# Purpose of Ruby 1.9? **URL:** \ **Category:** Ruby\ **Created:** [December 26, 2007, 9:51pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/purpose-of-ruby-1-9/124236 "2007-12-26T21:51:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![RadosSSSS\_aw\_BuSSSS](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@RadosSSSS\_aw\_BuSSSS](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/RadosSSSS_aw_BuSSSS)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2007, 9:51pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/purpose-of-ruby-1-9/124236/1 "2007-12-26T21:51:23Z")
First of all I want to thank Matz and Ko1 for yours great work! I can’t say how much thankful I am for Ruby language. My question is generally to Matz, Ko1 or other Ruby core maintainers. We have Ruby 1.9 already released. Matz says that it’s not stable as he expected, so it requires some work to become stable. But what intentions are for Ruby 1.9.x? Is it released mainly for developers and programmers which are very close to language (language, gem maintainers) or it’s regular release for production usage? Does Ruby follow unix style for labeling versions? (1.8 stable, 1.9 development, 2.0 stable etc) I’ve read dissenting opinions of it. ---
**Author:** ![RadosSSSS\_aw\_BuSSSS](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@RadosSSSS\_aw\_BuSSSS](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/RadosSSSS_aw_BuSSSS)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2007, 10:18pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/purpose-of-ruby-1-9/124236/2 "2007-12-26T22:18:22Z")
You are asking very usefull questions! Well… we need wait to someone answer 😉 Regards, Luiz Vitor. On Dec 26, 2007 6:50 PM, RadosÅ‚aw BuÅ‚at [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > 2.0 stable etc) I’ve read dissenting opinions of it. – Regards, Luiz Vitor Martinez C. [Grabber]. (11) 8187-8662 [rubz.org](http://rubz.org) - engineer student at maua.br ---
**Author:** ![RadosSSSS\_aw\_BuSSSS](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@RadosSSSS\_aw\_BuSSSS](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/RadosSSSS_aw_BuSSSS)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2007, 10:45pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/purpose-of-ruby-1-9/124236/3 "2007-12-26T22:45:54Z")
> Does Ruby > follow unix style for labeling versions? (1.8 stable, 1.9 development, > 2.0 stable etc) I’ve read dissenting opinions of it. IIRC this was true for 1.7. I think the “stable” version after 1.6 was 1.8. ---
**Author:** ![RadosSSSS\_aw\_BuSSSS](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@RadosSSSS\_aw\_BuSSSS](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/RadosSSSS_aw_BuSSSS)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2007, 11:29pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/purpose-of-ruby-1-9/124236/4 "2007-12-26T23:29:46Z")
tho\_mica\_l wrote: > > Does Ruby > > follow unix style for labeling versions? (1.8 stable, 1.9 development, > > 2.0 stable etc) I’ve read dissenting opinions of it. > > IIRC this was true for 1.7. I think the “stable” version after 1.6 was > 1.8. I’m somehow surprised, because it was named since a long time what is behind Ruby 1.9. 1. Starting with planned Ruby 1.9.1 Ruby will not follow the even-odd number scheme, that was followed before. Ruby 1.9.n (n\>=1) will be a stable version, planned for production usage. 2. Ruby 1.9.n (n\>=1) contains the ideas from Ruby 2, that are actual feasible. 3. Work on Ruby 2 didn’t start now. 4. Ruby 1.9.0 was released instead of the planned Ruby 1.9.1, because the trunk was not as stable on 25.12. as everybody wants. It is not intended as a production version. 5. Ruby 1.9.0 is stable in respect to features, and is from this viewpoint a reference inplementation, which can be used by developers. This is what how I understand all the posts an conference videos on the last year. I hope it is complete an correct (Mats?) Wolfgang Nádasi-Donner ---
**Author:** ![RadosSSSS\_aw\_BuSSSS](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@RadosSSSS\_aw\_BuSSSS](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/RadosSSSS_aw_BuSSSS)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2007, 11:40pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/purpose-of-ruby-1-9/124236/5 "2007-12-26T23:40:18Z")
in the Desktop reference by Matz, printed in 2002, he says … “Developmental releases of Ruby always have an odd minor revision number such as 1.5 or 1.7. Once a developmental release is stable and finalized, it’s then “promoted” to a stable release. Stable releases always have an even minor revision number such as 2.0 or3.2. Therefore, releases with even subversion numbers are stable releases. Releases with odd subversion numbers are developmental versions…” I assume this is still the case. Do not ever use a developmental release for production. As far as intentions for 1.9.x, I will leave that answer to some one else. ---
**Author:** ![RadosSSSS\_aw\_BuSSSS](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@RadosSSSS\_aw\_BuSSSS](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/RadosSSSS_aw_BuSSSS)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2007, 11:53pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/purpose-of-ruby-1-9/124236/6 "2007-12-26T23:53:49Z")
On Dec 26, 2007 5:39 PM, Windham, Kristopher R. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > Do not ever use a developmental release for production. > As far as intentions for 1.9.x, I will leave that answer to some one > else. Matz announced a change to this versioning policy a few months ago on the ruby core forum. 1.9 which has been in a state of definitional flux for over a year, with experimental features being added to the language, then changed or dropped, was to have become functionally stable yesterday. As I understand it the intent was that yesterday’s release was to have been 1.9.1 instead of 1.9.0, which would have signalled this stability. I think that the language definition for Ruby 1.9 is now pretty well fixed, although Matz has reserved the right to make changes in the case that a major mistake is found. At the same time he made the remarks about the versioning changes, Matz indicated that 1.9.1 would still not be production ready and that the implementation would still be evolving over the next several months. The intention, as I read it, was to put a stake in the ground with a definitionally stable 1.9 so that the developers of important ruby code like Rails, etc. could start developing versions compatible with the new language. I’m a little concerned that some folks are jumping on 1.9 as an immediate replacement for Ruby 1.8, which it isn’t. – Rick DeNatale My blog on Ruby [http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/](http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/) ---
**Author:** ![RadosSSSS\_aw\_BuSSSS](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@RadosSSSS\_aw\_BuSSSS](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/RadosSSSS_aw_BuSSSS)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2007, 12:16am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/purpose-of-ruby-1-9/124236/7 "2007-12-27T00:16:47Z")
Hi, In message “Re: Purpose of Ruby 1.9?” on Thu, 27 Dec 2007 07:29:41 +0900, Wolfgang N1dasi-onner [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) writes: |I’m somehow surprised, because it was named since a long time what is |behind Ruby 1.9. | |1) Starting with planned Ruby 1.9.1 Ruby will not follow the even-odd |number scheme, that was followed before. Ruby 1.9.n (n\>=1) will be a |stable version, planned for production usage. | |2) Ruby 1.9.n (n\>=1) contains the ideas from Ruby 2, that are actual |feasible. | |3) Work on Ruby 2 didn’t start now. | |4) Ruby 1.9.0 was released instead of the planned Ruby 1.9.1, because |the trunk was not as stable on 25.12. as everybody wants. It is not |intended as a production version. | |5) Ruby 1.9.0 is stable in respect to features, and is from this |viewpoint a reference inplementation, which can be used by developers. | |This is what how I understand all the posts an conference videos on the |last year. I hope it is complete an correct (Mats?) | |Wolfgang Nádasi-Donner Yes, it’s complete and correct. To answer the original poster’s question, the purpose of Ruby 1.9.0 release announcement on the Christmas day was development driving. We had tremendous improvements in last few weeks which cannot be achieved without the goal. Otherwise we had to wait a few more _years_ to get production stable 1.9 version. Thank you for everyone cooperated. ``` matz. ``` ---
**Author:** ![RadosSSSS\_aw\_BuSSSS](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@RadosSSSS\_aw\_BuSSSS](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/RadosSSSS_aw_BuSSSS)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2007, 12:12am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/purpose-of-ruby-1-9/124236/8 "2007-12-27T00:12:37Z")
On Dec 26, 2007, at 4:53 PM, Rick DeNatale wrote: > I’m a little concerned that some folks are jumping on 1.9 as an > immediate replacement for Ruby 1.8, which it isn’t. Me too: [http://pragdave.blogs.pragprog.com/pragdave/2007/12/ruby-19right-fo.html](http://pragdave.blogs.pragprog.com/pragdave/2007/12/ruby-19right-fo.html) Dave ---
**Author:** ![RadosSSSS\_aw\_BuSSSS](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@RadosSSSS\_aw\_BuSSSS](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/RadosSSSS_aw_BuSSSS)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2007, 12:24am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/purpose-of-ruby-1-9/124236/9 "2007-12-27T00:24:23Z")
On Dec 26, 2007 6:11 PM, Dave T. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > Dave > I just answered a post from someone on the Textmate forum who > installed Ruby1.9 as ruby. Now he gets a syntax error inside textmate > when he tries to run a ruby program, since Textmate uses ruby > internally, and some of that code ran into one of the syntax > incompatibilities. – Rick DeNatale My blog on Ruby [http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/](http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/) ---
**Author:** ![RadosSSSS\_aw\_BuSSSS](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@RadosSSSS\_aw\_BuSSSS](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/RadosSSSS_aw_BuSSSS)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2007, 1:34am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/purpose-of-ruby-1-9/124236/10 "2007-12-27T01:34:51Z")
Matz and others - thanks for answers. It’s great news for me. I’m starting exploring new Ruby features. I love this language! 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![RadosSSSS\_aw\_BuSSSS](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@RadosSSSS\_aw\_BuSSSS](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/RadosSSSS_aw_BuSSSS)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2007, 8:53am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/purpose-of-ruby-1-9/124236/11 "2007-12-27T08:53:27Z")
On Dec 27, 2007 7:11 AM, Dave T. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > On Dec 26, 2007, at 4:53 PM, Rick DeNatale wrote: > > > I’m a little concerned that some folks are jumping on 1.9 as an > > immediate replacement for Ruby 1.8, which it isn’t. > > Me too: > > [http://pragdave.blogs.pragprog.com/pragdave/2007/12/ruby-19right-fo.html](http://pragdave.blogs.pragprog.com/pragdave/2007/12/ruby-19right-fo.html) will it be “safe” to say that the baptism of fire for ruby1.9 is lettting it run/support rails 2.0.2 without errors? kind regards -botp ---
**Author:** ![RadosSSSS\_aw\_BuSSSS](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@RadosSSSS\_aw\_BuSSSS](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/RadosSSSS_aw_BuSSSS)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2007, 9:46am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/purpose-of-ruby-1-9/124236/12 "2007-12-27T09:46:05Z")
On Dec 27, 2007, at 8:53 AM, botp wrote: > On Dec 27, 2007 7:11 AM, Dave T. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > > > On Dec 26, 2007, at 4:53 PM, Rick DeNatale wrote: > > > > > I’m a little concerned that some folks are jumping on 1.9 as an > > > immediate replacement for Ruby 1.8, which it isn’t. > > > Me too: > > > [http://pragdave.blogs.pragprog.com/pragdave/2007/12/ruby-19right-fo.html](http://pragdave.blogs.pragprog.com/pragdave/2007/12/ruby-19right-fo.html) > > will it be “safe” to say that the baptism of fire for ruby1.9 is > lettting it run/support rails 2.0.2 without errors? Wouldn’t that be a Rails goal? The reason Rails does not run on 1.9 are to my knowledge incompatibilities, it is not due to 1.9 not being production-ready. People have been sending compatibility patches to Rails, but work remains to be done. – fxn ---
**Author:** ![RadosSSSS\_aw\_BuSSSS](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@RadosSSSS\_aw\_BuSSSS](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/RadosSSSS_aw_BuSSSS)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2007, 10:29am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/purpose-of-ruby-1-9/124236/13 "2007-12-27T10:29:23Z")
botp wrote: > kind regards -botp Well … _after_ it works on RSpec, rcov, flog, heckle, ZenTest, and all of Ryan D.’ wonderful tools, sure, go ahead and fix Rails. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![RadosSSSS\_aw\_BuSSSS](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@RadosSSSS\_aw\_BuSSSS](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/RadosSSSS_aw_BuSSSS)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2007, 10:59am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/purpose-of-ruby-1-9/124236/14 "2007-12-27T10:59:17Z")
On 27 Dec 2007, at 08:45, Xavier N. wrote: > > lettting it run/support rails 2.0.2 without errors? > > Wouldn’t that be a Rails goal? > > The reason Rails does not run on 1.9 are to my knowledge > incompatibilities, it is not due to 1.9 not being production-ready. > People have been sending compatibility patches to Rails, but work > remains to be done. I know of at least one bug in 1.9 that breaks certain bits of rails ([http://blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-core/14379](http://blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-core/14379) ). But it’s true that a lot of stuff is just different, that’s expected. Ruby 1.9 is not in the general case a drop-in replacement for 1.8 Fred ---
**Author:** ![RadosSSSS\_aw\_BuSSSS](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@RadosSSSS\_aw\_BuSSSS](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/RadosSSSS_aw_BuSSSS)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2007, 4:17pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/purpose-of-ruby-1-9/124236/15 "2007-12-27T16:17:16Z")
I don’t believe that can happen… Ruby programmers like to be on the cutting edge, it seems… ---
**Author:** ![RadosSSSS\_aw\_BuSSSS](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@RadosSSSS\_aw\_BuSSSS](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/RadosSSSS_aw_BuSSSS)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2007, 4:05pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/purpose-of-ruby-1-9/124236/16 "2007-12-27T16:05:34Z")
On Dec 27, 2007 4:28 AM, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > > lettting it run/support rails 2.0.2 without errors? > > > > kind regards -botp > > Well … _after_ it works on RSpec, rcov, flog, heckle, ZenTest, and all > of Ryan D.’ wonderful tools, sure, go ahead and fix Rails. 🙂 Keep in mind that Ruby 1.9 is really a new language, Matz and co decided to release it as a way of driving towards Ruby 2.0 whose version number would more clearly indicate this, but there are changes in 1.9, which are deliberately incompatible with Ruby 1.8. Matz has spent the past few months backing out some of the more radical experimental changes, but there’s no guarantee of backward compatibility. So the work to be done is on both sides. Yes, there are, known, and unknown bugs in Ruby 1.9 which will be worked out by the core team, but on the other side, work needs to be done by all those tools and frameworks to ‘port’ to the new language. The new and removed language features of 1.9 are not likely to change unless something comes up which indicates a major mistake in the definition of Ruby 1.9. It’s a community project. On the whole, I think that this is a good thing, Ruby 1.9 gives the community a stepping stone on the path to Ruby 2.0. I’d hate to see Ruby suffer the fate of, say PHP, which has had some difficulties in getting it’s community to move to the latest version of the language. Some of us have been keeping an eye on the evolution of 1.9 for some time before 1.9.0 we’ve been the scouts, with 1.9.0 we’re starting to see more early adopters, or pioneers, start the journey to Ruby 2.0. The danger is unwitting pioneers won’t have gotten the message about the role of 1.9 in relation to 1.8 (and 2.0) and will load up their Conestoga wagons without realizing the real possibility of getting arrows in their back. What concerns me is that I’m seeing postings from folks, not only here, but places like the Textmate mailing list, who have installed Ruby 1.9 from source, and found that existing code using, and expecting the ruby command to map to Ruby 1.8 is breaking. I posted a suggestion to ruby-core that perhaps the Ruby 1.9 tarball should be set up so that BY DEFAULT, it installs as ruby1.9 instead of ruby, so that unwitting installers don’t get their Ruby1.8 installation replaced by default. – Rick DeNatale My blog on Ruby [http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/](http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/) ---
**Author:** ![RadosSSSS\_aw\_BuSSSS](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@RadosSSSS\_aw\_BuSSSS](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/RadosSSSS_aw_BuSSSS)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2007, 5:30pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/purpose-of-ruby-1-9/124236/17 "2007-12-27T17:30:46Z")
On Dec 27, 12:04 pm, Rick DeNatale [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > Keep in mind that Ruby 1.9 is really a new language, Matz and co > decided to release it as a way of driving towards Ruby 2.0 whose > version number would more clearly indicate this, but there are changes > in 1.9, which are deliberately incompatible with Ruby 1.8. Matz has > spent the past few months backing out some of the more radical > experimental changes, but there’s no guarantee of backward > compatibility. Exactly, 1.9.0 was labeled a “development” release, not a stable, not the replacement for 1.8 from day zero, will take longer to achieve that goal. > Ruby 1.9 from source, and found that existing code using, and > expecting the ruby command to map to Ruby 1.8 is breaking. The problem is that these users don’t read things, don’t research a bit before start playing with loaded guns, they didn’t read the _development release_ label matz put on his announcement. > I posted a suggestion to ruby-core that perhaps the Ruby 1.9 tarball > should be set up so that BY DEFAULT, it installs as ruby1.9 instead of > ruby, so that unwitting installers don’t get their Ruby1.8 > installation replaced by default. Users experimenting with installation from source should be aware of these risks. Is not Ruby responsibility to “babysit” all the users and avoid they shoot their foot. What you requested will also require a “new” release of 1.9.0-0, (note the zero of patchlevel), and I think is too early to do it (the complexity and because matz, ko1 and others need to relax a bit). - Luis L. ---
**Author:** ![RadosSSSS\_aw\_BuSSSS](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@RadosSSSS\_aw\_BuSSSS](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/RadosSSSS_aw_BuSSSS)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2007, 9:41pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/purpose-of-ruby-1-9/124236/18 "2007-12-27T21:41:58Z")
Rick DeNatale wrote: > On Dec 27, 2007 4:28 AM, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > > > Well … _after_ it works on RSpec, rcov, flog, heckle, ZenTest, and all > > of Ryan D.’ wonderful tools, sure, go ahead and fix Rails. 🙂 [snip] > On the whole, I think that this is a good thing, Ruby 1.9 gives the > community a stepping stone on the path to Ruby 2.0. I’d hate to see > Ruby suffer the fate of, say PHP, which has had some difficulties in > getting it’s community to move to the latest version of the language. Or Perl 6, which apparently will _never_ be adopted. 🙂 > Some of us have been keeping an eye on the evolution of 1.9 for some > time before 1.9.0 we’ve been the scouts, with 1.9.0 we’re starting to > see more early adopters, or pioneers, start the journey to Ruby 2.0. > The danger is unwitting pioneers won’t have gotten the message about > the role of 1.9 in relation to 1.8 (and 2.0) and will load up their > Conestoga wagons without realizing the real possibility of getting > arrows in their back. Well, sure … I haven’t done much with Ruby 1.9 outside of performance testing till now because: a. Performance testing is my thing, and b. 99 44/100 of the code I personally write will work in all of the current implementations. The context of my post was: a. I don’t really care whether Rails ever runs with 1.9, or even 2.0. It runs with MRI, it runs with jRuby, and a moderate amount of tweaking can get either of them past the “throw hardware at it” method of performance tuning. People are earning a decent living as Rails programmers, and they don’t need 1.9 any more than they need to upgrade from RHEL 4 to RHEL 5 if RHEL 4 is working for them. b. What I _do_ care about is the other thing Ruby is really good at – behavior/test driven development, meta-programming, domain-specific languages, pragmatic programming, continuous integration, etc. And the people who built these tools are the very pioneers we “settlers” are counting on to make Ruby 1.9 and Ruby 2.0 successful in this domain. So anything we can do to make _their_ job easier is worth doing. (Like going back to MinGW on Windows …) 😉 > What concerns me is that I’m seeing postings from folks, not only > here, but places like the Textmate mailing list, who have installed > Ruby 1.9 from source, and found that existing code using, and > expecting the ruby command to map to Ruby 1.8 is breaking. > > I posted a suggestion to ruby-core that perhaps the Ruby 1.9 tarball > should be set up so that BY DEFAULT, it installs as ruby1.9 instead of > ruby, so that unwitting installers don’t get their Ruby1.8 > installation replaced by default. Yeah, that makes sense, given that it is a “development” release. It would also make the job of Linux distro package management systems a lot easier, so we’d see Ruby 1.9 show up in Fedora, Debian/Ubuntu and Gentoo a lot sooner. Right now, they have limited manpower and can’t cope with all the extra work associated with having two versions of Ruby, even though they all have provisions for it. ---
**Author:** ![RadosSSSS\_aw\_BuSSSS](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@RadosSSSS\_aw\_BuSSSS](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/RadosSSSS_aw_BuSSSS)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2007, 12:00am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/purpose-of-ruby-1-9/124236/19 "2007-12-28T00:00:53Z")
> The problem is that these users don’t read things I dont think that is a huge problem. Just point them to the URL of this thread/mail where someone stated that “it is a new language”, which kinda says all there is to be said about it in a very concise manner. It’s more a … paradigm shift than a slow gradual change with baby steps! 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![RadosSSSS\_aw\_BuSSSS](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@RadosSSSS\_aw\_BuSSSS](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/RadosSSSS_aw_BuSSSS)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2007, 7:10pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/purpose-of-ruby-1-9/124236/20 "2007-12-27T19:10:09Z")
Rick Denatale wrote: > I posted a suggestion to ruby-core that perhaps the Ruby 1.9 tarball > should be set up so that BY DEFAULT, it installs as ruby1.9 instead of > ruby, so that unwitting installers don’t get their Ruby1.8 > installation replaced by default. I don’t think so. Add a YOU-SHOULD-REALLY.README file which strongly recommends to use “–prefix” and “–programm-suffix” in “configure”. Wolfgang Nádasi-Donner [Next page](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/purpose-of-ruby-1-9/124236.md?page=2)