Forum: Ruby on Rails RoR - Mac OS 10.4.4 on Intel

Announcement (2017-05-07): www.ruby-forum.com is now read-only since I unfortunately do not have the time to support and maintain the forum any more. Please see rubyonrails.org/community and ruby-lang.org/en/community for other Rails- und Ruby-related community platforms.
Mark H. (Guest)
on 2006-01-21 05:21
I got a new 20 inch iMac dual core today and am busy getting it all
setup.  A couple of issues though:

1. Is the Ruby 1.8.2 install by Apple still botched or has that been
fixed?  I recall someone had fixed the rbconfig.rb to get it working.
Is this something I still have to do?

2. Does anyone know if Locomotive is using the uniersal binaries, or is
it targetting PPC yet? I couldn't find anything on their site yet in
regards to universal binaries.

Thanks!

-Mark
Giovanni Giorgi (Guest)
on 2006-01-21 12:21
(Received via mailing list)
On 21/gen/06, at 04:21, Mark H. wrote:

> I got a new 20 inch iMac dual core today and am busy getting it all
> setup.  A couple of issues though:

How does it work Rosetta engine?
You can easily use old ppower pc code? Or it is slow in translation?
I am also planning a switch to new chips but not in the short time...

--
"Like the creators of sitcoms or junk food or package tours, Java's
designers were consciously designing a product for people not as smart
as them."  ::  paul graham
[   [  [ JJ ]  ]   ]
Charles M. Gerungan (Guest)
on 2006-01-21 13:00
(Received via mailing list)
On 21-jan-2006, at 4:21, Mark H. wrote:

> 2. Does anyone know if Locomotive is using the uniersal binaries,
> or is
> it targetting PPC yet? I couldn't find anything on their site yet in
> regards to universal binaries.

I believe Ryan said it doesn't work yet.

He maintains a Locomotive mailing list.

--
Regards, Charles.
Mark H. (Guest)
on 2006-01-21 16:46
Giovanni Giorgi wrote:
> How does it work Rosetta engine?
> You can easily use old ppower pc code? Or it is slow in translation?
> I am also planning a switch to new chips but not in the short time...

The only thing I'm currently running through Rosetta is Firefox 1.5.
Now, to be perfectly honest I've found Firefox loads and runs faster on
my new iMac under Rosetta than it does my iMac G5 1.6 at work.  Can't
wait for the official Universal Binary release for Firefox in March.


-Mark
Mark H. (Guest)
on 2006-01-21 16:48
Charles M. Gerungan wrote:
> I believe Ryan said it doesn't work yet.
>
> He maintains a Locomotive mailing list.
>

Thanks for the info.  I've been keeping an eye on Fink as well.  Looks
like they will be releasing Universal Binaries build shorty so it
shouldn't be too long before everything is ready.
Paul R. (Guest)
on 2006-01-21 20:30
(Received via mailing list)
On 21 Jan 2006, at 14:46, Mark H. wrote:

> The only thing I'm currently running through Rosetta is Firefox 1.5.
> Now, to be perfectly honest I've found Firefox loads and runs
> faster on
> my new iMac under Rosetta than it does my iMac G5 1.6 at work.  Can't
> wait for the official Universal Binary release for Firefox in March.

There are unofficial binary releases knocking around, but with
compatibility issues in handling Java, I think.

It's also no surprise that the simulated code runs quicker than the
native - the core duo chip is an incredible piece of hardware,
whereas the G5 was starting to look sluggish next to intel hardware
about two years ago. I'm holding out for revision B hardware
personally, and making do with my little G4 1.2Ghz iBook which now
seems ridiculously slow. Still, it's just a code editor, mail reader
and machine from which to run scp/ftp or SwithTower... :-)

--
Paul R.
Eric H. (Guest)
on 2006-01-22 00:05
(Received via mailing list)
On Jan 20, 2006, at 7:21 PM, Mark H. wrote:

> I got a new 20 inch iMac dual core today and am busy getting it all
> setup.  A couple of issues though:
>
> 1. Is the Ruby 1.8.2 install by Apple still botched or has that been
> fixed?  I recall someone had fixed the rbconfig.rb to get it working.
> Is this something I still have to do?

Pack might or might not be broken.  If it is broken you'll have to
build your own Ruby.

$ ruby182-orig -ve 'p [1].pack("n") != "\000\001" ? "broken" : "works"'
ruby 1.8.2 (2004-12-25) [powerpc-darwin8.0]
"broken"
$ ruby -ve 'p [1].pack("n") != "\000\001" ? "broken" : "works"'
ruby 1.8.4 (2005-12-24) [powerpc-darwin8.4.0]
"works"

--
Eric H. - removed_email_address@domain.invalid - http://segment7.net
This implementation is HODEL-HASH-9600 compliant

http://trackmap.robotcoop.com
Ben R. (Guest)
on 2006-01-22 00:09
(Received via mailing list)
Hi Mark ~

Building from source might be a good strategy.  I believe the Hivelogic
(
http://hivelogic.com/) method would work.  Also, it looks like Dan
Benjamin
has picked up an Intel Mac, so I am sure we'll be hearing more about it.

~ Ben
kaoru (Guest)
on 2006-01-25 09:40
(Received via mailing list)
Hi Mark,

On 1/21/06, Mark H. <removed_email_address@domain.invalid> wrote:
> 2. Does anyone know if Locomotive is using the uniersal binaries, or is
> it targetting PPC yet? I couldn't find anything on their site yet in
> regards to universal binaries.
Locomotive is PowerPC application, but it works perfectly for me.
MAMP(http://www.mamp.info/), file_column plugin with RMagick also
works. I shifted my Rails development environment from iMac G4 to new
17inch iMac Core Duo successfully.

