The Rubygems package is now in Debian/Ubuntu, but it is mildly
crippled. However if you run
gem update --system
then it magically turns into the normal ruby gem system.
APT still doesn't know anything about gems, but it is less of a
problem than you'd think.
My approach with Ubuntu is to install from APT packages unless the APT
package is just a port of a gem.
···
On Jun 11, 7:18 pm, "Rick DeNatale" <rick.denat...@gmail.com> wrote:
That all said, while I'm a happy Ubuntu user, I don't use packaged
versions of some specific software, most notably Ruby. This isn't
because of Ubuntu but because of Debian. In the case of Ruby one
major reason is because, as far as I know unless it's changed
recently, Debian (and therefore Ubuntu) doesn't really support gems.
Now this may have changed recently, but I've been happy installing
Ruby and Gems from source, and gems as gems.
Well, as long as we're talking virtualization, has anyone managed to get
a Xen system on one of the chips with the virtualization assist to run
OS X as a "guest?" Or does Xen not support the special hardware tweaks
in a Mac? Dual or triple booting is a pain.
I know of people running OS X as a guest inside VMWare so it should be
possible, but obviously Xen's approach is sufficiently different that I
wouldn't expect much (if anything) in the way of driver support.
Ellie
Eleanor McHugh
Games With Brains
----
raise ArgumentError unless @reality.responds_to? :reason
It's been a while since I looked, but IIRC there are two ways to run Xen:
1. You boot the Xen kernel, which is a modified Linux kernel. It does
all the I/O and driver stuff. Guest machines require a modified kernel,
which IIRC only exists for Linux.
2. If you have the Intel or AMD virtualization-enabled chips, you boot
the Xen kernel and it can then boot and OS with an unmodified kernel.
This works for at least Windows and Linux, but I don't know about MacOS.
In any event, the drivers in mode 2 are the guest OS drivers, so it
"should work".
···
On 11 Jun 2007, at 14:15, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
Last time I looked at it there was some weird philosophy for not
having gems support in apt. If I remember correctly it was because
gem uses a folder per package type deal and that goes against the
grain of apt. I can't find where I read this, so you'd need to do
lots of googling to find it.
Ubuntu may be a fork, but that's not telling the whole story.
For one, Ubuntu is "re-forked" every 6 months, after every release. Less of a
fork, more of a companion code-path. If that makes any sense.
Secondly, you say "The key component of forking is incompatibility..."
I can personally attest that Ubuntu and Debian are compatible in a number of
ways (but not all!). I've used Debian packages in Ubuntu before (and
vice-versa)
Ubuntu is a downstream version of Debian - it's Debian, with changes,
re-synced every 6 months. How about, "Ubuntu is a Debian *patch*". ?
-Benjamin Kudria
···
On Monday, June 11 2007, Chad Perrin wrote:
On Mon, Jun 11, 2007 at 04:27:01PM +0900, Dick Davies wrote:
> Ok, thanks for the advert. Debian has its own problems, but this isn't
> the place to discuss them.
>
> On 11/06/07, Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com> wrote:
> >Ubuntu is a Debian *fork*.
Uhh . . . what? I said it was a fork. I didn't say it was crap. I'm
not sure where you're coming from with the hostile tone.
In software engineering, a project fork happens when developers take a
copy of source code from one software package and start independent
development on it, creating a distinct piece of software.
In the open-source community, a fork is what occurs when two (or more)
versions of a software package's source code are being developed in
parallel which once shared a common code base, and these multiple
versions of the source code have irreconcilable differences between
them.
(Note: The commentary about Linux distribution forking in the Jargon Wiki
is somewhat naive, in terms of its assumptions about the differences
between Linux distributions. The key component of forking is
incompatibility, not whether or not something is composed primarily of
widely available elements.)
So . . . why does your statement read as though you thought I said
"Ubuntu is a *crappy Debian fork*!"? I said nothing of the kind in my
statement as quoted by you. I pointed out that Ubuntu and Debian are not
compatible -- are not, in fact, simply different implementations of the
same standard, as the previous message seemed to imply.
Uh, Debian does run gem and gems just fine.
Shared hosting provider DreamHost is proof of that.
Their servers are Debian, and they do have gems. I've installed my own local gems on an account there.
I think the point is that a gem can't be installed as a .deb, so apt can't have any knowledge of them.
Mode 1 would definitely not work with Apple's distribution, but given that Darwin's kernel is open source (and already much abused in various other ways) it should be possible to build a Xen-friendly version. However I'm not aware of anyone currently working on this.
