know a lot of
developers/companies that unless they get a timely pretty installer
package they won't bother using it or allow it on a server. (I hear the
argument already "well we don't want those types of developers
anyway"... Don't we? Do we want critical mass or be a niche language?)

The point of my post was to eliminate the manual work that has to go
into a Ruby installer. Make it a lot more automated, flick a switch and
walk away. Even under ideal situations the Ruby Windows Installer is at
least a few days/weeks turn around time. Right now the 1.84 release is
going on 6 months. This is the reality right now. The release of a
Ruby installer should not be based on someone's agenda, it should be an
automated process. I appreciate what the team does and the endless work
they put into it but at some point the Ruby community will need to
mature in this regard.

From a company's perspective I have a lot better chance of having this
installed on a server based simply off of the organized, tidy webpage:
Python Release Python 2.4.3 | Python.org
All the releases synced up, all the builds ready for download from one
location. Nice and easy. When I look at the Ruby download site I see a
mis-mash of info and links leading off to other sites- it looks
unprofessional at best. Again, I'm looking at this from a company's
eyes. First impressions mean a lot.

Actually the ruby core team releases a minimal install of Ruby almost in
sync with the normal releases. The problem is that it doesn't include all
of the extensions, and win32 specfic things that people EXPECT from the
installer. The problem is NOT with building ruby itself, but all of the
expected extensions. These take time to be brought up to the new version,
compiled, and tested, there isn't much you can do to automate this process
any more than it currently is. But if you have good ideas, you should
definitely be posing these questions to the one-click-installer mailing
list, and developers.

Also you seem to be a bit confused. The One-Click-Installer is a community
provided package, NOT something provided by the core ruby team. The core
ruby team DOES provide a minimal install (or at least used to). This is
different than the python package you mentioned above.

And most importantly of all, and it's been stated many times this week
alone, ideas are interesting, discussion is helpful, but code is what gets
things done. If you see a need, and think you can fill it, then by all
means provide the code. But suggesting, or telling others to solve problems
only serves to annoy those that are currently working on those problems.

-The Enterprise Astronaut

···

On 5/23/06, Enterprise Astronaut <enterpriseastro@enterprise.ch> wrote:

--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/\.

--
===Tanner Burson===
tanner.burson@gmail.com
http://tannerburson.com <---Might even work one day...

11

There was a nice redesign with some momenutum about it a while back,
but it seems to have gotten lost somewhere :frowning:

http://redhanded.hobix.com/redesign2005/

If there's any help needed bashing out HTML for the design[1] I'm more
than happy to help out, though I'm worried it's gotten tangled up over
some non-technical issues...

Douglas

[1] http://redhanded.hobix.com/redesign2005/images/john-10.1-full.png

···

2006/5/23, Enterprise Astronaut <enterpriseastro@enterprise.ch>:

When I look at the Ruby download site I see a
mis-mash of info and links leading off to other sites- it looks
unprofessional at best.

12

Enterprise Astronaut wrote:

Well, maybe this is the real problem with the Ruby community then?

You are the community.

Among others, of course.

Asking for assistance over a number of years to get help on an installer package that I'm sure thousands of people, companies, etc. use daily and coming back with mostly deaf echos is not ideal. This installer is a fundamental piece of Ruby being accepted by a larger audience (sorry but Windows is still the dominant platform out there). I know a lot of developers/companies that unless they get a timely pretty installer package they won't bother using it or allow it on a server. (I hear the argument already "well we don't want those types of developers anyway"... Don't we? Do we want critical mass or be a niche language?)

I want Ruby. What other people do or don't think of Ruby is not a big issue for me. (Well, there are some exceptions on this list.)

The point of my post was to eliminate the manual work that has to go into a Ruby installer. Make it a lot more automated, flick a switch and walk away. Even under ideal situations the Ruby Windows Installer is at least a few days/weeks turn around time. Right now the 1.84 release is going on 6 months. This is the reality right now. The release of a Ruby installer should not be based on someone's agenda, it should be an automated process. I appreciate what the team does and the endless work they put into it but at some point the Ruby community will need to mature in this regard.

Does this mean you are offering to help Curt? Because posts don't eliminate manual work. (Nor, for that matter, does pulling the maturity card.)

From a company's perspective I have a lot better chance of having this

installed on a server based simply off of the organized, tidy webpage:
Python Release Python 2.4.3 | Python.org

Interesting. A company picking technology based on Web page design and layout. And these are the people whose opinions should influence Ruby packaging?

The list has seen a repeated threads of the form, "If the Ruby doesn't offer [this|that|other_thing], then it won't be accepted by [BigCo|Mainstream|TheEnterprise]"

It's unpersuasive.

Code, on the other hand ...

:slight_smile:

···

--
James Britt

"Blanket statements are over-rated"

13

Well, maybe this is the real problem with the Ruby community then?

What, that we're overworked and haven't yet gotten someone to bankroll
our efforts?