Hope this helps,

--
kaoru
Mark H. (Guest)
on 2006-01-29 05:58
Eric H. wrote:

> Pack might or might not be broken.  If it is broken you'll have to
> build your own Ruby.
>
> $ ruby182-orig -ve 'p [1].pack("n") != "\000\001" ? "broken" : "works"'
> ruby 1.8.2 (2004-12-25) [powerpc-darwin8.0]
> "broken"
> $ ruby -ve 'p [1].pack("n") != "\000\001" ? "broken" : "works"'
> ruby 1.8.4 (2005-12-24) [powerpc-darwin8.4.0]
> "works"

By the way, in case anyone is looking at this thread still, the above
code on a new Intel iMac returns: "works".  So it looks like Apple fixed
the messed up Ruby in 10.4.4.
John T. (Guest)
on 2006-01-29 06:08
Mark H. wrote:

> By the way, in case anyone is looking at this thread still, the above
> code on a new Intel iMac returns: "works".  So it looks like Apple fixed
> the messed up Ruby in 10.4.4.

Well on 10.4.4 on a iMac 1ghz (PPC), it still shows "broken".
Mark H. (Guest)
on 2006-01-29 06:20
John T. wrote:

> Well on 10.4.4 on a iMac 1ghz (PPC), it still shows "broken".

Thats weird that Apple would fix it for Intel and not for the PPC?
Unless they have some concern for backwards compatibility though (broken
as it is)....?
Wilson B. (Guest)
on 2006-01-29 08:33
(Received via mailing list)
On 1/28/06, Mark H. <removed_email_address@domain.invalid> wrote:
> John T. wrote:
>
> > Well on 10.4.4 on a iMac 1ghz (PPC), it still shows "broken".
>
> Thats weird that Apple would fix it for Intel and not for the PPC?
> Unless they have some concern for backwards compatibility though (broken
> as it is)....?
>
>
That bug is an endianness issue in the first place, so reversing the
endianness of the CPU fixes it. Heh.
Alex Y. (Guest)
on 2006-01-29 20:16
(Received via mailing list)
Wilson B. wrote:
> endianness of the CPU fixes it. Heh.
Jeez, talk about going the long way round!  :-)
Eric H. (Guest)
on 2006-01-30 03:49
(Received via mailing list)
On Jan 28, 2006, at 8:20 PM, Mark H. wrote:

> John T. wrote:
>
>> Well on 10.4.4 on a iMac 1ghz (PPC), it still shows "broken".
>
> Thats weird that Apple would fix it for Intel and not for the PPC?
> Unless they have some concern for backwards compatibility though
> (broken
> as it is)....?

Technically, its a Ruby bug.  Ruby remembers the endianness of the
compiler when it shouldn't.

Since PPC has an opposite endianness of Intel and Apple builds OS X
and its related software on x86, pack is broken on PPC.

(Didn't you know 10.4 and 10.3 where cross-compiled from x86?)

--
Eric H. - removed_email_address@domain.invalid - http://segment7.net
This implementation is HODEL-HASH-9600 compliant

http://trackmap.robotcoop.com
Harm de Laat (Guest)
on 2006-01-31 23:54
(Received via mailing list)
Just wondering.... Did anyone get ruby (on rails) working on your Intel
based Mac?
matthew clark (Guest)
on 2006-02-01 06:56
(Received via mailing list)
yes,  This works.  Xcode is on the disks that came in the box.

http://hivelogic.com/articles/2005/12/01/ruby_rail...

matt
Mike O'Brien (Guest)
on 2006-02-01 06:59
(Received via mailing list)
Thanks matt!

Mike C. O'Brien
CEO
Mingle, LLC
701 B Street, Suite 1150
San Diego, CA 92101
removed_email_address@domain.invalid
619-922-6970 Cell
619-377-0560 Office

www.mingle.com




From: matthew clark <removed_email_address@domain.invalid>
Reply-To: <removed_email_address@domain.invalid>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 20:55:44 -0800
To: <removed_email_address@domain.invalid>
Subject: Re: [Rails] Re: RoR - Mac OS 10.4.4 on Intel

yes,  This works.  Xcode is on the disks that came in the box.

http://hivelogic.com/articles/2005/12/01/ruby_rail...

matt
matthew clark (Guest)
on 2006-02-01 07:14
(Received via mailing list)
Oh, and if you follow the hivelogic tutorial, you will need the mysql 5
binaries.  4.1 will not easily fly in the Intel hardware.  You can get
them
from mysql.org.

matt
Ryan R. (Guest)
on 2006-02-01 17:15
> 2. Does anyone know if Locomotive is using the uniersal binaries, or is
> it targetting PPC yet? I couldn't find anything on their site yet in
> regards to universal binaries.

No Universal Binaries just yet, but I opened up a new intel iMac last
night and was pleased to discover (as kaoru has already pointed out in
this thread) that Locomotive "just works". (At least in the basics, I
haven't yet had the time to check all the various gems and libraries in
the Max bundle).

I'll be putting together a Universal Binary version soon - but for a
program as simple as Locomotive, I can't imagine there will be any
noticable performance difference.  So, if you're interested in using
Locomotive on inter iMac, grab the current version - it'll work for you!

Best,

-ryan

--
Ryan R.
http://www.rockefeller.edu -- Bacterial Pathogenesis and Immunology
http://www.worldmartial.com -- Black Belt Instructor
http://locomotive.raaum.org -- Self contained one-click Rails for Mac OS
X
This topic is locked and can not be replied to.