Forum: Ruby Linux OS

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.
2017657725dd1bce83dc8a1e2e991d04?d=identicon&s=25 Luke Ivers (Guest)
on 2007-02-06 17:07
(Received via mailing list)
I'm building a Linux VM inside of my Windows box so I can experiment
with
setting up different ruby/rails situations, configuring apache, trying
out
nginx, etc.

I know this is usually a heated debate, but does anyone have any good
suggestions on which release of Linux I should be using?

I've used Ubuntu before, but just as a desktop, not in a server-type
environment.

Other than that, I really don't have much experience with any Linux
flavors.

Thanks.
181af584c3f0598b18cedfaf32b68eb5?d=identicon&s=25 Samantha (Guest)
on 2007-02-06 17:15
(Received via mailing list)
On 2/6/07, Luke Ivers <technodolt@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Other than that, I really don't have much experience with any Linux
> flavors.
>
> Thanks.
>

When I first started out, I got my feet wet on RedHat (back when it was
open
source, now it would be Fedora).  The gui installers have gotten a lot
better with time.  Actually, now that I give it some more thought,
another
good distro that doesn't take up a whole lot of memory or space is
Zenwalk
Linux.  It's a Slackware based distribution that has a lot of dev tools
prepackaged.  I have a second machine that's a P3 500Mhz w/ 768MB of RAM
and
I've got Zenwalk installed on it.  It runs really nice and is a good
sandbox
environment.

Another place you can also check out is DistroWatch.
http://distrowatch.com- it shows each distro and what the popularity
of said distro is.  After you
get more comfortable in Linux and around the command line, if you want
to
learn a lot more, I strongly suggest going either to Slackware or
Gentoo.
I've not personally used Slackware, but it's a real good distro from
what I
understand.  I use Gentoo, which has taught me more about Linux in the
six
months I've been using it, than I had learned in the several years of
using
Linux on other distros.

Good luck.  I <3 Linux.

--
Samantha

http://www.babygeek.org/

"Beware when the great God lets loose a thinker on this planet. Then all
things are at risk."
  --Ralph Waldo Emerson
3bb23e7770680ea44a2d79e6d10daaed?d=identicon&s=25 M. Edward (Ed) Borasky (Guest)
on 2007-02-06 17:23
(Received via mailing list)
Luke Ivers wrote:
>
> Other than that, I really don't have much experience with any Linux
> flavors.
>
> Thanks.
>
It depends on what sort of server you're looking at. As you state,
Ubuntu is a desktop OS, as is Gentoo. That really leaves you with two
practical options, depending mainly on which package management system
you prefer, RPM/Yum or apt.

1. RPM/Yum. There are two sub-options here, Fedora and an RHEL clone
like CentOS 4.4. Fedora is more bleeding edge, but joined at the hip to
Red Hat. CentOS 4.4 is more stable, but is a pure community effort,
getting only source RPMs from Red Hat. If it matters, a lot more
"professional" servers run with Fedora than with CentOS.

2. Apt. There are a number of Debian-based distros, but I'd recommend
either Sarge (Debian stable) or Etch (Debian testing but in pretty good
shape for servers and "close to stable").

Unless you have strong feelings to the contrary, you'll probably be
better off with a stable Fedora -- I think the latest is Fedora Core 6,
but Fedora Core 5 might be in better shape. I don't personally run any
of the above regularly -- I run Gentoo (mostly workstations) with
occasional shots at CentOS for testing as close to RHEL as I can get
without buying something, or Fedora for things like Planet CCRMA, which
is Fedora Core 5 based. I haven't touched Debian since the Sarge release
-- I loaded it on an ancient laptop and gave the machine away to a
friend of mine for a church project. :)

--
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky, FBG, AB, PTA, PGS, MS, MNLP, NST, ACMC(P)
http://borasky-research.blogspot.com/

If God had meant for carrots to be eaten cooked, He would have given
rabbits fire.
3fbe8928f4cf14dc9a308140ba8f98b1?d=identicon&s=25 Peter Booth (Guest)
on 2007-02-06 17:36
(Received via mailing list)
One further consideration - if you are using Windows Virtual server you
should be aware that the MS Linux VM additions assume a particular
location
for X windows which means that Debian based distros such as ubuntu can't
take advantage of the faster, higher res, virtual graphics card. Its
crazy
and a colossal pain in the a$$.

If I had a Linux physical desktop (which I don't) I'd be very interested
to
try out a user mode linux VM, which is esentially just a process that
runs
ontop of Linux. I'm using RHEL for practical reasons but I would rather
be
using Debian or Ubuntu.


On 2/6/07 11:22 AM, "M. Edward (Ed) Borasky" <znmeb@cesmail.net> wrote:

>> environment.
>
> Unless you have strong feelings to the contrary, you'll probably be
> better off with a stable Fedora -- I think the latest is Fedora Core 6,
> but Fedora Core 5 might be in better shape. I don't personally run any
> of the above regularly -- I run Gentoo (mostly workstations) with
> occasional shots at CentOS for testing as close to RHEL as I can get
> without buying something, or Fedora for things like Planet CCRMA, which
> is Fedora Core 5 based. I haven't touched Debian since the Sarge release
> -- I loaded it on an ancient laptop and gave the machine away to a
> friend of mine for a church project. :)

----------------------------------------------------------
The information contained in and accompanying this communication is
strictly confidential and intended solely for the use of the intended
recipient(s).

If you have received it by mistake please let us know by reply and then
delete it from your system; you should not copy the message or disclose
its content to anyone.

MarketAxess reserves the right to monitor the content of emails sent to
or from its systems.

Any comments or statements made are not necessarily those of
MarketAxess. For more information, please visit www.marketaxess.com.
MarketAxess Europe Limited is regulated in the UK by the FSA, registered
in England no. 4017610, registered office at 71 Fenchurch Street,
London, EC3M 4BS. Telephone (020) 7709 3100.