The point of my post was to eliminate the manual work that has to go
into a Ruby installer. Make it a lot more automated, flick a switch
and walk away. Even under ideal situations the Ruby Windows Installer
is at least a few days/weeks turn around time. Right now the 1.84
release is going on 6 months. This is the reality right now. The
release of a Ruby installer should not be based on someone's agenda,
it should be an automated process. I appreciate what the team does
and the endless work they put into it but at some point the Ruby
community will need to mature in this regard.

So? It's shifting the installer base. That doesn't happen overnight,
especially when *both* people on the team are overworked. I've also been
exploring an alternative that will make it much easier to build from
scratch and automate *everything* about the installer.

I've had exactly zero hours to work on it since January, because of my
day job.

That's why I'm saying "DO SOMETHING" instead of proposing something that
is probably not going to help at all.

-austin

···

On 5/23/06, Enterprise Astronaut <enterpriseastro@enterprise.ch> wrote:
--
Austin Ziegler * halostatue@gmail.com
               * Alternate: austin@halostatue.ca

14

Curt Hibbs wrote:
> installer team. I have been asking for help repeatedly over the years
> without much response. So far, only Ryan Leavengood and Shashank Date
> have
> helped.

Well, maybe this is the real problem with the Ruby community then?
Asking for assistance over a number of years to get help on an installer
package that I'm sure thousands of people, companies, etc. use daily and
coming back with mostly deaf echos is not ideal. This installer is a
fundamental piece of Ruby being accepted by a larger audience (sorry but
Windows is still the dominant platform out there). I know a lot of
developers/companies that unless they get a timely pretty installer
package they won't bother using it or allow it on a server. (I hear the
argument already "well we don't want those types of developers
anyway"... Don't we? Do we want critical mass or be a niche language?)

I didn't know help was needed here, if there's something I can do, I
volunteer. Professionally, I am a WIndows and embedded software
developer. Perhaps there's something I can do.

The point of my post was to eliminate the manual work that has to go
into a Ruby installer. Make it a lot more automated, flick a switch and
walk away. Even under ideal situations the Ruby Windows Installer is at
least a few days/weeks turn around time. Right now the 1.84 release is
going on 6 months. This is the reality right now. The release of a
Ruby installer should not be based on someone's agenda, it should be an
automated process. I appreciate what the team does and the endless work
they put into it but at some point the Ruby community will need to
mature in this regard.

You are part of the community right? Are you going to help? Few of us
get paid for Ruby projects so we have to do these things in our spare
time. Who will sacrifice to help more people get the Ruby joy?

From a company's perspective I have a lot better chance of having this
installed on a server based simply off of the organized, tidy webpage:
Python Release Python 2.4.3 | Python.org
All the releases synced up, all the builds ready for download from one
location. Nice and easy. When I look at the Ruby download site I see a
mis-mash of info and links leading off to other sites- it looks
unprofessional at best. Again, I'm looking at this from a company's
eyes. First impressions mean a lot.

In all the eyes of the people who love Ruby, it's the greatest
langauge ever. Like most open source projects it seems that the makers
and maintainers of Ruby etc. have no agenda other than to make
something great for themselves to use. A lot of people assume
everybody wants Ruby to be "prime time" or to appeal to some company
or some greater body of developers so it doesn't die out or fade away
- but I don't think that's true. If you want your company to like
Ruby, put in the effort to make it appeal to your company. Perhaps you
can help with the mish-mash. Remeber that your goal of making Ruby
"professional" isn't necessarily the goal of the community.

The important thing is that you can only complain about lack of
community support if you yourself are in there helping!

···

On 5/23/06, Enterprise Astronaut <enterpriseastro@enterprise.ch> wrote:

15

Curt Hibbs wrote:
> installer team. I have been asking for help repeatedly over the years
> without much response. So far, only Ryan Leavengood and Shashank Date
> have
> helped.

Well, maybe this is the real problem with the Ruby community then?
Asking for assistance over a number of years to get help on an installer
package that I'm sure thousands of people, companies, etc. use daily and
coming back with mostly deaf echos is not ideal.

I think the problem is far more one of the 'Windows users community'.

Not many windows users know how to compile files, or have experience
with building an installer. Add to that, having the time, ability,
willingness to help, etc, and the group keeps getting smaller.

I do agree that it would be nice if more people helped, and I'm sure
as more windows users start using Ruby, more people (with the required
skills) will help.

Personally, I'll look into NSIS, and see how much I can learn about
it, but even if I can pick it up, it's more of a time crunch issue for
me these days. Then there's the fact that I don't _need_ the most
recent release, and since I'm not paying Curt, Ryan, or Shashank to
produce one, I'm fine with waiting for it.

This installer is a
fundamental piece of Ruby being accepted by a larger audience (sorry but
Windows is still the dominant platform out there). I know a lot of
developers/companies that unless they get a timely pretty installer
package they won't bother using it or allow it on a server. (I hear the
argument already "well we don't want those types of developers
anyway"... Don't we? Do we want critical mass or be a niche language?)

Indeed, it is accepted by a large audience. Probably because it works
well, and is updated frequently enough for most of us.

