On Tue, May 02, 2006 at 04:32:54PM +0000, Guido S. wrote:
} On May 1, 2006, at 9:09 PM, Gregory S. wrote:
} >Ubuntu is miles ahead of Debian… for certain purposes. You snipped
} >the part of my post about Debian being a general purpose
distribution,
} >not optimized for use by RoR developers. Neither is Ubuntu.
}
} So now we need a distro for PHP development, another distro for Java
} development and another for Perl development, Python development etc?
}
} That sounds like a really good idea! Not!
If you want a distribution that caters to people who only know how to do
those things and are unwilling to learn anything about administering the
system, then yes. Of course, if you’re willing to put some effort into
learning to use the system effectively, you can use almost any
distribution.
I don’t know how many times I’ll have to repeat this before people get
it.
It’s all about the tradeoffs. It isn’t possible to build a system that
makes everyone happy all of the time. Choose the distribution with the
tradeoffs that best match your needs.
} >} Here’s what I had to do to make it work.
} >}
} >} i) Add some random package source to my apt/source.list
} >Ubuntu’s problem, not related to Debian.
} So where do the packages in Ubuntu universe come from?
They are modified, lightly or heavily, from Debian packages. A huge
number
of packages that are available in the Debian repositories are not
provided
by the Ubuntu repositories. Debian and Ubuntu have different goals and
that is reflected in their respective tradeoffs, including which
packages
are available and supported.
} >} iv) Install irb seperately since some wiseass decided I might not
} >} need it
} >[…]
} >Perfectly reasonable given that the package maintainers have no
reason
} >to inflict irb on those who are simply running existing Ruby scripts
} >rather than developing them.
}
} How much space does irb take?
484k on my system.
} What the point in splitting Ruby into lots of little pieces?
Flexibility.
} How well did that work for Perl CPAN stuff?
Beats me. I don’t use Perl.
} What does that do to you when you are running a heterogenous shop?
I don’t see the relevance.
} Gems and CPAN modules have a much better chance of working on
} different boxen than a Debianized approach no?
I don’t know what you mean by that.
} >} Quick question: What do most people using Ruby these days use it
for?
} >} Hint: Ruby on Rails.
} >
} >Say that on the Ruby list and see what kind of flamewar you provoke.
In
} >the meantime, ask yourself why you expect a distribution optimized
for
} >desktop use to be optimized for web app development in Ruby.
}
} Then why do they bother to include Python, Perl and PHP? Or gcc, for
} that matter?
Because if you put any effort into learning about the system you are
using,
Debian makes things easy. I have had no trouble whatsoever with Ruby,
gems,
or rails on my Debian box because I actually know how to use it. If you
aren’t willing to learn how to use your tools, pick a tool that doesn’t
require as much learning. Debian’s stated goals do not include making it
easy to start using it without any effort to learn anything. Ubuntu’s
goals
do, but they limit what they make easy to start using without learning
anything; web development is not among those things.
} >} Now, WTF is Ruby doing stuck at 1.8.3 when it is going to cause
} >} problems with the NUMBER ONE APPLICATION BEING USED? What’s the
} >} problem, the apple or the orange?
} >
} >It has to do with release cycles. Ubuntu releases (or tries to)
every
} >six months. The December release of 1.8.4 occurred after the October
} >release of Ubuntu 5.10. The next Ubuntu release (6.06) is scheduled
for
} >June and will include Ruby 1.8.4. I found the information about
Ubuntu
} >releases at http://www.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/releases
}
} Typical answer. You’re saying it is not broken. I have another
} machine running 6.06 and I am well aware that Ruby 1.8.4 is there. I
} use it. I was simply trying to install a new application on an
} existing /stable/ server. Between having an up to date Ruby package
} and installing or upgrading the WHOLE DISTRO, guess which one is more
} preferable?
Tradeoffs, tradeoffs, tradeoffs! Release cycles exist for stability. If
you
want to go off the release cycle, you can do so by using the betas of
the
next release. I use a combination of Debian testing and unstable because
I
don’t want to be tied to their release cycle. I pay for it in that
sometimes things break.
} If someone can put up his own packagers, then how hard could it be
} for the maintainers to add in packages? If it works for me, then what
} is the problem in placing those packages for people to uses? With all
} the fancy pinning features that apt has, don’t you think it is
} possible to make it work for those who want to while keeping the
} distro stable for those who don’t want to?
}
} Maybe I don’t understand maintenance. What I do understand is whether
} it worked or whether it is borken.
If you understood maintenance you wouldn’t be asking these questions
(nor
would you be using such a confrontational tone). The maintainers, like
everyone else, have a finite amount of time. They aren’t paid for their
package maintenance work, so they have to spend a chunk of that time
making
a living. They may have other demands on their time, such as family,
eating, sleeping, or even other packages. They have established these
release cycles in an effort to release stable software in a reasonably
timely manner without dedicating their entire lives to it.
} >} Ruby from Darwinports works just fine. Both are packaging systems.
} >} I’ll leave it to you to tell us why the QA process is harming users
} >} rather than helping them?
} >}
} >} IMHO, I don’t need protection from upstream developers. I rather
need
} >} protection from obsolete packages … caused in the main by a ‘QA’
} >} process.
} >
} >Any distribution has its tradeoffs. That’s why there are so many. If
} >you don’t like the tradeoffs of Ubuntu, pick a different
distribution.
} >Be sure you understand the tradeoffs when you make your choice.
}
} Actually, I picked Ubuntu because I prefer apt-get to RPM hell. I
} would have picked Debian. But Debian has some particular problems
} relating to slow upgrade cycles and general laziness, all in the name
} of whatever. Anyway, why should I change distros just to get a
} working and up to date Ruby? Are you talking results or excuses?
If you are otherwise happy with your distribution of choice, learn how
to
work around its flaws. If you are unhappy enough with it that you have
to
piss and moan about it on a public mailing list, switch. If you cannot
stand the idea that these lazy maintainers are not addressing your
specific
problems as soon as you find them, if not sooner, switch to a commercial
distribution, purchase a support contract, and bitch them out on your
dime.
Have you ever heard the phrase, “There ain’t no such thing as a free
lunch”? It implies, among other things, that if you aren’t paying money
for
your software then you will pay in other ways. That may include your
time
and your frustration. You have three rational responses:
- Fix your problems for yourself.
- Fix your problems and make your fixes available to the world.
- Pay someone to fix your problems. (This includes switching to
commercial
software.)
Complaining loudly and repeatedly that other people aren’t fixing your
problems gratis is pretty much useless. Note how far it’s gotten you so
far.
} – G.
–Greg
