Which is the best OS to use for ruby development...My vote goes to Mac OS X? What would be considered the best environment for hosting ruby and rails? Mac? FreeBSD? Gentoo?
on 2005-11-19 09:13
on 2005-11-19 09:52
Ruby is, I believe, primarily designed for use with Linux, although the code is highly portable. Since Linux is the primary development platform, it may also have the fastest bug fixing and the most thorough testing. As a result, your best bet for hosting would be a server-grade Linux OS such as RHEL, CentOS, or the server versions of other distributions. For development, consistency with your hosting platform may or may not be a concern. You can probably use anything here, but if your rails app relies on some more advanced libraries you may be best off with linux again, as package management makes that side of things much simpler and you can ensure that both are running exactly the same libraries. Other similar unices such as BSDs are also likely to work well. Mac OS X would OK as well.
on 2005-11-19 10:22
On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 05:12:23PM +0900, Rawn027 wrote: > Which is the best OS to use for ruby development...My vote goes to Mac > OS X? matz uses Debian ;-)
on 2005-11-19 11:53
On 11/19/05, Mauricio FernÃ¡ndez <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 05:12:23PM +0900, Rawn027 wrote: > > Which is the best OS to use for ruby development...My vote goes to Mac > > OS X? > > matz uses Debian ;-) Lots of people happen to like FreeBSD for its Ruby support. One of its major system utilities, portupgrade, is written in Ruby, so that's one neat aspect. I'd recommend staying away from Gentoo: I prefer source-based OSs, but Gentoo just breaks too often for it to be worth it. Also, Gentoo users are on the whole jerkyer and less helpful than normal people. FreeBSD gives you the exact same control, with much more stability at the expense of a bit of user-friendiness. If you know what you're doing, it's a really productive environment that won't break unless you do something stupid. I like it ;-) I actually haven't tried Debian much (I know! *Gasp*!) but like I said, I prefer source-based distros. That said, Ubuntu is running marvellously on my thinkpad right now, which is my main development machine. You can get Ruby binaries apt-get'ed, but lighttpd you'll have to compile and install by hand or install from a .deb packge (find 'em by googling). Sure, it's not all set up to go, but that's not necesarily a bad thing (and it's pretty simple anyways). That said, take this all with a grain of salt and some sugar. And maybe a taco or two. Jacob
on 2005-11-19 11:53
Rawn027 <Rawn027@gmail.com> wrote: > Which is the best OS to use for ruby development...My vote > goes to Mac OS X? I have a great time developing Ruby on both OS X and FreeBSD. I don't happen to have any Linux boxen at the moment, but last time I did, it worked really well. For me, any system that has vim and a ruby installation is ideal. > What would be considered the best environment for hosting ruby > and rails? Mac? FreeBSD? Gentoo? I like OS X as a desktop and/or development system, where tools like CocoaMySQL make short work of things which can be tedious on other systems. But OS X is large, bulky, and sluggish and, to a lesser extent, the G4 PPC platform is not optimized for data throughput. For performance, I've found recent versions of FreeBSD to be increasingly snappy, and they keep fairly current versions of most of their packages. Next to FreeBSD, I have to say I think Debian has the most streamlined package management system, making it ridiculously simple to keep an up-to-date system. In the past, Debian has been somewhat slow to update packages, but they've gotten better about this in recent years. Both these platforms offer an enormous array of software ready to build and/or install. My USD$0.05, Tim
on 2005-11-19 12:38
jqshenker wrote: > I'd recommend staying away from Gentoo: I prefer > source-based OSs, but Gentoo just breaks too often for it to be worth > it. Also, Gentoo users are on the whole jerkyer and less helpful than > normal people. I can't help to defend gentoo here a bit. I've been using gentoo for two years now and in my experience it doesn't break often, but YMMV. The main pro about gentoo is its users and support. The forums are just amazing and people are generally very helpful. I know some people who use other distros, but they often first turn to the gentoo forums for help etc. Of course I have no experience with gentoo people in mailinglists and irc. They may all be jerks there. (Sorry couldn't help but defend them a little :))
on 2005-11-19 13:24
