Slashdot Mirror


LinRails — Ruby On Rails For Linux

foobarf00 writes "LinRails is a binary package that includes Ruby-1.8.6, Rubygems-0.9.4, Rails 1.2.3, Mongrel 1.0.1, MySQL-5.0.41, ncurses-5.6, OpenSSL-0.9.8e, and zlib-1.2.3. Its goal is to make it easy to get a Ruby on Rails development environment running in no time. This initial 0.1 release doesn't have a Web server in the package; opinions are solicited as to which to include."

201 comments

  1. Whats wrong with... by monk.e.boy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...up2date?

    :-P

    monk.e.boy

    1. Re:Whats wrong with... by ameoba · · Score: 1, Funny

      ...it's not apt.

      --
      my sig's at the bottom of the page.
    2. Re:Whats wrong with... by foobarf00 · · Score: 1

      This helps have a standard development environment between programmers in a team. This prevents stuff like "well it works on my MySQL/Rails machine" in addition to just downloading and unzip a file to get started.

    3. Re:Whats wrong with... by ZG-Rules · · Score: 1

      Primarily the fact that since Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5, it's been removed in favour of Yum. Users of non-crusty Red Hat versions can't use it.

    4. Re:Whats wrong with... by charlieman · · Score: 1

      Yeah, all they need is a metapackage depending on those packages...

    5. Re:Whats wrong with... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, let me unzip a tar archive :D

    6. Re:Whats wrong with... by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Well maybe they should consider something that doesn't suck*.

      * The only reason that it sucks is RPM. I personally watched my 2x 2.66ghz, 1gb ram, 260gb 7200RPM HD system take 2 hours to get 37% through installing 300 updates after install. That's 2 hours for 100 package installs. Note that this is two hours after all the packages were downloaded.

      By contrast, APT would have been done in 5 minutes, on this system.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    7. Re:Whats wrong with... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's wrong with you kids today who can't even use `make install` ?

    8. Re:Whats wrong with... by Eudial · · Score: 1

      I'm running Slackware you insensitive clod.

      --
      GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!
    9. Re:Whats wrong with... by dieth · · Score: 1

      True, I just did a package update from a local etch repository. 317 updates, 2 hours to download and install them from my local repository.

      apt may not do it all in 5 minutes, but it is definitely a quite a bit faster.

    10. Re:Whats wrong with... by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Yes, see but your 2 hours included download time. The 2 hours above for 37% was after it had finished downloading.

      Or at least that's what I'm reading from your post.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    11. Re:Whats wrong with... by kv9 · · Score: 1

      By contrast, APT would have been done in 5 minutes, on this system.

      maybe because APT isn't written in Python?

      /ducks

    12. Re:Whats wrong with... by cafucu · · Score: 1

      Make sure you untar it, too ;~)

      --
      :%s:work:/.:g
    13. Re:Whats wrong with... by DrMorris · · Score: 1

      > By contrast, APT would have been done in 5 minutes, on this system.

      You are comparing apples and oranges. Debian packages (.deb) are installed via dpkg, apt is 'just' a front-end which is responsible to get those packages from somewhere (CD-ROM, net, ...). So if anything runs faster on Debian then it's because of dpkg.

  2. Aptitude by thechanklybore · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Makes this so easy it's hardly worth the packaging bother. Although I guess people still saddled with the atrocious Yum will like it.

    1. Re:Aptitude by ZG-Rules · · Score: 1

      I'd really love to know why you consider Yum "atrocious", but without that context, I'm going to have to consider you a troll. Disclaimer: I use Yum, I like it.

    2. Re:Aptitude by Klaidas · · Score: 1

      With my finger on the trigger i run ./configure...
      Seriously, aptitude and apt-get are probably the best installation methods I've seen (except for .exes on Windows...)

    3. Re:Aptitude by thechanklybore · · Score: 1

      Various reasons - 1. No autocomplete 2. Very slow searching in comparison to Apt 3. Very (very) slow repository comparison compared to Apt. 4. No automatic redundant package notification. Those are my main gripes, but I just generally find it a lot less friendly. Don't mean to troll.

    4. Re:Aptitude by compm375 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How are .exes on Windows better than apt-based packaging?
      Windows:
      1)find .exe
      2)download .exe
      3)go through installation wizard

      apt:
      1)if you already know package, do apt-get install ... and no clicking through an installer
      or
      1)search for a package with apt-cache, aptitude, or synaptic
      2)install, again without installer
      or
      1)find a .deb
      2)download .deb
      3)install .deb with dpkg or gdebi again with no installer to click through

      I don't see how .exes are better as an installation method.