This is at least the third time in about a week that somebody has
presumed that 'we want critical mass' (or 'enterprise', or whatever).
Well, I can't speak for 'we', but I don't particularly care how many
people use Ruby, I just care that it exists, and I get to use it.

Ruby was much more of a niche language when I first started using it
(pre Rails), and even then, it was getting enough care and attention
for me. Since then, it's usage has grown just fine on it's own.

The point of my post was to eliminate the manual work that has to go
into a Ruby installer. Make it a lot more automated, flick a switch and
walk away.

Excellent idea. Build it, and set it up on a server for us. If you
can't host it, I'm sure others will volunteer.

Even under ideal situations the Ruby Windows Installer is at
least a few days/weeks turn around time. Right now the 1.84 release is
going on 6 months. This is the reality right now.

  "The lag this time around is an anomaly."
and...
  "With the new build system it should be possible to reduce that lag
time to a few days."

The release of a
Ruby installer should not be based on someone's agenda, it should be an
automated process. I appreciate what the team does and the endless work
they put into it but at some point the Ruby community will need to
mature in this regard.

From a company's perspective I have a lot better chance of having this
installed on a server based simply off of the organized, tidy webpage:
Python Release Python 2.4.3 | Python.org
All the releases synced up, all the builds ready for download from one
location. Nice and easy. When I look at the Ruby download site I see a
mis-mash of info and links leading off to other sites- it looks
unprofessional at best. Again, I'm looking at this from a company's
eyes. First impressions mean a lot.

Ok, so the logical choices are...

Make a better build system, or at least spec one out, and see if you
can get others to build it for you.

Hire others to make a better build system.

Offer to sponsor it (ala Google's Summer of Code).

Deal with the current build system, and use Ruby until others get the
chance to improve it.

Walk away, and use Python until the build system is improved.

I think that's about it. Telling the people (who are doing all of
this for free) that they are 'doing it wrong' really doesn't do much
to solve the problem.

···

On 5/23/06, Enterprise Astronaut <enterpriseastro@enterprise.ch> wrote:
On 5/23/06, Curt Hibbs <ml.chibbs@gmail.com> wrote:

-The Enterprise Astronaut

--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/\.

--
Bill Guindon (aka aGorilla)
The best answer to most questions is "it depends".

16

There is a slight problem here though. I don't have time to go into the
detais (I've got to get out of the house in 15 minutes), but right now to
build the one-click ruby installer/distro you need VC++ 6.0. The free
version is VC++ 8 and is not compatible.

Curt

···

On 5/24/06, Peter C. Verhage <peter@no-nonsense.org> wrote:

Curt Hibbs wrote:
> Also as Austin pointed out, it would be much better to join the
one-click
> installer team. I have been asking for help repeatedly over the years
> without much response. So far, only Ryan Leavengood and Shashank Date
have
> helped. There's a lot that could be done, but without more help, the I
have
> to keep the scope limited.

Hi,

I read your message on the ruby-talk mailinglist. What kind of help do
you need? I don't have a Visual C++ environment running, but as I
understand it the environment can be downloaded for free nowadays (the
express edition at least).

Regards,

Peter

17

Real men %x{aptitude install ruby} and
%x{aptitude search "lib.*ruby1.8"} for the rest on their own.

*ducks and runs for cover*
Jürgen

···

On Wed, May 24, 2006 at 04:30:56AM +0900, Enterprise Astronaut wrote:

Austin Ziegler wrote:
>
> Because it'd be a waste. Better would be to have people actually
> volunteer to help Curt keep the release up to date.
>

Why would it be a waste? A lot of time seems to be spent getting
FreeRide, SciTe, etc. all bundled up. That would be gone. I'm talking
about just putting Ruby on a Win32 box quick and easily via gems. No
need for an installer at all. Run the EXE and it always grabs the
latest gem. Seems like a lot less maintenance and heartache than the
way its being done currently.

--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/\.

--
The box said it requires Windows 95 or better so I installed Linux

18

Douglas Livingstone wrote:

There was a nice redesign with some momenutum about it a while back,
but it seems to have gotten lost somewhere :frowning:

http://redhanded.hobix.com/redesign2005/

Those looks really good. Professional.

- The Enterprise Astronaut

···

--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/\.

19

Not at all. We've made tons of progress on it just recently. Behold:

http://new.ruby-lang.org/

That's the custom-built CMS running on the ruby-lang.org server and serving up content we made or imported. Yes, there are holes, but we are working to fill them in.

James Edward Gray II

P.S. I need volunteers who can generate needed content for the new site. If you are interested, email me off-list.

···

On May 23, 2006, at 4:46 PM, Douglas Livingstone wrote:

There was a nice redesign with some momenutum about it a while back,
but it seems to have gotten lost somewhere :frowning:

20

Curt Hibbs wrote:

There is a slight problem here though. I don't have time to go into the
detais (I've got to get out of the house in 15 minutes), but right now
to
build the one-click ruby installer/distro you need VC++ 6.0. The free
version is VC++ 8 and is not compatible.

Curt

What compiler do you need to build binary extensions that are compatible
with the one-click installer?

···

--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/\.