Ironically Mode 2 could be more problematic as OS X would expect Mac-like hardware, so if Xen provides virtual hardware in the same way as VMWare that could restrict functionality. However if it fully supports Intel's Vanderpool technology and the host machine had hardware supported by OS X natively then in theory it should just work out of the box. If only I could justify the time to experiment...
Ellie
Eleanor McHugh
Games With Brains
···
On 12 Jun 2007, at 15:37, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
I know of people running OS X as a guest inside VMWare so it should be
possible, but obviously Xen's approach is sufficiently different that I
wouldn't expect much (if anything) in the way of driver support.
It's been a while since I looked, but IIRC there are two ways to run Xen:
1. You boot the Xen kernel, which is a modified Linux kernel. It does
all the I/O and driver stuff. Guest machines require a modified kernel,
which IIRC only exists for Linux.
2. If you have the Intel or AMD virtualization-enabled chips, you boot
the Xen kernel and it can then boot and OS with an unmodified kernel.
This works for at least Windows and Linux, but I don't know about MacOS.
In any event, the drivers in mode 2 are the guest OS drivers, so it
"should work".
Indeed, relying on apt is not always good. It's great for trying out packages, but in the end, you will be better off in your understanding of the tools you are using if you just install them yourself. With Rails and Ruby you're eventually going to have to do installs yourself anyway, unless somebody else is doing it for you.
The same goes for OS X and MacPorts' opt, it is nice and convenient, but the paths are going to be non-standard and you'll have to still customize a lot of things to get things working, so you'll still need to know the how/what/where/why.
If you can write the code, you can definitely install the stuff. It's worth it for your Ruby points.
···
On Jun 12, 2007, at 3:15 AM, Neil Wilson wrote:
The Rubygems package is now in Debian/Ubuntu, but it is mildly
crippled. However if you run
gem update --system
then it magically turns into the normal ruby gem system.
APT still doesn't know anything about gems, but it is less of a
problem than you'd think.
My approach with Ubuntu is to install from APT packages unless the APT
package is just a port of a gem.
On Jun 11, 7:18 pm, "Rick DeNatale" <rick.denat...@gmail.com> wrote:
That all said, while I'm a happy Ubuntu user, I don't use packaged
versions of some specific software, most notably Ruby. This isn't
because of Ubuntu but because of Debian. In the case of Ruby one
major reason is because, as far as I know unless it's changed
recently, Debian (and therefore Ubuntu) doesn't really support gems.
Now this may have changed recently, but I've been happy installing
Ruby and Gems from source, and gems as gems.
Ubuntu may be a fork, but that's not telling the whole story.
For one, Ubuntu is "re-forked" every 6 months, after every release. Less of a
fork, more of a companion code-path. If that makes any sense.
Parts of the system are. Others continue on the same old path of the
original fork. The fact it "reborrows" good stuff is to Ubuntu's credit,
but does not make it less of a fork.
Secondly, you say "The key component of forking is incompatibility..."
I can personally attest that Ubuntu and Debian are compatible in a number of
ways (but not all!). I've used Debian packages in Ubuntu before (and
vice-versa)
There are some things that are compatible between, say, MS Windows XP Pro
and Debian, too -- but they're even less compatible than a proper fork.
Ubuntu is a downstream version of Debian - it's Debian, with changes,
re-synced every 6 months. How about, "Ubuntu is a Debian *patch*". ?
Maybe, kind-sorta, except that it's not "a" patch. If it can be compared
to patches at all, it's a *bloody lot* of patches.
···
On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 10:48:26AM +0900, Benjamin Kudria wrote:
--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
MacUser, Nov. 1990: "There comes a time in the history of any project when
it becomes necessary to shoot the engineers and begin production."
> > Ok, thanks for the advert. Debian has its own problems, but this isn't
> > the place to discuss them.
> >
> > >Ubuntu is a Debian *fork*.
>
> Uhh . . . what? I said it was a fork. I didn't say it was crap. I'm
> not sure where you're coming from with the hostile tone.
>
> From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fork_(software_development):
>
> In software engineering, a project fork happens when developers take a
> copy of source code from one software package and start independent
> development on it, creating a distinct piece of software.
>
> From http://wiki.ursine.ca/Fork:
>
> In the open-source community, a fork is what occurs when two (or more)
> versions of a software package's source code are being developed in
> parallel which once shared a common code base, and these multiple
> versions of the source code have irreconcilable differences between
> them.