    5. Re:Aptitude by ZG-Rules · · Score: 2, Insightful

      1) autocomplete - does if you have bash-completion rules (i do - the caveat being completion speed is dependent on the same factors as your 1 and 2), or you can do "yum install packa*". How does apt autocomplete package names?

      2/3) The difference would be that "apt-cache search" is running from the cached headers. That's equivalent to "yum -C search" - yes apt-cache is faster than yum normally because yum is downloading all the headers, unzipping the xml and combining before it does the search. I haven't benchmarked cached yum against cached apt - you may still be right that Yum is still slower.

      4) again, you're not comparing apples to apples. Aptitude is a frontend to the functionality of apt and dselect. Yum is only a package manager. Comparing the features of apt to yum would be a more equal choice - and apt doesn't do redundant package notification, because that's a dselect feature.

      I'd say that Aptitude is more like Pirut rather than Yum.

    6. Re:Aptitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      find and download .exe are the practically the same thing. Yes, after you've "found" you've got to click a link to download, but don't you have to click a button or hit the "enter" key to download through apt/aptitude? The .exe offers you choice. If you want all the default choices, just hit enter. If you want choice, use it. If you don't want choices, use apt.

    7. Re:Aptitude by bigdavesmith · · Score: 1

      I agree with you there. I never thought about exe's until I started using Linux, but now that I do, it's a totally unfriendly way to manage software, particularly when you want to know what version of BLAH you're running, or what BLAH needs to run, or even if you have BLAH installed. The only thing I prefer over apt is OS X's apps. God do I love just throwing applications in the garbage... :)

    8. Re:Aptitude by wylf · · Score: 1

      I don't see how .exes are better as an installation method.

      Perhaps installation is easy (it's hard to beat a double-click), but the ongoing maintenance of the software is where apt et al win, I believe. Its so easy to see what versions are installed and what new versions are available all through the one interface. Updates couldn't be simpler, and the software categories help new users explore what software's out there. And then there are the meta-packages, making getting the right system "recipe" of various applications dead simple.

    9. Re:Aptitude by Klaidas · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, but what about those times the the package is not in th repo, and the .deb needs some obscure libraries who are also not included, and you have to compile everything? And then compiling also needs something, which depends on even more files... Also, let's not forget that pretty much every program can run on Windows, but doesn't have a linux port, or the linux alternative is far away from being better that the windows' original. If you know exactly what program you want, and it is in the repo, and everything you need is in that repo, and there won't be any conlicts, then yes. if not, .exe FTW.

    10. Re:Aptitude by charlieman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you want to get asked questions while installing with apt just
      dpkg-reconfigure debconf
      and set the priority to low.

      Anyway, packages are separated so if you just want the main package for example:
      aptitude install ruby
      If you want more then:
      aptitude install ruby ruby-prof rubygems etc

      maybe even better:
      aptitude --with-recommends install ruby.

    11. Re:Aptitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Comparing .exe files and .deb files is really like comparing apples and oranges, assuming oranges are better.

      A better comparison would be Windows Installer files, and Debian Packages. Or, if you want to go the other way, .exe files and .bin files.

    12. Re:Aptitude by TheRagingTowel · · Score: 1

      You missed the real stuff: 1. No need to find where to download from 2. And ofcourse - dependencies resolving! No DLL-Hell, no finding needed packages by yourself Windows is such a toy...

      --
      4Z5TX
    13. Re:Aptitude by Raineer · · Score: 1

      I agree with the "no downloading" portion of it the most. The fact I can just drop to console and type one command, have (usually) all dependencies immediately resolved and the download AND installation started for me is just amazing. I do like the uninstall process too, mostly because I can chose whether or not I want to keep the config files in case I'm reinstalling for a reason. There was certainly a learning curve but now that I've completely migrated over I'm so happy to never have to see another "Installshield" ever again!

    14. Re:Aptitude by pinkfloydhomer · · Score: 1

      They are better because when you've found your .exe, you're done. Downloading and installing are trivial steps.

      With package management systems such as apt and tools like Aptitude, you just have to hope that the software in question is already in your repository. If not, you have set up alternate repositories, or as I do myself, a local repository in which to put downloaded packages, and install from there. Installing from various sources, repositories, tarballs, etc., often becomes a mess.

      And don't get me started on installing proprietary closed source software on Linux. It often works only on a particular distribution, and/or it requires special treatment during installation etc.

      As long as the software you need is in your repository, things are easy. Whenever they are not, things become needlessly complicated. From a usability view, it is much easier to just download an .exe and be done with it.

      I know this is not particular to Aptitude or to package managers in general, but is about the whole software installation school of thought that lives in the *nix world. But I think it is old fashioned and is only holding Linux back.

