Quoting opara prosper (email@example.com):
I'll love to know if there are any severe downside to using Ruby on
Windows to collaborate on a team project.
Any downside you can name is common to any windows-based project.
I am by contract spared from dabbling with windows, but I recently had
a very limited experience at enabling someone to run my scripts under
windows. The scripts had to do with post-processing some accelerometer
data files that the researcher had on his disk. I provided the
complex, flexible but aesthetically very simple user interface via a
locally running Webrick-based server. The cut-and-splice algorithm was
coded in Ruby.
Installing the click-and-run installer was not difficult. I just had
to write a short shell script to start the server and everything
worked without too much effort (the researcher used his browser as an
interface). But I have seen what is left on the machine by the
installer: you end up with large part of a unix system on it.
The only thing that windows could do is get on the way. Luckily, it
did not do that too much.
The Devuan-based, Systemd-free servers I use for the bulk of my work
are as stripped down as needed (without any unnecessary stuff
running). Most of the time they do not contain much more than what is
required by the Ruby installer.
In a nutshell: the main downside to using Ruby on Windows is having to
do with a huge block of obscure software that you cannot modify, and
that insists on regularly calling home and self-updating according to
the interests of someone who is not the owner of the computer.
Subject: Ruby + Windows
Date: Sun 31 May 20 07:25:25AM +0100
* Se la Strada e la sua Virtu' non fossero state messe da parte,
* K * Carlo E. Prelz - firstname.lastname@example.org che bisogno ci sarebbe
* di parlare tanto di amore e di rettitudine? (Chuang-Tzu)