>
> (Note: The commentary about Linux distribution forking in the Jargon Wiki
> is somewhat naive, in terms of its assumptions about the differences
> between Linux distributions. The key component of forking is
> incompatibility, not whether or not something is composed primarily of
> widely available elements.)
>
> So . . . why does your statement read as though you thought I said
> "Ubuntu is a *crappy Debian fork*!"? I said nothing of the kind in my
> statement as quoted by you. I pointed out that Ubuntu and Debian are not
> compatible -- are not, in fact, simply different implementations of the
> same standard, as the previous message seemed to imply.
Well, I have issues with your statement too.
Ubuntu may be a fork, but that's not telling the whole story.
For one, Ubuntu is "re-forked" every 6 months, after every release. Less of a
fork, more of a companion code-path. If that makes any sense.
Secondly, you say "The key component of forking is incompatibility..."
I can personally attest that Ubuntu and Debian are compatible in a number of
ways (but not all!). I've used Debian packages in Ubuntu before (and
vice-versa)
Ubuntu is a downstream version of Debian - it's Debian, with changes,
re-synced every 6 months. How about, "Ubuntu is a Debian *patch*". ?
Is this the place, or the thread, to discuss this?
Forgive my ignorance, I"m a 'born again noob', and I always will be.
···
On 6/11/07, Benjamin Kudria <bkudria@eml.cc> wrote:
On Monday, June 11 2007, Chad Perrin wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 11, 2007 at 04:27:01PM +0900, Dick Davies wrote:
> > On 11/06/07, Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com> wrote:
-Benjamin Kudria
--
Bill Guindon (aka aGorilla)
The best answer to most questions is "it depends".
At the time I typed that sentence, I meant that it provided a more
familiar face for the recent transplant, increasing comfort for people
not steeped in Linux wisdom. One might say that my statement only
implied that Ubuntu is more "user friendly" to recent MS Windows converts
than vanilla Debian.
Isn't "user friendly" supposed to be a good thing, all else being equal?
···
On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 03:47:32PM +0900, Dick Davies wrote:
On 12/06/07, Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com> wrote:
>On Mon, Jun 11, 2007 at 04:27:01PM +0900, Dick Davies wrote:
>> Ok, thanks for the advert. Debian has its own problems, but this isn't
>> the place to discuss them.
>>
>> On 11/06/07, Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Ubuntu is a Debian *fork*.
>
>Uhh . . . what? I said it was a fork. I didn't say it was crap. I'm
>not sure where you're coming from with the hostile tone.
I wasn't trying to be hostile, but that was your second post about Ubuntu
and
Debian and the thread wasn't about either.
>So . . . why does your statement read as though you thought I said
>"Ubuntu is a *crappy Debian fork*!"?
That would be your first post, saying :
"Ubuntu is far more suited to the average MS Windows transplant, I suppose"
--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
Dr. Ron Paul: "Liberty has meaning only if we still believe in it when
terrible things happen and a false government security blanket beckons."
[ snip a bunch of quoted detritus from the "fork" discussion ]
Is this the place, or the thread, to discuss this?
Probably not.
Forgive my ignorance, I"m a 'born again noob', and I always will be.
Your point is well taken. If anyone needs forgiveness, it's me and the
others involved in this tangent.
···
On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 11:35:20AM +0900, Bill Guindon wrote:
--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
Patrick J. LoPresti: "Emacs has been replaced by a shell script which 1)
Generates a syslog message at level LOG_EMERG; 2) reduces the user's disk
quota by 100K; and 3) RUNS ED!!!!!!"
Is this the place, or the thread, to discuss this?
It depends. --note that I carefully have deleted your quote
I have no idea, but this community seems to be very tolerant and
interested in things orbiting around ruby.
On the rare occasions when people got upset with discussions and asked
politely to take a thread offlist that is just done.
Personally I think this topic is quite interesting, others of course
might not, please not that there is the not so slight possibility that
the choice of the distro intervenes with your ruby experience.
Forgive my ignorance, I"m a 'born again noob', and I always will be.
You mean like eternal youth
> -Benjamin Kudria
Cheers
Robert
···
On 6/12/07, Bill Guindon <agorilla@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/11/07, Benjamin Kudria <bkudria@eml.cc> wrote:
--
You see things; and you say Why?
But I dream things that never were; and I say Why not?
-- George Bernard Shaw