    15. Re:Aptitude by charlieman · · Score: 1

      If you need a package that isn't in a repo, probably you already know how to compile. For desktop users, if something is not in a repo probably is not worth use it yet.

    16. Re:Aptitude by dhasenan · · Score: 1

      With Windows, you have to find the .exe you just downloaded, click on it, and hope that it doesn't contain a trojan. Though usually this is just one step; the third part is forgotten. And then you wait for the wizard to complete.

      With Linux, you have to find the name of the program you want to download, search the repository for whatever name your distro uses, and then install it. Or you're using a graphical installer in which case it's pretty much one step, not even a wizard in most cases.

      This is one area where the command line suffers in Linux. That's because the package management commands are not stateful. Perl has pronouns; I really wish bash did as well.

    17. Re:Aptitude by rjshields · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but what about those times the the package is not in th repo, and the .deb needs some obscure libraries who are also not included, and you have to compile everything?
      The vast majority of stuff you need is already packaged and in the debian repos. There's rarely any need to build anything yourself, save when you need a newer version of package foo.

      The other problems with .exes are that you may get a new copy of libraries with each program you install, leading to bloat. The alternative is that the installer asks you to replace foo.dll with an older version, or whether or not to remove foo.dll when you uninstall. How the hell should I know what else is using libfoo.dll and what the effect of using an older version or removing it will be? There should be some kind of package management doing this stuff automagically (a-la apt/dpkg), but there's no such thing on windows. Absolute crap. Then you have to spend ages clicking through pages of a silly installer.
      --
      In this world nothing is certain but death, taxes and flawed car analogies.
    18. Re:Aptitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You fail to understand how people use software.

      Take a common program, for instance. Say, Gnumeric. And you're running Ubuntu 6.06 -- the Long Term Support release.

      A new version of Gnumeric comes out, with some new features and bugfixes that you really want. You rush to the beloved Synaptic that Linux users tirelessly praise... and it's not there! Just the original version supplied with Ubuntu 6.06, possibly with a few security fixes since. The new Gnumeric will only be available in the NEXT Ubuntu release.

      THEN what do you do? That's right, you end up in a mess of trying to chase "development" repositories, trying to find random third-party .debs (with their squillion dependencies) or compile from source (another hugely problematic and time-consuming prospect, especially for businesses).

      This, my slightly non-world-aware friend, is why people still diss software installation under Linux. Sure, just after installing Ubuntu, you've got all the latest stuff. But after a year or so, everyone's telling you to perform a complete distro update (potentially messy -- and why should I?) to get the newest software.

      This is where Windows and OS X work better. Don't even think about what versions are in your "repositories" -- just grab the damn thing and install it. Under OS X, programs are self-contained so you can just grab new releases at any time. And they don't explode files all over your filesystem, unlike in Linux.

      That's the problem. Repositories are just time-constrained cludges. People should be able to install cool new apps whenever they want, all in a single file, just like you buy a new CD from the shop and play it. Linux was getting there with Autopackage, but sadly that hasn't been taken up to any grand scale...

    19. Re:Aptitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DLL-Hell is so 2003.

    20. Re:Aptitude by EsbenMoseHansen · · Score: 3, Informative

      You fail to understand how people use software.

      Take a common program, for instance. Say, Gnumeric. And you're running Ubuntu 6.06 -- the Long Term Support release.

      So you are running a release that is made for one purpose: To not change and then complain that it doesn't change? Okaydokey. The rest of us just follows the automatic Ubuntu upgrades as times go by. Sure, sometimes we have to wait for 6 months before getting the latest .x release, but personally, I really don't care.

      It sounds as if you want a stable core, with application repositories closely tracking the newest available? Sounds like a decent idea for a distro. Are you sure that there isn't just such a distrobution?

      That's the problem. Repositories are just time-constrained cludges. People should be able to install cool new apps whenever they want, all in a single file, just like you buy a new CD from the shop and play it. Linux was getting there with Autopackage, but sadly that hasn't been taken up to any grand scale...

      I don't know about autopackage, but klik seems to offer what you want. I'm sure the klik team will appreciate your contributions, at least with testing. They seem to need some server reasources, too, the search seems very slow.

      Personally, I prefer to be able to have new, fairly tested software without having to bother with the actual upgrades. But I am sure you actually enjoy hunting down the 10-50 apps you use and upgrade them as needed every now and then ;p

      --
      Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.
    21. Re:Aptitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One word: PORTAGE

    22. Re:Aptitude by FooBarWidget · · Score: 3, Informative

      "Great, so you download a .exe from some random website. You have no idea what's in it so you constantly run the risk of getting more spyware/adware/crap installed."
      What if it's not "some random website"? What if you know that it's good software, but it isn't in any repository?