MarketAxess Corporation is regulated in the USA by the SEC and the NASD,
incorporated in Delaware, executive offices at 140 Broadway, New York,
NY 10005. Telephone (1) 212 813 6000.
91e1fb8bd265b7629491ab64c42f0906?d=identicon&s=25 Reid Thompson (Guest)
on 2007-02-06 17:41
(Received via mailing list)
On Wed, 2007-02-07 at 01:22 +0900, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
> >
> It depends on what sort of server you're looking at. As you state,
> Ubuntu is a desktop OS, as is Gentoo. That really leaves you with two
> practical options, depending mainly on which package management system
> you prefer, RPM/Yum or apt.
>
UBUNTU, as well as several of the other desktop LINUX's, offers a server
installation CD in addition to the 'desktop' installation CD.
2017657725dd1bce83dc8a1e2e991d04?d=identicon&s=25 Luke Ivers (Guest)
on 2007-02-06 18:19
(Received via mailing list)
To add specificity: I'm using VMware's Virtual Server.
2017657725dd1bce83dc8a1e2e991d04?d=identicon&s=25 Luke Ivers (Guest)
on 2007-02-06 18:20
(Received via mailing list)
Since I'm already familiar with how Ubuntu works, I think I may go ahead
and
do a server installation of it.
I do a lot with the command line already on the desktop versions of
Ubuntu I
have/have had.
31e038e4e9330f6c75ccfd1fca8010ee?d=identicon&s=25 Gregory Brown (Guest)
on 2007-02-06 19:09
(Received via mailing list)
On 2/6/07, Luke Ivers <technodolt@gmail.com> wrote:

> Other than that, I really don't have much experience with any Linux flavors.

This is a tough question.  Personally I think the best bet is go
install a few distros, and see which ones are easiest for the things
you need to do.   The distributions mainly differ in their style of
administration more so than anything else.

All distros have their idiosyncrasies, and depending on your tastes,
you may consider them features or bugs.

I tend to favor fast, simple distributions with package repositories
on the bleeding edge.  For me, ArchLinux fits the bill.   I think for
doing something like setting up apache + ruby/rails, pretty much any
distro will do for experimentation, though the debian based ones will
annoy you if you try to install ruby via apt.
5498d1507784752a878d7cf33be13f6a?d=identicon&s=25 Scott Mathieson (uberkorp)
on 2007-02-06 21:48
(Received via mailing list)
Luke Ivers wrote:
>
> Other than that, I really don't have much experience with any Linux
> flavors.
>
> Thanks.
>
I've tried a few different distros inside vmware and have settled with
gentoo - seems to perform a lot better (average RAM use is around 140MB
of the allocated 256MB, with postgresql/myslq/litespeed/mongrel/vim in
process); it's also very stable - no doubt due to the fact it's been
built from source against the 'hardware' provided by vmware. Building
from source is very fast if you aren't building KDE etc :)
1c1e3bdfe006a22214102fcd6434a012?d=identicon&s=25 Daniel Sheppard (Guest)
on 2007-02-07 00:56
(Received via mailing list)
> It depends on what sort of server you're looking at. As you state,
> Ubuntu is a desktop OS, as is Gentoo. That really leaves you with two
> practical options, depending mainly on which package
> management system
> you prefer, RPM/Yum or apt.

Gentoo is not a desktop OS - it's not really geared that way at all -
sure the fact that you can compile everything optimised for your
processor makes for a potentially faster desktop experience, but there's
no real attempt to create a unified desktop experience like you'll find
in ubuntu and most of the commercial offerings.

I personally use gentoo on my server - I like the flexibility that
portage gives to the build process - especially for the transparency of
the update process.

Dan.
Aad37b5f7116c8d1f547d23b37566032?d=identicon&s=25 Greg Donald (destiney)
on 2007-02-07 01:11
(Received via mailing list)
On 2/6/07, Daniel Sheppard <daniels@pronto.com.au> wrote:
> Gentoo is not a desktop OS

Depends on your definition of "desktop OS".  Everything is relative, I
mean there are .net programmers who think windoze is a good server OS,
and it just might be from their perspective.  Gross generalizations
like the one you made above are good for nothing but flame wars.

> it's not really geared that way at all -

Nope but I have both a Gentoo and a Ubuntu box at my house and the KDE
configurations on both are identical.  Just because something isn't,
in your opinion, "geared" toward being a suitable candidate doesn't
mean it can't be used as one.
1c1e3bdfe006a22214102fcd6434a012?d=identicon&s=25 Daniel Sheppard (Guest)
on 2007-02-07 02:11
(Received via mailing list)
> > Gentoo is not a desktop OS
>
> Depends on your definition of "desktop OS".  Everything is relative, I
> mean there are .net programmers who think windoze is a good server OS,
> and it just might be from their perspective.  Gross generalizations
> like the one you made above are good for nothing but flame wars.

I meant it as a counter to the dismissal of gentoo as a valid choice for
a server OS. This thread was a discussion about which linux OS should be
selected for a server environment, and an earlier poster said 'Ubuntu is
a desktop OS, as is Gentoo', I was pointing out that that was not the
case at all.

The primary purpose of ubuntu is to be a desktop linux os (it is geared
towards desktop use). The primary purpose of gentoo is to provide an
optimised build using a special package management system (it's not just
geared towards desktop use).

I was dismissing a generalisation not making one.

Dan.
3bb23e7770680ea44a2d79e6d10daaed?d=identicon&s=25 M. Edward (Ed) Borasky (Guest)
on 2007-02-07 06:32
(Received via mailing list)
Daniel Sheppard wrote:
> I meant it as a counter to the dismissal of gentoo as a valid choice for
> I was dismissing a generalisation not making one.
>
> Dan.
>
>
>
I was the one who dismissed Gentoo as a server OS. Let me point out that
I have three workstations running Gentoo and it is my distro of choice
for workstations. If you want, I'll hunt down the blog post on why
Gentoo is not practical as a server OS except under some extremely rare
circumstances. The main point is that it just takes too much wall clock
time to do routine security and stability updates relative to Debian and
Fedora/Red Hat/CentOS.

I'm a big Gentoo fan. However, in a business setting where time is money
and cost minimization is king, Gentoo is probably the wrong choice. As
an additional negative, Gentoo system administration, while easy and
well-thought out and designed, is just plain *different* from what most
people know -- Red Hat. I've been using Gentoo for a number of years --
at least three. I can fix anything on my boxes and I can even break them
and fix them again. But I can't bail out a stupid Red Hat user without
reading the manual. :)

So I will stick with my recommendation: the vast majority of
non-professional servers are better off with Fedora than any other Linux
distro.

--
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky, FBG, AB, PTA, PGS, MS, MNLP, NST, ACMC(P)
http://borasky-research.blogspot.com/

If God had meant for carrots to be eaten cooked, He would have given
rabbits fire.
3bb23e7770680ea44a2d79e6d10daaed?d=identicon&s=25 M. Edward (Ed) Borasky (Guest)
on 2007-02-07 06:43
(Received via mailing list)
Gregory Brown wrote:
> I think for
> doing something like setting up apache + ruby/rails, pretty much any
> distro will do for experimentation, though the debian based ones will
> annoy you if you try to install ruby via apt.
That's a big negative in my book. :) How is Ruby installation difficult
on apt-based distros?

--
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky, FBG, AB, PTA, PGS, MS, MNLP, NST, ACMC(P)
http://borasky-research.blogspot.com/

If God had meant for carrots to be eaten cooked, He would have given
rabbits fire.
1c1e3bdfe006a22214102fcd6434a012?d=identicon&s=25 Daniel Sheppard (Guest)
on 2007-02-07 07:19
(Received via mailing list)
> Debian and
> Fedora/Red Hat/CentOS.

But again, the OP was after a machine to play around with things, not a
good business production environment - "I'm building a Linux VM inside
of my Windows box so I can experiment with setting up different
ruby/rails situations, configuring apache, trying out nginx, etc."

This isn't a production box, it's a play box... though I just noticed
that he said he's doing this in a VM... Ok, if you're going to be
running things inside a VM, probably spending all the time configuring,
compiling and tuning a gentoo box is not worth it. But if you're after a
play environment, Gentoo is great.

I don't think I'd want to run gentoo as my linux OS if my dollars or job
was on the line - probably less because I couldn't keep it secure and
stable and more that since it's not the 'safe' choice I'd be personally
responsible - but as my personal server and play machine, I wouldn't
dream of using anything else.

Dan.
Cb7c371146108bd4abc3c00e20ad1137?d=identicon&s=25 Mark T (Guest)
on 2007-02-07 08:03
(Received via mailing list)
www.h-e-r-e-t-i-x.org by Andrew Walrond (http://www.walrond.org/).

One to watch.

I've had a version running as a VM, late last year.

Looks like he's had time to upgrade his server.

Markt
Ad7805c9fcc1f13efc6ed11251a6c4d2?d=identicon&s=25 Alex Young (regularfry)
on 2007-02-07 10:18
(Received via mailing list)
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
> Gregory Brown wrote:
>> I think for
>> doing something like setting up apache + ruby/rails, pretty much any
>> distro will do for experimentation, though the debian based ones will
>> annoy you if you try to install ruby via apt.
> That's a big negative in my book. :) How is Ruby installation difficult
> on apt-based distros?
>
It's not the fact that it's apt which makes it difficult - it's the
historical packaging policies of Debian Ruby which splits the core into
separate packages for the interpreter, irb, rdoc, and so on, which is
confusing.  If I remember correctly, there was talk a short while ago of
providing a meta-package which would pull all of these together in a
single 'apt-get install ruby-full' (or something) to minimise
irritation.

I tend to ignore that and use checkinstall, myself.
753dcb78b3a3651127665da4bed3c782?d=identicon&s=25 Brian Candler (Guest)
on 2007-02-07 10:20
(Received via mailing list)
On Wed, Feb 07, 2007 at 02:32:11PM +0900, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
> So I will stick with my recommendation: the vast majority of
> non-professional servers are better off with Fedora than any other Linux
> distro.

Just remember that if you are running Fedora, you are acting as an
unpaid
alpha-tester for a commercial product (Red Hat Enterprise Linux). Also,
there is little support for older releases, so you will find yourself
doing
full version upgrades quite often.

If you like the idea of running "stable" Red Hat code, or you work in an
organisation that also uses RHEL for servers, consider CentOS:
http://www.centos.org/
You'll find yourself stuck with a 2.6.9 kernel though.

Otherwise, it's hard not to recommend Ubuntu. Ubuntu 6.06 has long-term
support (until 2009 for desktop, and 2011 for server), and it's a breeze
to
install and keep up to date. Sure, the default install is rather bloated
in
terms of the amount of stuff it installs, but disks are cheap these
days.

The ruby installation is broken into a zillion sub-packages, but
'apt-cache
search ruby' will generally find the bit you're looking for.

Just my 2c.

Brian.
3bb23e7770680ea44a2d79e6d10daaed?d=identicon&s=25 M. Edward (Ed) Borasky (Guest)
on 2007-02-08 03:44
(Received via mailing list)
Brian Candler wrote:
> full version upgrades quite often.
>
Ah, but aren't we all unpaid alpha and beta testers in the open source
world? :)
> If you like the idea of running "stable" Red Hat code, or you work in an
> organisation that also uses RHEL for servers, consider CentOS:
> http://www.centos.org/
> You'll find yourself stuck with a 2.6.9 kernel though.
>
Yeah ... CentOS and the other RHEL rebuilds are a really good deal. I
don't know why so many businesses choose to run Fedora servers rather
than an RHEL rebuild, but they do. I guess they know what they're doing.


--
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky, FBG, AB, PTA, PGS, MS, MNLP, NST, ACMC(P)
http://borasky-research.blogspot.com/

If God had meant for carrots to be eaten cooked, He would have given
rabbits fire.
3bb23e7770680ea44a2d79e6d10daaed?d=identicon&s=25 M. Edward (Ed) Borasky (Guest)
on 2007-02-08 03:52
(Received via mailing list)
Alex Young wrote:
> historical packaging policies of Debian Ruby which splits the core
> into separate packages for the interpreter, irb, rdoc, and so on,
> which is confusing.  If I remember correctly, there was talk a short
> while ago of providing a meta-package which would pull all of these
> together in a single 'apt-get install ruby-full' (or something) to
> minimise irritation.
>
> I tend to ignore that and use checkinstall, myself.
>
Isn't the RPM world the same, in terms of how the whole Ruby package set
is distributed? For example, if you install a Rails RPM it will pull in
only the packages it needs. On Gentoo, though, when you install Rails,
you can specify a USE flag for each database you want and it will pull
those in as well. On my system everything is enabled so I get

dev-ruby/rails-1.2.1  USE="doc fastcgi mysql postgres sqlite sqlite3"

It pulls in fastcgi and all its dependencies, mysql, postgres, sqlite(2)
and sqlite3. Assuming I didn't have Ruby and Rake installed already it
would bring them in as well.


--
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky, FBG, AB, PTA, PGS, MS, MNLP, NST, ACMC(P)
http://borasky-research.blogspot.com/

If God had meant for carrots to be eaten cooked, He would have given
rabbits fire.
Ad7805c9fcc1f13efc6ed11251a6c4d2?d=identicon&s=25 Alex Young (regularfry)
on 2007-02-08 11:33
(Received via mailing list)
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
>> It's not the fact that it's apt which makes it difficult - it's the
> is distributed? For example, if you install a Rails RPM it will pull in
> only the packages it needs.
I wouldn't know.  What would `yum install ruby` pull in?  Judging from
this recipe:

http://oe.openendstudios.com/2007/1/19/fedora-core...

(first on Google, no idea of the accuracy), it looks like that's all you
need for ruby itself, but there will be others watching who can better
answer...
8ae46ae3170a36a0f79ea109ef0ee2e7?d=identicon&s=25 Tim X (Guest)
on 2007-02-09 03:05
(Received via mailing list)
Alex Young <alex@blackkettle.org> writes:

>>>>
>> Isn't the RPM world the same, in terms of how the whole Ruby package set
>
> --

As someone who recently installed ruby and rails on a Debian system
(Debian
Etch), I don't believe there are any "issues", even with the packaging
system.
I simply used aptitude, selected the ruby version I wanted and aptitude
pulled
in all the necessary dependencies and provided  "Suggested/Recommended"
sections which contained additional ruby packages which were not
essential but
were either recommended (i.e. you probably should install these, but you
don't
have to) or suggested (i.e. these are not needed, but many users find
them
useful).

With respect to the OPs original questions. I think that the rpath
appliance
solution is a very interesting way to go if you just want to experiment.
Essentially, you use a virtual machine configuration based on either
vmware or
zen and then you get/build an "appliance" using rpath's appliance
builder (see
http://www.rpath.com). The appliance builder is a very simple way of
creating a
minimal Linux distribution that meets your needs and which is run as
either a
vmware or zen "image". One of the nice things with rpath is that they
have two
levels of operation. You can purchase their appliance builder and create
specific images, which you can then release/sell as you want. This
solution is
mainly for vendors who want to provide a simple consistent installation
for
clients. Alternatively, they have their free system, which you run from
their
site to build an image. With the free system, the only restriction is
that you
make the image you build available to others. For example, the last time
I
looked, they had both a zen and a vmware based LAMP image. If you wanted
to
play around with  linux using apache, mysql and perl, you could just
grab this
image and put it on your system - very quick and very simple.

I think this would be a great way to experiment with ruby on Linux as
you just
have a minimal Linux distro that is an image which you can load/unload
as you
need. You don't have to worry about maintaining lots of irrelevant
packages or
the potential security issues you can have with a full linux distro
which you
don't/can't manage/configure etc, because you only have the minimal set
of pa
packages necessary to do whatever it is you want to do.

We are starting to use this approach for managing all our servers within
our
data centre. It makes administration a lot easier because each of these
images
are like separate "sandboxes", so you don't get the horriffic dependency
issues
you can get with a single server supporting multiple vendor applications
(ie.e.
Oracle requiring version X of Java or Perl, a CMS wanting version X+1,
another
app wanting version x+2 etc.

From an experimental perspective, this approach is really convenient as
you
don't need to uninstall a system running (lets say Windows 2k) to make
available hardware to install a full Linux distro. Instead, you use
vmware on
your w2k system and configure it to allow a virtual linux image, which
is where
you might install an rpath Linux ruby image. When your not experimenting
with
ruby on Linux, you just unload the image and have all your resources
(minus
disk space for the image) available again.

I would recommend a system with at least 2Gb of memory for this
approach.
However, given that 2Gb systems are more common, this isn't too much to
ask.
You can do it with 1Gb, but you will notice a drop in performance. If
its just
for experimentation, this probably isn't too much of an issue.

Tim
3bb23e7770680ea44a2d79e6d10daaed?d=identicon&s=25 M. Edward (Ed) Borasky (Guest)
on 2007-02-09 04:22
(Received via mailing list)
Tim X wrote:
> clients. Alternatively, they have their free system, which you run from their
> don't/can't manage/configure etc, because you only have the minimal set of pa
> packages necessary to do whatever it is you want to do.
>
I took a brief look at rPath and "Conary" a couple of months ago. You
have to do a fair amount of detailed construction work unless one of
their existing packages meets your needs exactly. With Gentoo/Portage,
it's a *lot* simpler. The nice thing about rPath for open source
projects is that they will host them for you -- you don't have to find
someone willing to host, say, a 3 GB virtual machine (compressed -- a
Gentoo "lamp stack" is more like 6 GB uncompressed.

--
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky, FBG, AB, PTA, PGS, MS, MNLP, NST, ACMC(P)
http://borasky-research.blogspot.com/

If God had meant for carrots to be eaten cooked, He would have given
rabbits fire.
3bb23e7770680ea44a2d79e6d10daaed?d=identicon&s=25 M. Edward (Ed) Borasky (Guest)
on 2007-02-09 04:33
(Received via mailing list)
I have a project on RubyForge that I would like to give away. It's
called "vgrails", which stands for Virtual Gentoo Rails. As the name
implies, it is a set of bash scripts for building a virtual Gentoo Rails
server. When fully assembled, you have a VMware Virtual machine, Gentoo
Linux, a full LAMP stack (plus Perl and Python, which are in the Gentoo
base), Rails and all its dependencies, plus SQLite (both 2 and 3) and
PostgreSQL.

I will probably take one last shot at it over the weekend -- add RSpec
and strip out some of the things like R and the literate programming
tools that I wouldn't be caught dead without. Once I get it cleaned up,
if I don't hear anything from someone wanting to take it over, I'll
probably just ask RubyForge management to archive it and free up the
disk space. It isn't very big -- there's really nothing to it but a
bunch of bash scripts and config files. But I don't have the time to
maintain it nor do I have a personal use for it.

--
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky, FBG, AB, PTA, PGS, MS, MNLP, NST, ACMC(P)
http://borasky-research.blogspot.com/

If God had meant for carrots to be eaten cooked, He would have given
rabbits fire.
2017657725dd1bce83dc8a1e2e991d04?d=identicon&s=25 Luke Ivers (Guest)
on 2007-02-09 17:56
(Received via mailing list)
So, here's what I've gathered so far (yes I'm still reading all the
replies
to this post):

Given that I am willing to spend the time learning Gentoo's
functionality,
it's probably the best to play with.

I think that's what I'm aiming at.

What I intend to do in the long run is to take the results of what I
learn
here and use them as a full machine, as opposed to a VM.

So, given that I find out exactly what I need and works best for me
personally in this VM, I will then use that as a basis for how to build
production servers.

If I understand what I've read correctly, Gentoo would be good for that,
yes?
Ae16cb4f6d78e485b04ce1e821592ae5?d=identicon&s=25 Martin DeMello (Guest)
on 2007-02-09 18:59
(Received via mailing list)
On 2/9/07, Luke Ivers <technodolt@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> So, given that I find out exactly what I need and works best for me
> personally in this VM, I will then use that as a basis for how to build
> production servers.
>
> If I understand what I've read correctly, Gentoo would be good for that,
> yes?

Most definitely! My Gentoo story goes in the other direction - our
sysadmin is using it for our servers, and then for our desktops, and I
liked it so much that I installed it on my machine at home too.

martin
7572157852143be53747b2d08784cb6f?d=identicon&s=25 Jeff Barczewski (Guest)
on 2007-02-10 05:28
(Received via mailing list)
On 2/9/07, Martin DeMello <martindemello@gmail.com> wrote:
> Most definitely! My Gentoo story goes in the other direction - our
> sysadmin is using it for our servers, and then for our desktops, and I
> liked it so much that I installed it on my machine at home too.
>
> martin



I agree. I started out using Gentoo on VMWare on a laptop, and now have
many
installations including another laptop and a server. I enjoy using it
far
more than any other distro. Administration, installation/upgrading of
new
packages is extremely easy and you'll rarely find something that it
doesn't
have. No more manually pulling source and all dependencies. No more
trying
to find someone that has compiled in your particular feature, just
configure
what you want and emerge it. It just works.

There is a little more setup at the very beginning, but after that
everything is very straight forward and easy to maintain. Plus you end
up
with everything tailored to your exact needs. A wonderful distro!

It is also nice to have only what you want installed both from a memory
and
performance footprint but also for general security as well. And if you
really want additional security features, they have a full range of
hardening features for the sources.

Enjoy!
3bb23e7770680ea44a2d79e6d10daaed?d=identicon&s=25 M. Edward (Ed) Borasky (Guest)
on 2007-02-10 06:43
(Received via mailing list)
Luke Ivers wrote:
> What I intend to do in the long run is to take the results of what I
> learn
> here and use them as a full machine, as opposed to a VM.
>
> So, given that I find out exactly what I need and works best for me
> personally in this VM, I will then use that as a basis for how to build
> production servers.
>
> If I understand what I've read correctly, Gentoo would be good for that,
> yes?
>
well ... a lot depends on the host for the VM. I find Gentoo virtual
machines, at least with Workstation or Server, take forever squared to
do all the compiles. I've got a 1.3 GHz Athlon Tbird with a GB of RAM. I
can give the Gentoo VM 256 meg and it still takes over 24 hours to
compile everything at -O2, including Ruby, the kernel, X windows and one
of the *lighter* desktops like GNUstep/Windowmaker. Don't even think
about compiling OpenOffice.org, Thunderbird or Firefox -- install the
binaries. Apache goes pretty quickly, but PHP, MySQL and PostgreSQL take
a good bit of time. KDE? Forget it.

--
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky, FBG, AB, PTA, PGS, MS, MNLP, NST, ACMC(P)
http://borasky-research.blogspot.com/

If God had meant for carrots to be eaten cooked, He would have given
rabbits fire.
8029153bbcbda4a6844440c93e0c6422?d=identicon&s=25 Thomas Hafner (Guest)
on 2007-02-11 00:51
(Received via mailing list)
"M. Edward (Ed) Borasky" <znmeb@cesmail.net> wrote/schrieb
<45C8AB13.9040006@cesmail.net>:

> As you state, Ubuntu is a desktop OS

There's also a server flavour of Ubuntu:
<http://www.ubuntu.com/server>.

  Thomas
181af584c3f0598b18cedfaf32b68eb5?d=identicon&s=25 Samantha (Guest)
on 2007-02-11 03:44
(Received via mailing list)
i

On 2/10/07, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky <znmeb@cesmail.net> wrote:
> a good bit of time. KDE? Forget it.
>
> --
> M. Edward (Ed) Borasky, FBG, AB, PTA, PGS, MS, MNLP, NST, ACMC(P)
> http://borasky-research.blogspot.com/
>
> If God had meant for carrots to be eaten cooked, He would have given
> rabbits fire.
>
>
> Egads.  Compiling KDE does take a very long time.  One thing that seems to
help is having the 'kdeenablefinal' USE flag in your /etc/make.conf

When I emerged KDE, I did it before I went to sleep.  That's just not
something ya wanna wait around for. :)


--
Samantha

http://www.babygeek.org/

"Beware when the great God lets loose a thinker on this planet. Then all
things are at risk."
  --Ralph Waldo Emerson
3bb23e7770680ea44a2d79e6d10daaed?d=identicon&s=25 M. Edward (Ed) Borasky (Guest)
on 2007-02-11 04:51
(Received via mailing list)
Samantha wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Egads.  Compiling KDE does take a very long time.  One thing that
>> seems to
> help is having the 'kdeenablefinal' USE flag in your /etc/make.conf
>
> When I emerged KDE, I did it before I went to sleep.  That's just not
> something ya wanna wait around for. :)
The issue isn't so much KDE or Gentoo's need to recompile most
everything. It's the ghastly performance of VMware on jobs with a lot of
processor, memory and disk usage, which is what gcc is. One thing that
will make a big difference is that you absolutely positively *must*
pre-allocate your virtual disks. It's pretty much unusable if you don't.

When I was in the development stage, I had a separate virtual disk for
"ccache", another one for "/usr/portage/packages" and a third for
"/usr/portage/distfiles". That way, I had binary packages and didn't
have to do any more compiles than necessary. It also keeps "/usr" from
getting too big. Once the machine is "staged", I just unmount those
disks, turn off the compiler caching and the automatic binary package
building. :)

Still, I gave up on it -- it was just a lot of waiting around relative
to Gentoo on a real machine. Here in Portland you can pick up perfectly
good refurbished P3s with a decent hard drive and enough RAM to run a
Debian or Gentoo or Fedora desktop for less than some of the restaurants
around here charge for a small steak dinner. :) There's little need to
devote *part* of a machine to a "learning server" using VMware when you
can get something real. As far as I'm concerned, VMware Workstation or
the free VMware Server have only one practical use case -- as a way of
running a *small* Linux workstation inside a Windows workstation. (Or
vice versa if you work in a Linux shop but need occasional Windows).
>
>


--
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky, FBG, AB, PTA, PGS, MS, MNLP, NST, ACMC(P)
http://borasky-research.blogspot.com/

If God had meant for carrots to be eaten cooked, He would have given
rabbits fire.
181af584c3f0598b18cedfaf32b68eb5?d=identicon&s=25 Samantha (Guest)
on 2007-02-11 05:09
(Received via mailing list)
On 2/10/07, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky <znmeb@cesmail.net> wrote:
> > something ya wanna wait around for. :)
> getting too big. Once the machine is "staged", I just unmount those
> the free VMware Server have only one practical use case -- as a way of
> running a *small* Linux workstation inside a Windows workstation. (Or
> vice versa if you work in a Linux shop but need occasional Windows).
> >
>

I have two systems setup.  One is a P3 500 with 768MB of RAM, that runs
dual
boot with ZenWalk Linux and Windows XP.   Honestly, the most use that
system
gets is when I'm gaming and want to be able to surf the web, IM, etc.
My
other system (that I'm on now) is a Gentoo box that also does the dual
boot
thing with Windows XP.  I can't get myself to take the plunge and wipe
off
Windows, even though I only boot up into it about once every few weeks.
I
play EverQuest, and I found myself playing less and less the more I used
Linux.  I got hooked up with Cedega and once I went from an ATI video
card
to an Nvidia, I was able to play EQ in Linux, quite nicely.  So, I boot
into
Windows less and less.

I just feel like I have a lot more at my fingertips with using Linux
than I
do with Windows.  Since I'm getting more and more into learning to
program,
Linux seems to be a much more natural environment.   Also, I like having
the
'power' of the command line, which I do have to some extent in Windows,
but
not as much as I do in Linux.

As far as KDE and compiling go, I can't imagine how it would run on a
VMWare
environment.  It's slow enough to compile when you've got a 2.93Mhz box
and
1GB of RAM...  I tried Gentoo at my last job on one of my toybox P3's
and it
proved to be too slow for my lack of patience.  :)  I had ArchLinux at
work,
and that's why I chose Zenwalk at home for my smaller box... Zenwalk
seems
to have a lot of dev tools prepackaged.

Ah, I <3 Open Source.

G'nite!

--
Samantha

http://www.babygeek.org/

"Beware when the great God lets loose a thinker on this planet. Then all
things are at risk."
  --Ralph Waldo Emerson
8ae46ae3170a36a0f79ea109ef0ee2e7?d=identicon&s=25 Tim X (Guest)
on 2007-02-11 05:40
(Received via mailing list)
"Martin DeMello" <martindemello@gmail.com> writes:

> sysadmin is using it for our servers, and then for our desktops, and I
> liked it so much that I installed it on my machine at home too.
>
> martin
>

I have to state up-front that I've never used gentoo, so take the
following in
the context of questions (I guess I'm sort of playing devils advocate)
rather
than the basis for a religious war or flame bait.

Many people I've talked to that use gentoo think its a great distro.
However,
I've also been told by quite a few that it is not the best choice for
someone
who is not familiar with the GNU Linux/Unix way of doing things (i.e.
someone
who has only been exposed to Windows). All of those I've spoken to have
come
from either other GNU Linux distros to gentoo or are from a Unix
background.
From personal eexperience introducing windows users to GNU Linux, I know
that
one of the most alien concepts they have trouble with is building from
sources,
dealing with makefiles etc. Therefore, I wonder if gentoo is really the
best
way to start compared to distros like Ubuntu, Debian or even Red Hat?
There are
a lot of quite subtle issues which anyone with some epxerience on Linux
tends
to be across, but for the uninitiated, they can be very confusing.

The other point that is important to consider is what else your likely
to want
to do in the future with the Linux distro. For example, if you think you
may
want to install some commercial packages, then you also need to consider
what
distros the vendors support. Most vendors support Red hat (which isn't
my
favorite distro BTW), but I don't know of any that support gentoo.

Finally, I think one of the most important things to consider when
selecting a
first GNU Linux distro is to consider what others local to your area may
be
using. Find out if there is a Linux users group etc. This will make it
easier
to get help should you run into problems.

When starting a first go at GNU Linux and wanting to just get a basic
exposure,
I think it is best to go with the easiest and most straight-forward
system to
install and configure. Currently, I would suspect this may be Ubuntu
(based on
all the feedback/press I've seen). Initially, issues of performance and
long
term maintenance are less important to the novice than ease of
installation and
configuration.

Again, this is not to say that gentoo isn't a good distribution. In
fact, its
one I hope to try out when I can spare some hardware. However, for a
beginner,
I think it may be more difficult than necessary and as it has a smaller
user
base than other more popular distros, the new user may find it harder to
find
help.

Just my 2 cents worth.

Tim
8ae46ae3170a36a0f79ea109ef0ee2e7?d=identicon&s=25 Tim X (Guest)
on 2007-02-11 05:50
(Received via mailing list)
Thomas Hafner <thomas@hafner.NL.EU.ORG> writes:

> "M. Edward (Ed) Borasky" <znmeb@cesmail.net> wrote/schrieb 
<45C8AB13.9040006@cesmail.net>:
>
>> As you state, Ubuntu is a desktop OS
>
> There's also a server flavour of Ubuntu:
> <http://www.ubuntu.com/server>.
>
>   Thomas

I also think that if the OP just want to experiment with a GNU Linux
system, in
either a server or desktop configuration, either Ubuntu or Ubuntu server
will
do fine. Same goes with Debian or RedHat. Typically, the differences
between a
desktop specific distro and a server distro are irrelevant for
experimentation
and learning purposes. Most of the server oriented distros only differ
fromt he
desktop ones by having less desktop oriented add-ons (often they are
included,
but you have to select them manually), with the desktop distros, its the
reverse, most of the key server stuff is there, its just not installed
by
default. Some packages may be slightly different, such as being compiled
with
options to support a server configuration (i.e. maybe set to use more
file
descriptors or with more restrictive but secure options to incrase
system
security etc).

If all you really want is a linux box that has a web server, ruby,
rails, a
database and associated ruby packages, then any modern desktop distro
will be
fine. there is no need to worry about desktop vs server until you decide
to get
serious about developing server based apps in ruby and even then, you
probably
don't have to be too concerned until you get tot he UAT and production
stages.

regards,

Tim
181af584c3f0598b18cedfaf32b68eb5?d=identicon&s=25 Samantha (Guest)
on 2007-02-11 18:04
(Received via mailing list)
On 2/10/07, Tim X <timx@nospam.dev.null> wrote:
>
>
> I have to state up-front that I've never used gentoo, so take the
> following in
> the context of questions (I guess I'm sort of playing devils advocate)
> rather
> than the basis for a religious war or flame bait.



Will do. :)

Many people I've talked to that use gentoo think its a great distro.
> that
> one of the most alien concepts they have trouble with is building from
> sources,
> dealing with makefiles etc. Therefore, I wonder if gentoo is really the
> best
> way to start compared to distros like Ubuntu, Debian or even Red Hat?
> There are
> a lot of quite subtle issues which anyone with some epxerience on Linux
> tends
> to be across, but for the uninitiated, they can be very confusing.


Okay, Gentoo is more complicated than Mandrake, Fedora/RH, etc., in some
ways.  My Linux background starts out back when I got my first domain
and
hosted with a friend of mine.  The account had shell access and I used
to
hang out in Pine to check my email when I was at work.  When I'd go
visit my
friend in Austin who owned the hosting company and worked from home, I'd
sit
behind her and watch what she was doing and pick up on some things and
ask
questions.  I eventually dual booted into RedHat (before Fedora) and
would
do stuff here and there, mainly from a user perspective.  Believe it or
not,
building from sources really isn't that complicated.  In Gentoo, you
also
have a package management system known as emerge... if I want to install
Ruby on my system, for example, I'll click on my little Terminal icon,
type
su to log in as root, enter the root password, and then type 'emerge
--ask
--verbose ruby'  (you can type this as emerge -av ruby in shorthand).
It'll
then query the source server and tell me what it needs to install,
including
any dependencies.  If I type 'y' to install, it'll start installing.
Sometimes you do get some errors, and that's where Google comes into
play.
(probably more info than you wanted.)  As for building from source,
normally
you just download the tar.gz file, get in as root at a console, and type
tar
xfv source_file_name and it'll create the directories.... it's usually
as
simple as going into the necessary directory and typing a few commands.

As for which distro to start out with, I probably would've thrown my
hands
up in desperation if I started out with Gentoo.  I used Mandrake for a
few
months, felt I wasn't learning anything, then went to Fedora for quite a
while, and while I was learning some, I didn't feel that I was learning
as
much as I wanted to, that and the fact that the last release I installed
didn't work nicely with my ATI card and I got sick of messing with it,
and
in an impulsive moment, started my Gentoo experience.  Now, mind you,
the
first month or so of my Gentoo move, I rebuilt my system about 4 or 5
times,
because I screwed things up. LOL.  But, I haven't needed to do that
since,
and even though I've screwed things up, I've been able to fix the things
that went nutty.

Another release that is supposed to be more ''user friendly' is Sabayon.
It's based on Gentoo and has a lot of cool features preinstalled.

http://www.sabayonlinux.org   They have a Live CD or DVD download, and
you
can install off the DVD/CD, as well.  Tons of packages are included.
Most
everything someone new would probably need.

In short, my advice to a newbie with no Linux/Unix experience
whatsoever, is
to go with a distro like Ubuntu, Fedora, Mandrake, or possibly Sabayon,
use
it for a few months, and then when you feel daring, make the plunge to
Gentoo if you so desire.

Again, I apologize for my verbosity. :)

--
Samantha

http://www.babygeek.org/

"Beware when the great God lets loose a thinker on this planet. Then all
things are at risk."
  --Ralph Waldo Emerson
Fa2521c6539342333de9f42502657e5a?d=identicon&s=25 Eleanor McHugh (Guest)
on 2007-02-12 12:42
(Received via mailing list)
On 11 Feb 2007, at 03:50, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
> you work in a Linux shop but need occasional Windows).
With current-generation hardware VMWare Server is pretty useable. I
have a Core 2 6300 mini-ATX desktop with 1GB of RAM and Windows XP
that I use mainly for gaming (currently Neverwinter Nights 2 :) but I
have no difficulty running four FreeBSD appliances in the background,
providing my consultancy clients with their own development sandboxes
and a NAS. I've been thinking of tweaking things further by
increasing the RAM as the Windows desktop lags a bit when switching
tasks, and possibly RAIDing the HDD.

Of course all the real work gets done on my Mac...

Ellie


Eleanor McHugh
Games With Brains
----
raise ArgumentError unless @reality.responds_to? :reason
2017657725dd1bce83dc8a1e2e991d04?d=identicon&s=25 Luke Ivers (Guest)
on 2007-02-12 15:37
(Received via mailing list)
> desktop ones by having less desktop oriented add-ons (often they are
> a
>
> Tim
>
> --
> tcross (at) rapttech dot com dot au
>
>

While this is somewhat accurate, I do have enough experience with
Linux/Unix
in general that hacking at Gentoo is okay with me.  I finally (after 6
initial failed attempts) got a build done late Saturday/early Sunday.
That
was on my home machine.  Today I'm going to mess around with it some
more.
The only part that I'm having any real trouble with is customizing the
kernel before the build.  Everything else is pretty much straightforward
unix/linux stuff that you do on any server to get things done.  If
anyone
has references to a guide or something (not the default Gentoo
installation
guide) on what to do while configuring the kernel, I'd appreciate the
help.

Thanks for everyone's help, it's greatly appreciated.

The vgrails thing sounds interesting, you can send me an email off-list
if
you want.

technodolt :: at :: gmail :: dot :: com


Again, thanks to you all.
3bb23e7770680ea44a2d79e6d10daaed?d=identicon&s=25 M. Edward (Ed) Borasky (Guest)
on 2007-02-12 16:04
(Received via mailing list)
Luke Ivers wrote:
> The only part that I'm having any real trouble with is customizing the
> kernel before the build.  Everything else is pretty much straightforward
> unix/linux stuff that you do on any server to get things done.  If anyone
> has references to a guide or something (not the default Gentoo
> installation
> guide) on what to do while configuring the kernel, I'd appreciate the
> help.
For most servers or desktops or workstations, you shouldn't have to
customize the kernel. Read through the manual on using "genkernel". The
exact steps vary from release to release, but essentially all you have
to do is "emerge genkernel" and do a "genkernel all" to get started.
There may be another step to get a default configuration, but unless
you're doing something special like building a router, you shouldn't
have to change the default kernel to get on the air.

Once you get the machine up and running and have done an "emerge
--sync", then you'll want to customize your kernel. But just to get it
booted up, the defaults should work.

--
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky, FBG, AB, PTA, PGS, MS, MNLP, NST, ACMC(P)
http://borasky-research.blogspot.com/

If God had meant for carrots to be eaten cooked, He would have given
rabbits fire.
181af584c3f0598b18cedfaf32b68eb5?d=identicon&s=25 Samantha (Guest)
on 2007-02-12 17:34
(Received via mailing list)
On 2/12/07, Luke Ivers <technodolt@gmail.com> wrote:
> kernel before the build.  Everything else is pretty much straightforward
>
> technodolt :: at :: gmail :: dot :: com
>
>
> Again, thanks to you all.
>


Woohoo!  Long live Gentoo.  If you need any help, you can email me
offlist.    Of course, I am not like the Linux Guru of All or anything,
but
I'm more than happy to help or point you in a right direction.

As for customizing the kernel, I go about it the 'easy' way and use
genkernel:

genkernel --menuconfig --bootloader=grub all (make sure the symlink
use tag is in your /etc/make.conf)

I go through the menu options and if there's something I know I don't
need, I take it out (ie a lot of the laptop stuff).  I select my
proper processor, etc.
Also, what I used for certain things like DRM, depended on which video
card I was using.  I run the unstable architecture, so I have new
sources that I can upgrade
to, I'm just choosing not to as things are working nicely and I'm busy
focusing on rubyish stuff. :)

--
Samantha

http://www.babygeek.org/

"Beware when the great God lets loose a thinker on this planet. Then all
things are at risk."
  --Ralph Waldo Emerson
0f7716186bac5a8a2dc8007b70928c06?d=identicon&s=25 Luke Ivers (technodolt)
on 2007-02-13 16:42
One final followup question:

Someone suggested to me that I look into FreeBSD as an alternative to
the Linux based systems.

Anyone have any experience with FreeBSD that could mention pros/cons?

Thanks.
7572157852143be53747b2d08784cb6f?d=identicon&s=25 Jeff Barczewski (Guest)
on 2007-02-13 17:03
(Received via mailing list)
On 2/13/07, Luke Ivers <lukeivers@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> One final followup question:
>
> Someone suggested to me that I look into FreeBSD as an alternative to
> the Linux based systems.
>
> Anyone have any experience with FreeBSD that could mention pros/cons?
>
>

The security conscious out there always recommend BSD since I believe
OpenBSD hasn't had a successful security flaw found in a long while. I
believe this is due to a few things, first the packages aren't added as
quickly and secondly BSD has some nice buffer overflow thwarting
mechanisms
in the OS that help to prevent the most common problems.

I don't know whether FreeBSD shares the same claim, but FreeBSD does
offer
more compatibility with Linux binaries.

You can read more about them here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freebsd
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Openbsd

You shouldn't have any problems running most anything you'll need on BSD
and
Ruby is supported. If you choose FreeBSD then you can pull from Linux
binaries as well.

Several of the people I know use BSD and love it especially for servers.

Jeff
E9f0abb0dae590bd434bb945a2a5e7e5?d=identicon&s=25 Jordan Krushen (Guest)
on 2007-02-13 22:17
(Received via mailing list)
On 2/13/07, Luke Ivers <lukeivers@gmail.com> wrote:

> Someone suggested to me that I look into FreeBSD as an alternative to
> the Linux based systems.
>
> Anyone have any experience with FreeBSD that could mention pros/cons?

Pro:  It's not Linux.
Con:  It's not Linux.

I've been using FreeBSD on servers for over a decade now.  It's very
solid.

See http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/rants/bsd4lin...
for an excellent ideological comparison of the two.

J.
A52b0e1c5d982f2512a03c5dbfd033d6?d=identicon&s=25 Dick Davies (Guest)
on 2007-02-13 22:19
(Received via mailing list)
On 13/02/07, Luke Ivers <lukeivers@gmail.com> wrote:
> One final followup question:
>
> Someone suggested to me that I look into FreeBSD as an alternative to
> the Linux based systems.
>
> Anyone have any experience with FreeBSD that could mention pros/cons?

Yes, freebsd is great. Well documented ( http://freebsd.org/handbook )
and will run everything you need for rails.

To be honest, just get one and try it. You're asking people what their
favourite
OS is and expecting us to reach a consensus. It's not going to happen
before the heat death, so just get stuck in :)
This topic is locked and can not be replied to.