On 11/19/05, Edwin van Leeuwen <email@example.com> wrote: > use other distros, but they often first turn to the gentoo forums for > help etc. Of course I have no experience with gentoo people in > mailinglists and irc. They may all be jerks there. > > (Sorry couldn't help but defend them a little :)) That's perfectly ok! I actually am using Gentoo on two of my boxes (have been for about a year, pending a move to FreeBSD which will happen Any Day Now ;), and they've worked great for the most part. The thing that bugs me is that every so often they go, "Oh, let's rearrange the dev-php/* packages". "Oh, there apache config files need moving". Etc. Sure, change for the better is ok, but I've just had to deal with too many problems stemming from these rough transitions. Sometimes packages are marked stable that definitely shouldn't have been (the software itself is rarely at fault-it's the Portage build script/ebuild). Of course, I'm running amd64 where breakage is much more common unfortunately. My secondary, x86 box has had far less trouble. The forums (I forgot to mention) are really good. The IRC channel, not so much! :-P Stay away, and do yourself a favor. That said, FreeBSD also has a good community and many of the benefits of Gentoo, with fewer problems. And they have a new logo! This is only my experience, but you can't go wrong with either one. It's just that FreeBSD is "right-er" for me ;-) Before you commit to anything, find a spare box and install as many OSs as you can in a week. Besides a good learning experience with respect to *nix administration, you can try each in turn and see how you like it. It comes down to a personal preference, often. Jacob
on 2005-11-19 14:06
On 11/19/05, Rawn027 <Rawn027@gmail.com> wrote: > Which is the best OS to use for ruby development...My vote goes to Mac > OS X? Which OS do you find best for development? That will give you your answer. I develop PDF::Writer entirely on Windows. When I get around to purchasing a MacOS X laptop, I will probably shift my development of PDF::Writer to the Mac (or it might be both Mac and Win since I'm planning on getting a macintel). I find that I develop for the Ruby platform. [...] On 11/19/05, Timothy Goddard <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > Ruby is, I believe, primarily designed for use with Linux, although > the code is highly portable. I'm not sure that's true. In fact, I think it would be fair to say that no, Ruby is not "primarily designed for use with Linux". It is designed as a cross-platform language. Debian Linux is Matz's primary development environment and there are a lot of Linux users, but the "many eyeballs" theory definitely applies, as bugs with AIX, HP-UX, Solaris, Windows, Mac OS X, FreeBSD and less popular platforms get noticed relatively quickly, even if they aren't necessarily fixed quickly because of developers' limited access to some of those boxes. Indeed, I will be adding new features to the Windows implementation of Ruby in the not-too-distant future because I have access to that as a development platform. By and large, though, I personally would prefer to run on FreeBSD or MacOS X than any version of Linux, but especially Debian. I know Matz uses Debian, but there have been quality issues with Debian's Ruby support in the past and while the current situation is *better*, it's still not (IMO) good enough. On 11/19/05, Tim Hammerquist <email@example.com> wrote: > I have a great time developing Ruby on both OS X and FreeBSD. I don't > happen to have any Linux boxen at the moment, but last time I did, it > worked really well. > > For me, any system that has vim and a ruby installation is ideal. Precisely! -austin
on 2005-11-19 15:18
On Nov 19, 2005, at 6:38 AM, Edwin van Leeuwen wrote: > amazing and people are generally very helpful. I know some people who > use other distros, but they often first turn to the gentoo forums for > help etc. Of course I have no experience with gentoo people in > mailinglists and irc. They may all be jerks there. > Thanks. As a Gentoo maintainer for Ruby, I'll chime in and say that I actively read this list. I can't speak for other parts of the distribution, but at I can at least safely say that Gentoo is a great development platform for Ruby. Caleb
on 2005-11-19 15:33
Calab, I would like to comment on that I have been fussing around with gentoo for quite some time now. What WM do you use? I will currently just be using it on AMD Sempron with 512MB RAM. I really dont have heavy iron but not really heavy iron is needed for this application just for development and hosting on the same box. I am going to check out using Gentoo. What editor on gentoo do you use for development. Also do you use lighttpd with fcgi?
on 2005-11-19 15:55
On Nov 19, 2005, at 9:32 AM, Rawn027 wrote: > Calab, I would like to comment on that I have been fussing around with > gentoo for quite some time now. What WM do you use? I will currently > just be using it on AMD Sempron with 512MB RAM. I really dont have > heavy iron but not really heavy iron is needed for this application > just for development and hosting on the same box. I am going to check > out using Gentoo. What editor on gentoo do you use for development. > Also do you use lighttpd with fcgi? > > For development, I run a minimal KDE desktop and use the Kate text editor for most of my work. That and a combination of nano. For rails work, I have a few machines with lighttpd and fcgi and a one running apache2. For what it's worth, my rails development server is a Pentium 3 with 128 MB ram running lighttpd. I'll also admit that I use Textmate on an OS X Powerbook via tunneled ssh connections to work on stuff from home. Caleb
on 2005-11-19 16:43
I've personally grown comfortable with using Windows as a development platform, provided that I have my copy of VMware installed. I use FreeBSD as my VM 'server', not for any specific technical reasons but because it's what I'm most comfortable with. Sprinkle in a little samba, add subversion to taste, and I end up with a little developement system that works well for me.
on 2005-11-19 21:28
On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 10:05:36PM +0900, Austin Ziegler wrote: > On 11/19/05, Rawn027 <Rawn027@gmail.com> wrote: > > Which is the best OS to use for ruby development...My vote goes to Mac > > OS X? > > Which OS do you find best for development? That will give you your > answer. I think this is the best answer that I've seen. I use Ruby on Mac OS X, Solaris 2.6, 2.8 and 10, various versions of OpenBSD on Intel and Sparc. It doesn't work (because of no shared library support) on OpenBSD Vax. One of the real benefits of Ruby is how well it works cross platform. I can develop on any of these platforms and have no problems with the code on any of the other platforms. Rick
on 2005-11-19 22:44
On 11/19/05, Jacob Quinn Shenker <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > I prefer source-based OSs, but Gentoo just breaks too often for it to be worth > it. Also, Gentoo users are on the whole jerkyer and less helpful than > normal people. Oh... That's not biased! Says one of those Gentoo jerks. ;_ Seriously though, I have had no trouble whatsoever running and hosting RoR stuff on Gentoo. I've been using Gentoo for about 4 years and have yet to have an issue. From my experience, between windows 2000 / xp / gentoo / debian / ubuntu / mac os X.3 / X.4 / FreeBSD, i've had very little problems with any of them, and I frequent most of them each week. Of the above, if I had to pick a couple, I'd pick gentoo / debian / and freebsd, with gentoo being my number one pick, but any of the above work fairly well for development. For hosting, I'd say a source based *nix is a the way to go. Gentoo or otherwise, it helps with performance and tweaking. I agree with someone who said anywhere vim and a ruby interpreter resides is an ideal development environment. Windows is even (almost) tolerable via MSys and MinGW (if you have no other options).
on 2005-11-20 06:53
Rawn027 wrote: > Which is the best OS to use for ruby development...My vote goes to Mac > OS X? > > What would be considered the best environment for hosting ruby and > rails? Mac? FreeBSD? Gentoo? > I've coded for ruby on Windows 2000, XP, Debian, Ubuntu and OSX. For generic ruby code not specified on a certain framework or platform-specfic library I find they all work fine (unless you're OSX machine only has a one-button mouse). I use Eclipse as my IDE when running in GUI and nano as my text editor when ssh'ing or running a terminal. Eclipse allows you to use any platform and feel righ at home in development, since it's the same across the board. For doing rails work I have recently moved to Ubuntu systems for full-time development although my windows xp laptop still gets use on a regular basis. I work with RHEL 4 quality-assurance and production servers, so I may be partially bias to running on a linux environment to try to keep a closer consistency to the setup that the servers have. If you do any MySQL on windows due note that for development it may be fine, but MySQL seems to run considerably slower on windows then on a *nix box (if you consider running production on windows). As my *nix know-how has drastically gone up over the past few years I find myself doing quicker work in a *nix environment then on windows. Some things I've found that directly and indirectly help that are: - great virtual desktop support (yes you can get it for windows but it isn't as good imo) - tabbed-based console apps, like xterm, gnome-terminal, etc... - virtual tty support (alt-f1, alt-f2, etc...) - some *nix/bsd distro's have great support for downloading package/applications as they are needed. (on windows i found myself googling way to much, it's easier to type apt-get install i_need_this_package) But I'm with Austin...what works for you will be best for you! Zach
on 2005-11-20 13:03
Most of my experience is based on Rails development, I develop under W2K and deploy under Fedora. I would recommend to stick to *.nix, many libraries are just wrappers and it looks like the Windows based one are not the most compatible, the dll stuff is always annoying (in general terms) and I have found a lot of weird problems problems running the apps under Windows (crashes, memory leaks) that just don't happen under *nix.
on 2005-11-20 22:07
>> Which is the best OS to use for ruby development... > > I've coded for ruby on Windows 2000, XP, Debian, Ubuntu and OSX. Ubuntu combines Debian's wealth of packages with a higher degree of ease of use - it's certainly a very nice development platform. Be aware, however, that Ubuntu 5.10 (breezy) ships a broken preliminary version of ruby 1.8.3*. If you want to debug threaded apps, you'll need to compile your own ruby. Cheers, Paulus [*] see http://bugzilla.ubuntu.com/show_bug.cgi?id=17415
on 2005-11-21 08:11
> Lots of people happen to like FreeBSD for its Ruby support. One of its > major system utilities, portupgrade, is written in Ruby, so that's one > neat aspect. I'd recommend staying away from Gentoo: I prefer > source-based OSs, but Gentoo just breaks too often for it to be worth > it. Also, Gentoo users are on the whole jerkyer and less helpful than > normal people. (I'd like to start out by apologizing first, gentlemen. this is certainly off-topic, but needs to be said) Well Jacob, you succeed in communicating four things in your reply here. 1. you say Gentoo is prone to be broken 2. you say Gentoo users are jerks 3. you say Gentoo users are less helpful 4. you say Gentoo users are not normal As a Gentoo user, and a Gentoo developer... I'd like to say that I'm rather disturbed, maybe even slightly offended, at your remarks. We work hard to make the distribution good. And I'd like to say that the users bear some responsibility in how well their systems run. If you want to build your system with an insane set of CFLAGS and USE flags, then I think problems that result are your own fault. You say Gentoo users are jerkyer [sic] than other users. I beg to differ. A jerk is a jerk, and it matters not what distro the said jerk wants to use. People with the kind of attitude I'm sure you're referring to are unbecoming to the entire Linux community. Gentoo does not have the corner on this market, and it's unfair to say so. Gentoo users are less helpful? I'm sorry, but this is utter crap. It was this one thing that attracted me to the distribution in the first place, before any of its technical merits. I can personally vouch for this. I had a very frustrating experience early on, when I started to use Gentoo. I kept hitting a wall and was ready to give up. I had one of the developers help me, personally, to figure out the issues I was having. This took a period of hours, and I was ready to pay him for his time. He flatly refused, and asked only one thing in return - that I never again say I was going to give up on Gentoo. I didn't. Question - do you think we're less helpful because you come into #gentoo and ask a question, and don't get an answer *immediately*? If that's the case, keep in mind it's a VERY busy channel. And try idling there, and remember... /lastlog is your friend. By saying Gentoo users are jerkyer [sic] than normal people, you make us out to be abnormal. Care to explain that one? We're no different than anyone else. I just enjoy a little more control over my chosen distribution. Does that make one abnormal? I think not. Now... on to the Ruby business. Keep in mind, there is admittedly a bit of bias here, but I'm laying out all the cards. I think Gentoo is an excellent distribution to host from, and do Ruby work from. It might require more dedication on your part. Gentoo is hands-on. But it's really good for people who like to tinker. Good luck.
on 2005-11-21 08:15
Also, remember that there are still a large number of us *ix users that prefer to roll our own, and regardless of the packaging system provided by the OS, I'm gonna go get & compile for myself... I prefer things that way... Then I know what I have and where I've put it. I've never had a lick of trouble with a system I setup this way... my mileage with OS provided packages, unfortunately don't hold that same quality. ... j. On 11/20/05, Aaron Kulbe <email@example.com> wrote: > Well Jacob, you succeed in communicating four things in your reply here. > > was this one thing that attracted me to the distribution in the first > idling there, and remember... /lastlog is your friend. > might require more dedication on your part. Gentoo is hands-on. But > it's really good for people who like to tinker. Good luck. > -- "Remember. Understand. Believe. Yield! -> http://ruby-lang.org" Jeff Wood
on 2005-11-21 08:19
Oh, and as far as gentoo vs debian vs blah blah blah ... I've tried to setup a gentoo system for myself and run into troubles, so, I haven't yet gotten to play with it. I have uses FreeBSD 4, 5, ( and just downloaded ISOs for 6 )... and debian, ubuntu, fedora core, RHEL WS, and mandrake successfully. Anyways, there's my $0.02. j. On 11/20/05, Jeff Wood <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > > (I'd like to start out by apologizing first, gentlemen. this is > > rather disturbed, maybe even slightly offended, at your remarks. We > > does not have the corner on this market, and it's unfair to say so. > > Question - do you think we're less helpful because you come into > > Now... on to the Ruby business. Keep in mind, there is admittedly a > Jeff Wood > -- "Remember. Understand. Believe. Yield! -> http://ruby-lang.org" Jeff Wood
on 2005-11-21 08:51
(Another apology for this off-topic message, but I think that you will agree with me that it is prudent to respond.) Aaron, I wholeheartedly apologize, as I definitely believe I miscommunicated my true feelings toward Gentoo. - "Gentoo users aren't helpful": This was actually a typo, I was referring to some very unhelpful encounters in the IRC channel. The forum, as I later said, is excellent. - "Gentoo users aren't normal people": Oh, boy. Rereading this, I can clearly see I *really* could not have picked worse wording. I suppose you cannot know this, but that was *certainly* not my intent. I really meant "Gentoo users are... than users/people of other OSs/distros". These comments, while horribly misinterpreted (mostly by my lack of tact and clear communication), are influenced with several bad encounters I had with the Gentoo community. I know plenty of people, including yourself, who have had vastly superior experiences. I'm glad for them. It just wasn't what I have experienced. This thread is based on opinion, not fact. There is no right answer to "Which OS is best for development?" Just options, pros, and cons. - "Gentoo breaks too often": This one I'm sticking with. You can't know my exact situation by any means, but again: this is what happened to me. Of course this isn't common! Of course most people running Gentoo rarely experience breaks! The following is what I have noticed: On numerous occasions, weekly sometimes, Portage packages fail to compile. Just yesterday the postfix ebuild just died (bang!) after the checksumming step. This is to be expected, just not as often as it does to me. Major changes to the Portage layout are more frequent than they should be *IMHO* (dev-php -> dev-lang/php, Apache config files moves, the ftpbase and mailbase base ebuilds, etc.). Again, while you cannot know this, I'm not a n00b. I don't pretend to have more expertise than I really do, but I am quite experienced with *nix, so it's not just user-error that causes my problems. I think we have much in common, as I too am a diehard tinkerer. I just don't have as much time to fix things as I'd like. I'm a student; I do this as a hobby, if a very involved one. Gentoo would make for a stellar development or production box, if high-maintenance judging by my experiences. I run two boxes, and have thoroughly enjoyed it, even if I've been a bit annoyed at times when things break. If you want to tinker, and have time to do so, Gentoo is peerless. If you would like the same lever of "tinkability" but also with a touch more stability (in the maintenance sense, not as in "crashing".), FreeBSD would be a good choice *in my opinion*. Well, I apologize. I screwed up, badly. I was tired, and it was 4:00 AM. I don't pretend that is a valid excuse, merely a possible cause. In the future, I will attempt to put some more thought before hitting <Enter>. I hope we can put my mistake aside and get back to Ruby, Ruby, and more Ruby: Not to veer off-topic in an already very off-topic post, but I'm thinking of writing a drop-dead simple mutt-like email client in Ruby. Anyone know of existing efforts? Sincerely, Jacob
on 2005-11-21 09:07
I do too, actually, in certain circumstances. The nice thing I like about Ports/Portage is it *almost is* compiling from scratch, just edit the Makefile/ebuild to change how it builds. The reason I prefer not to roll-my-own is... I forget to upgrade. Yeah, it's bad of me, but I just can't help but like to "emerge -uD --newuse world" or "portupgrade -a" every couple days and be up-to-date a couple minutes later I've always hated binary packages (rpms especially). Debian/Ubuntu's system isn't bad for a simple, no-muss-no-fuss development box, I've found recently. And just to through another contender into the mix: I just installed OpenBSD for my firewall box, and I've fallen in love. Everything's chrooted *by default*, and you are encouraged to compile your software from source. The Ports collection has many rather large omissions, but it functions very well for providing infrastructure (libraries and stuff you don't really care about) on which you compile your "business software" (e.g. Ruby, lighttpd). Secondly: It doesn't use rc-scripts. I hate those. Sure, they're nice when restarting lighttpd for example, but some Linux systems have an init system so bloated and confusing I start to cry. And you can just implement whatever init script system you want, and call the scripts in the *two* (nice small number, eh?) master startup/shutdown scripts. Also, it boots ferociously quickly compared to my Linux boxes. Seeing it go up so quickly makes me smile :-) It's secure, and drop-dead simple (can you tell I like simple? Not easy, just simple.). OpenBSD just clicks with me, I recommend that those who haven't tried it do so on a spare box! Jacob