      "Locate package foo. Download it, ensure dependencies are met"
      Ensure that dependencies are met? Most people don't want to manually hunt down hundreds of dependencies.

      "Alternatively download the source tarball and run ./configure && make && sudo make install. What's hard about that?"
      Try explaining that to your mother and your grandmother. You'll find out what's so hard about that.

      However, the fact that some software are not in repositories is just as much of a political/social problem as a technical one. It already starts with the question: DEB or RPM? What if I want to produce DEB but I'm using an RPM distro? If I produce a DEB, will it work on all Debian-based distros? (Answer is no, unfortunately.) If I produce an RPM will it work on all RPM-based distro? (No either). What about non-DEB non-RPM distros? Etc. Making an installer on Linux would hide the package format problem, but will not solve binary compatibility problems (FooApp needs libfoo.so.4 but AwesomeLinux only provides libfoo.so.5).

    23. Re:Aptitude by chemaja · · Score: 1

      apt/apt-get (after an apt-get update) is generally faster than yum -C list/search (after a yum update), in my experience. Yum seems to chew through more system resources and real time than apt does (although the "Reading database" time of dpkg seems to lengthen as the installed set of packages grows).

      This is all on a P3 600MHz with 256MB RAM.

      Debian (currently Stable/Etch) is my favourite and most used GNU/Linux distribution, but I have used Fedora for months at a time (Fedora Core 5 and 6).

    24. Re:Aptitude by daybyter · · Score: 1

      The answer to this is

      http://www.sgtpepper.net/hyspro/deb unstable/

      , but those packages are somewhat outdated, and I'm constantly struggle with some gems, that won't work with some of the older libs.

      So far, I failed to get a current rails running on my deb box with all the libs, that I need... :-(

      Maybe I should compile all the stuff by myself and see if get further then...

    25. Re:Aptitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      "Alternatively download the source tarball and run ./configure && make && sudo make install. What's hard about that?"
      Try explaining that to your mother and your grandmother. You'll find out what's so hard about that.


      I think I would have a bigger problem telling my mother or grandmother why they would want RoR.

    26. Re:Aptitude by Ignignoc · · Score: 1

      The only time a trojan is attached to an exe is when your installing crap you have no business using.

      The last time I saw a trojan exe was AOL circa 1997 in my inbox - funny enough I just deleted it.

      Usually linux users get trojans when they crack windows software so they get what they needed to do done cause it doesn't have a valid counterpart worth using in Linux ala Adobe Anything.....

    27. Re:Aptitude by Anthony+Baby · · Score: 1

      This is where Windows and OS X work better. Don't even think about what versions are in your "repositories" -- just grab the damn thing and install it. Under OS X, programs are self-contained so you can just grab new releases at any time. And they don't explode files all over your filesystem, unlike in Linux.

      Parent deserves to be modded up.

      I do prefer the way Mac OS X handles applications as bundles better than the way things are done on *nix and to an extent, Windows. I would love a Linux that didn't have software installs explode all over the filesystem. But the Mac has its own downside. I use several different video transcoders and players. Most of them are based on a various combinations of the same core apps: ffmpeg, mplayer, gpac, x264, etc.. The result is that I have at least five copies of the mplayer binary installed somewhere in /Applications not including the version I compiled from scratch in /usr/local/bin. In this era of 500GB hard drives, this probably isn't important; but add in the number of times ffmpeg and other programs appear, and it adds up to a really inefficient use of space. Still, I never have dependency problems, and my /Applications isn't as messy as my /usr/local.

    28. Re:Aptitude by Enahs · · Score: 1

      "Alternatively download the source tarball and run ./configure && make && sudo make install. What's hard about that?"
      Try explaining that to your mother and your grandmother. You'll find out what's so hard about that.
      Uh...huh. Grandma can't do the ./configure && make && sudo make install three-step but she's going to be developing Ruby on Rails apps. Riiiiiiight.
      --
      Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
    29. Re:Aptitude by FooBarWidget · · Score: 1

      Who said anything about developing Ruby on Rails apps? This is about software installation on Linux in general.

  3. It does have a very good web server by Fjan11 · · Score: 3, Informative

    > It includes Mongrel 1.01 [...]
    >This initial 0.1 release doesn't have a Web server
    Mongrel is a very good web server, especially for a development environment. (And the ruby package includes webbrick on top of that). Current 'best practice' deployments of RoR applications usually use a pack of Mongrels behind a load balancer (such as mod_proxy or Pound), and/or Apache or Nginx to serve static pages. If you want to completely mirror your production environment in your development/testing environment than including those would the logical choice.

    --
    This sig is just as redundant as the rest of this posting
  4. Why MySQL by Simon+(S2) · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    And not the vastly superior PostgreSQL? I really like FKs in my relational data. And I know that MySQL does support them, but not with myISAM tables.
    This is really not meant to be a flame, but pgsql is really better than mysql, so why not include the better one? Or am I wrong?

    --
    I just don't trust anything that bleeds for five days and doesn't die.
    1. Re:Why MySQL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      because MySQL is free.

      See, you're not the only one that can spew garbage.

    2. Re:Why MySQL by Enderandrew · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I imagine a meta-package like this is catering to the average user who just wants a common setup easy to just drop in and go. MySQL is more commonly used, and thusly it seems the logical choice for such a meta-package.

      Though I'm looking to move off a web-host and build a server out of my house. Everyone keeps saying PostgreSQL is better. Why? For my average use, what benefits will it offer me?

      If I throw some common PHP/SQL stuff on there, will it run faster (Gallery2, LotGD, phpbb3, etc)?

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    3. Re:Why MySQL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So is PostgreSQL...

    4. Re:Why MySQL by weighn · · Score: 1

      vastly superior...Or am I wrong? oh yeah, here we go. Have we not discussed this before. Very recently at that.

      And for a web server, why not lighttpd?. Its vastly faster. Or IIS ... fastly vaster...

      --
      Mongrel News all the news that fits and froths
    5. Re:Why MySQL by dkf · · Score: 3, Insightful

      because MySQL is free. And PostgreSQL is BSD, and so open. Please try again to list why MySQL should be used instead.
      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
    6. Re:Why MySQL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are not wrong, but most people don't know what a database can do. That's why you keep seeing posts on forums asking how to remove duplicates from their tables, or using 'Select Distinct' calls.

    7. Re:Why MySQL by suv4x4 · · Score: 1

      And not the vastly superior PostgreSQL? I really like FKs in my relational data. And I know that MySQL does support them, but not with myISAM tables.
      This is really not meant to be a flame, but pgsql is really better than mysql, so why not include the better one? Or am I wrong?


      Why MySQL? But of course, so there's something to whine about.

      If you used RoR you'll figure out all advanced features of a database are left unused, so why bother.

    8. Re:Why MySQL by Simon+(S2) · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Though I'm looking to move off a web-host and build a server out of my house. Everyone keeps saying PostgreSQL is better. Why? For my average use, what benefits will it offer me?

      If I throw some common PHP/SQL stuff on there, will it run faster (Gallery2, LotGD, phpbb3, etc)? I know that a lot of people here will kill me and say "but you can do this in mysql too!! (somehow)", but:
      - Integrity: if i delete from people where id=1; all child tables of people (telephone numbers, addresses and whatnot) are kept. On top of that you are allowed to delete the parent if it has childs. I hate this default behavior.
      - ACID
      - Stored Procs: You may not use them, but one day you may will. Maybe you will have to insert rows in a table after an update on another, or implement some other things that are best implemented on the database. If you use pg from the beginnig you can.
      - Triggers: the same
      This are my main choices I choose pg ove mysql, but this is really a personal choice. The flamewar between mysql an pg will never end, I think it's like emacs vs vi.
      --
      I just don't trust anything that bleeds for five days and doesn't die.
    9. Re:Why MySQL by Xest · · Score: 2, Informative

      MySQL just seems more common and I can't see that changing. Pretty much every web development book and site uses MySQL for database teachings so as people come into web development I'd argue it's just going to increase the MySQL user base even more.

      For most people's web development needs MySQL just does what you need. Chances are if you need something MySQL doesn't have then you're already competent enough to not need a package like this and set it all up yourself anyway, this just makes it easier for those who are relatively new to web development to jump straight in.

      I'm just about to start learning RoR myself and I just run my practice servers as VMs so for people like me, it's pretty easy to just setup a Linux VM, install a package like this and knuckle straight down with learning RoR. When I've got a decent understanding of it and am sure it's something I really do want to continue with I'll start to pay more attention to setting it up in a production environment and I'll start looking further into different databasing options and so forth.

    10. Re:Why MySQL by Simon+(S2) · · Score: 1

      And for a web server, why not lighttpd?. Its vastly faster. Or IIS ... fastly vaster... Well, because the webserver can change between the production an developement machine, but the db should not (at least IMHO). I can develop with mongrel, webrick, lighttpd or whatever and then deploy on another webserver, but this is most of the time probably not the case with the database.
      --
      I just don't trust anything that bleeds for five days and doesn't die.
    11. Re:Why MySQL by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

      - Integrity is always nice!
      - ACID - InnoDB seems to provide that for me. I've never lost data on MySQL.
      - Stored Procs - We use these at work on our insanely complex MSSQL setups that I loathe, but I don't know that I'll ever have use for them on my server, and I (perhaps mistakenly) assumed this was a standard SQL feature. MySQL doesn't support stored procs?
      - Triggers - I'm not sure what these are.

      I'll Google some PosgreSQL vs MySQL comparisons and benchmarks.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    12. Re:Why MySQL by killjoe · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Why bother with either. Just include sqlite and be done with it. Rails can take care of all the data integrity for you anyway. Combine that with microapache and you are done.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    13. Re:Why MySQL by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      "This is really not meant to be a flame, but my random opinion is really better than your random opinion."

      Next time you don't want to flame, please provide reasons for people to assume you're not flaming. Just stating, as if a fact, that X is better than Y without any figures to back it up or explaination why you think that is, looks a lot like flaming.

      Not saying that you are, but stating something as a fact without any evidence is either A) flaming or B) religion. Some people would go so far as to equate the two :)

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    14. Re:Why MySQL by Simon+(S2) · · Score: 1

      - Stored Procs - We use these at work on our insanely complex MSSQL setups that I loathe, but I don't know that I'll ever have use for them on my server, and I (perhaps mistakenly) assumed this was a standard SQL feature. MySQL doesn't support stored procs? It does, but only really basic stuff.

      - Triggers - I'm not sure what these are. You can make a trigger on a table that triggers before or after a row is inserted/updated/deleted and runs a spc or a dml statement.
      --
      I just don't trust anything that bleeds for five days and doesn't die.
    15. Re:Why MySQL by Per+Wigren · · Score: 1

      I always use PostgreSQL for production but for this package Sqlite would be perfect.
      Sqlite is perfect to develop with until you have something usable. Then you can switch to Postgres (or MySQL or whatever) and run your tests to make sure everything works.

      --
      My other account has a 3-digit UID.
    16. Re:Why MySQL by Simon+(S2) · · Score: 1

      Next time you don't want to flame, please provide reasons for people to assume you're not flaming. Just stating, as if a fact, that X is better than Y without any figures to back it up or explaination why you think that is, looks a lot like flaming. You are right. I was a bit lazy. Here you go.
      --
      I just don't trust anything that bleeds for five days and doesn't die.
    17. Re:Why MySQL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Triggers - I'm not sure what these are.

      Speaking like a true MySQL user. Get back to your PHP.

    18. Re:Why MySQL by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      Funniest post ever.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    19. Re:Why MySQL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The answer to the first two is "Use InnoDB".

      The InnoDB engine supports foreign keys (including ON UPDATE CASCADE and ON UPDATE RESTRICT). The InnoDB engine supports transactions, including rollback. That's why the InnoDB engine is slower than MyISAM (depending on transaction load - MyISAM is faster for tables that are not often modified, while InnoDB tends to be faster if you're making frequent modifications).

      BDB supported all those features long before InnoDB was added to MySQL. So unless you're using MyISAM (and there are valid reasons to do so), MySQL has had those features for a long time.

      Yes, PostgreSQL has MVCC, while InnoDB has to make do with row-level locking. The upcoming Falcon engine for MySQL has MVCC too, but I'm not sure I'd want to use that in production until it'd been in use for a few versions.

      Stored Procedures have been available since at least MySQL 5. PostgreSQL's support for stored procedures is a bit better, mostly because stored procedures don't have to be in SQL.

      Triggers have been available since MySQL 5.1. They are more limited than PostgreSQL's - each event can only have one trigger. So you can't have five different triggers that all fire when you insert a row in a particular table. You have to merge them all into one trigger.

    20. Re:Why MySQL by Fweeky · · Score: 1

      "Yes, PostgreSQL has MVCC, while InnoDB has to make do with row-level locking." Er, no, InnoDB uses MVCC, as can be trivially verified by playing about with it. Start a transaction in 2 clients, update a table in client 1 and commit, then read those rows in client 2; note client 2 sees the version of the table prior to client 1's modifications because you've got a versioned snapshot.

      You can modify this behavior by selecting a different isolation level.
    21. Re:Why MySQL by siDDis · · Score: 1

      And SQLite is faster than MyISAM

    22. Re:Why MySQL by siDDis · · Score: 1

      What is most scary is that all projects using LinRails automaticly make their application GPL because of the MySQL client which is GPL. SQLite would have been a much better alternative.

    23. Re:Why MySQL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just include sqlite and be done with it. Rails can take care of all the data integrity for you anyway.

      snort It's cute when new users have an opinion about things they don't understand.

      Harsh? Yeah, but it's true. There is no such thing as integrity at the application layer. Also, God help you if you suddenly discover the need to migrate to a cluster, redirect your application to a central database, and then have several unsynchronized applications updating the database simultaneously. That's the day when you discover relational integrity in the database and learn why everyone who's already learned that lesson cringes when they hear half-assed advice like yours trotted out to confuse still more newbies.

      Do it right from the beginning. If you value your data, use a database. SQLite is an awesome program with a lot of uses, but you couldn't force me to design a web cluster around it.

    24. Re:Why MySQL by Buskaatt · · Score: 1

      I agree. ROR seems to be developing a large following among people who are sick of writing crap PHP/MySQL apps and are looking for an alternative ... a clean start. While they're porting the PHP to the "next level" why not port the MySQL data to the next level as well? Not much extra work but the payback will be great as (if) their system grows. I wonder how hard it would be to include both?

    25. Re:Why MySQL by Snover · · Score: 1

      MySQL 5.0 has triggers, too, since 5.0.2.

      --

      [insert witty comment here]
    26. Re:Why MySQL by shish · · Score: 1
      I've recently switched several websites from mysql to postgres, and found:
      • Postgres doesn't fall over, die, and corrupt all your data when the system runs out of RAM
      • Postgres runs slightly faster when the table is too big to fit in ram
      • Postgres' query optimiser is *much* better[1]

      Speed of common PHP webapps will depend on what they've been optimised for -- postgres runs all SQL fairly quickly; mysql runs things quickly if you spend extra time and effort making your queries mysql-friendly.

      [1] An example I've been working with today: SELECT * FROM images WHERE images.id IN (SELECT image_id FROM tags WHERE tag = 'a_tag')

      • The postgres way: run the subquery, pull out two image_id's that result, look up those IDs in the images table. Total data lookups, 3.
      • The mysql way: do a full table scan over the images table, run the subquery once for every row to see if it matches. Total data lookups, 15000.

      But since my main target is mysql, I ended up spending several hours hacking about until eventually I managed to come up with a query which was much less elegant, just so that it was simple enough for mysql to understand... This is a repeat thing with almost all my SQL -- I write it elegantly and postgres optimises it, but mysql falls over; then I have to scrap it and do ugly things for mysql's benefit :(

      --
      I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment
    27. Re:Why MySQL by mrobinso · · Score: 1

      Because it's native replication is rock solid and can be set up in less that 60 seconds by a teenager without spending a nickle?

      --
      -- Karma whore? You betcha. --
    28. Re:Why MySQL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because the "father" of Rails, DHH, apparently missed the 30 years of database development that occurred between navigational, application-centric, record-based databases, and today's, uh, navigational, application-centric, record-based databases.

      Well that's not true. Ruby on Rails is mostly "lowercase" while the systems of the 70's were mostly "UPPERCASE". See, that's progress folks!

      It's cool when arrogant pricks preach best practices to their obedient flock, like clean code, unit tests, and sep. of concerns... but it's really NOT cool when they preach shitty "worst practices". I have to waste time explaining to programmers why a database that can return different answers to the same question asked in different ways is a BROKEN DATABASE. I have to waste time explaining that, no, in fact you have at least *THREE* applications accessing the DB: the mysql command-line client, CocoaMySQL, and the Rails app. And I have to waste time explaining that, yes, in my two decades of DB experience, I've seen companies use new frameworks to access the same database, and whatever you began your career with might actually be obsolete someday, while the data (and the model implemented in the *dbms*) LIVES ON.

      *shrug*

    29. Re:Why MySQL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And PostgreSQL is BSD, and so open. Please try again to list why MySQL should be used instead.


      as a *very* happy PGSQL user, the answer to your question is obivous.

      the mob rule - most people use MySQL.

      i don't. i never have. i surely wouldn't switch now.

      i think PGSQL is better, although, that isn't to say that MySQL isn't very good, too. MJ is the greatest, but that doesn't make Kobe a scrub - he's great in his own way.

      i can understand why the MySQL guys would create this stuff for their community, though. a PGSQL guy could create something similar for the PGSQL community - but there are fewer PGSQL guys so stuff like this doesn't get done nearly as much.
    30. Re:Why MySQL by Simon+(S2) · · Score: 1

      SELECT * FROM images WHERE images.id IN (SELECT image_id FROM tags WHERE tag = 'a_tag') I would write this as

      SELECT *
      FROM images,
                tags
      WHERE images.id = tags.image_id AND
                  tag = 'a_tag'

      no need to use a heavy IN clause, but maybe your real query was more complicated than that and you used it only as an example.
      --
      I just don't trust anything that bleeds for five days and doesn't die.
    31. Re:Why MySQL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Because it's native replication is rock solid and can be set up in less that 60 seconds by a teenager without spending a nickle?

      - unless that teenager wants clean data (no silent truncations or data conversions)
      - unless that teenager doesn't want to have to pay mysql licensing at some point in the future
      - unless that teenager doesn't care about replication
      - unless that teenager does care about replication and wants multi-master
      - unless that teenager wants to do some reporting on a lot of data - and so desires partitioning
      - unless that teenager wants free online backups
      - unless that teenager is familiar enough with mysql ab to know not to trust them
      - unless ...

    32. Re:Why MySQL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      And I would write that as:

      SELECT * FROM images INNER JOIN tags ON images.id = tags.image_id WHERE tags.tag = 'a_tag'
      I'm always surprised at how many people who otherwise write perfectly decent SQL and have a good understanding are either ignorant of the standard join syntax or fail to see the explanatory value of it (not polluting your WHERE clause with what are actually just join criteria).
    33. Re:Why MySQL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > If you used RoR you'll figure out all advanced features of a database are left unused, so why bother.

      Yep, that's what mysql ab has been saying for 7+ years. Five years ago they told everyone that nobody needs:
          - transactions
          - referential integrity
          - views
          - triggers
          - stored procedures
      They were completely wrong - and had to gradually add all of these features over time. Now they've got at least primitive support for all of the above in their database - or in their lower-level storage engines (which means that it doesn't work consistently).

      So, now MySQL is crowing that they've *really* got everything you need. Except that database will still silently truncate or convert your values when you insert or update data. And it'll still use myisam when you go to create an innodb table if mysql isn't available - without telling you that you're hosed. And the optimizer is still the simplest thing in the market - prone to crater when you join a half-dozen tables.

      And of course, they still have the massive problem that their licensing is deliberately vague. Anyone who's been around the block a couple of times knows that this is no coincidence - we should expect them to start charging if they ever get a strong grip on the market.

      So, personally I'd bother to avoid mysql to avoid unnecessary data quality issues, avoid working with a deceitful corporation, and avoid having to pay at any point in the future. *Especially* when better tools for the job already exist!

    34. Re:Why MySQL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The flamewar between mysql an pg will never end, I think it's like emacs vs vi.

      No, it's more like either Emacs or vi, versus Windows 1.0 Notepad.
    35. Re:Why MySQL by kpharmer · · Score: 1

      > Why bother with either. Just include sqlite and be done with it.

      Sure, nice little database. Not much for multiple users and large data tho...

      > Rails can take care of all the data integrity for you anyway.

      ah, no - applications do a horrible job of managing data constraints over time. That is, you might test the bajesus out of your code this version and next - but are unlikely to test how code with this version handles data created with the code ten versions before. None of the data we're talking about here is wrong - it's just different valid values.

      And if you do create a ridiculous version-compatibility layer in ruby then you'll end up without the ability to create a simple report using sql. Since the most common reporting tools all use sql (most powerful ones generate sql) you'll lose the ability to create reports. And that might sound fine when you're just starting your project - in hindsight later on you'll completely regret that decision.

      And back down to earth - confirming that 100% of the rows in a table comply with a check constraint (simple boolean), foreign key, uniqness, etc - is a trivial one line declarative. The implementation of these trivial and fool-proof constraints in ruby is 3x-20x as much code, depending on whether or not active record can be used and the nature of the constraint. Given that it still doesn't even cover 100% of the data in the database, this shouldn't be a tough call...

    36. Re:Why MySQL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you may be able to set it up in 60 seconds, but it's not "pull the plug" rock solid. It's not even "this is the same data" rock solid. Throw a function (now(), random(), etc) into your insert list and watch as your data no longer matches.

    37. Re:Why MySQL by larry+bagina · · Score: 1

      MySQL feels like a toy. Yeah, they're finally adding features that even SQLite supports, but it's still got the underpinnings of an inflexible design.

      If you look at postgres (or oracle, or any other serious db) you'll see it's designed to be flexible. MySQL's approach is to add nonstandard keywords and special types that do one thing and do it poorly. Consider auto_increment vs a sequence. Or keeping track of when a record was updated with the mysql timestamp datatype vs using a before insert/update trigger to set a column = CURRENT_DATETIME.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

  5. Web Server by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This initial 0.1 release doesn't have a Web server in the package; opinions are solicited as to which to include. lighttpd
    1. Re:Web Server by geniusj · · Score: 1

      nginx - It's the new lighttpd, dontcha know?

    2. Re:Web Server by foobarf00 · · Score: 1

      Mongrel people dont recomment Lighttpd here. So here is the debate:

      * mongrel with nginx
      * lighttpd with fastcgi
      * apache

    3. Re:Web Server by Aethedor · · Score: 0

      I would go for Hiawatha. It is small, fast and secure, and the configuration is not as ugly as the ones they are debating about.

      --
      It doesn't have to be like this. All we need to do is make sure we keep talking.
    4. Re:Web Server by thinkingserious · · