# Ruby has not been added to LSB 3.2 (but both Perl and Python **URL:** \ **Category:** Ruby\ **Created:** [May 26, 2007, 12:45pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/ruby-has-not-been-added-to-lsb-3-2-but-both-perl-and-python/105163 "2007-05-26T12:45:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![GinTon](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/g/da6949/32.png) [@GinTon](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/GinTon)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2007, 12:45pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/ruby-has-not-been-added-to-lsb-3-2-but-both-perl-and-python/105163/1 "2007-05-26T12:45:52Z")
I’ve seen that the next version of LSB 3.2 (will be released on June, 2007) will add Perl and Python but not Ruby. That mean that the next Linux distributions that follow the LSB standard as Debian or Ubuntu will have Perl and Python by default. [http://www.linux-foundation.org/en/LSB\_Roadmap](http://www.linux-foundation.org/en/LSB_Roadmap) Ruby is the second best programming language that can be easily used for SOP (Script-Oriented Programming) only behind of sh shell. So the Ruby community should to inform / contact / press to linux- [foundation.org](http://foundation.org) for that Ruby also been added. [http://merd.sourceforge.net/pixel/language-study/scripting-language/](http://merd.sourceforge.net/pixel/language-study/scripting-language/) ---
**Author:** ![GinTon](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/g/da6949/32.png) [@GinTon](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/GinTon)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2007, 12:22am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/ruby-has-not-been-added-to-lsb-3-2-but-both-perl-and-python/105163/2 "2007-05-27T00:22:55Z")
GinTon wrote: > [foundation.org](http://foundation.org) for that Ruby also been added. > > [Scriptometer: measuring the ease of SOP (Script-Oriented Programming) of programming languages](http://merd.sourceforge.net/pixel/language-study/scripting-language/) While I agree that Ruby “should” be part of the LSB, the fact is that the committees that oversee LSB and other standards are composed of people _invited_ to be there, not people who believe that they _should_ be there. So don’t expect much without a _lot_ of networking. And don’t expect whining to get you anything. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![GinTon](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/g/da6949/32.png) [@GinTon](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/GinTon)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2007, 2:23am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/ruby-has-not-been-added-to-lsb-3-2-but-both-perl-and-python/105163/3 "2007-05-27T02:23:06Z")
Or just… popularize many handy Ruby-based [system] utilities that people “can’t live without”. ---
**Author:** ![GinTon](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/g/da6949/32.png) [@GinTon](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/GinTon)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2007, 9:52am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/ruby-has-not-been-added-to-lsb-3-2-but-both-perl-and-python/105163/4 "2007-05-27T09:52:36Z")
Paul S. wrote: > Or just… > popularize many handy Ruby-based [system] utilities that people “can’t > live without”. I think that must be the point - it’s not that the LSB people necessarily like Perl and Python over Ruby, it’s just that more system-almost-critical scripts and tools are written in them than are written in Ruby. ---
**Author:** ![GinTon](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/g/da6949/32.png) [@GinTon](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/GinTon)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2007, 7:15am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/ruby-has-not-been-added-to-lsb-3-2-but-both-perl-and-python/105163/5 "2007-05-27T07:15:25Z")
On May 27, 2007, at 9:21 AM, Paul S. wrote: > Or just… > popularize many handy Ruby-based [system] utilities that people “can’t > live without”. or dont worry about it. just apt get it. ---
**Author:** ![GinTon](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/g/da6949/32.png) [@GinTon](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/GinTon)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2007, 8:00pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/ruby-has-not-been-added-to-lsb-3-2-but-both-perl-and-python/105163/6 "2007-05-27T20:00:42Z")
On Sat, 26 May 2007, GinTon wrote: > [foundation.org](http://foundation.org) for that Ruby also been added. > > [Scriptometer: measuring the ease of SOP (Script-Oriented Programming) of programming languages](http://merd.sourceforge.net/pixel/language-study/scripting-language/) I don’t see how not including Ruby by default could be a problem (mind you I haven’t checked what “including by default” means - does it, as I assume, that a distro to be LSB compliant needs to ship Perl/Python as part of its base installation?). However I see how including Python and Perl by default could be a problem: bloat. And if you add Ruby too: more bloat. I can’t see what’s so difficult about “apt-get install ruby”, or whatever that is in the other distros. \*t – ---
**Author:** ![GinTon](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/g/da6949/32.png) [@GinTon](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/GinTon)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2007, 8:43pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/ruby-has-not-been-added-to-lsb-3-2-but-both-perl-and-python/105163/7 "2007-05-27T20:43:49Z")
> > > > IIRC all distros have at least one component that’s written in > Python. The Red > Hat installer, Anaconda, is written in Python. I’m not sure about > Perl, though. This is exactly the kind of reason why these are installed by default, I suspect. Much software that is part of the distro and is commonly used may need Perl and Python to run some install scripts. Certainly, any Apache install almost always is installed with Perl. Perl more than any other scripting language is pretty much bound to Linux and Unix by history and the loads of tools that use it/are built with it. ---
**Author:** ![GinTon](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/g/da6949/32.png) [@GinTon](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/GinTon)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2007, 8:07pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/ruby-has-not-been-added-to-lsb-3-2-but-both-perl-and-python/105163/8 "2007-05-27T20:07:44Z")
Quoting Alex Y. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid): > – > Alex IIRC all distros have at least one component that’s written in Python. The Red Hat installer, Anaconda, is written in Python. I’m not sure about Perl, though. ---
**Author:** ![GinTon](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/g/da6949/32.png) [@GinTon](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/GinTon)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2007, 10:37pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/ruby-has-not-been-added-to-lsb-3-2-but-both-perl-and-python/105163/9 "2007-05-27T22:37:56Z")
Quoting Tomas P.'s Mailing L. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid): > > for SOP (Script-Oriented Programming) only behind of sh shell. So the > > bloat. > > I can’t see what’s so difficult about “apt-get install ruby”, or whatever > that is in the other distros. > \*t I agree … furthermore, it just flat out ain’t gonna happen on some distros, like Gentoo. Gentoo is very much a customizable distro. If you’re a minimalist, you can bring the system up with a “stage3” install. Gentoo, being source-based, however, does have something by default that most of the major distros – RPM and DEB based – don’t have: gcc. So a minimal Gentoo box will have more stuff than a minimal Red Hat or Debian box. In any event, LSB is purely an attempt to converge the two major dialects of Linux, Red Hat/RPM and Debian/DEB, into something that people from either side of the fence can deal with. “Also-rans” like Gentoo and Ruby are not part of this by the intention of the committee. Ruby can do itself a big favor, and Rails can do itself an even bigger favor, by _embracing_ the standard, rather than whining about being excluded.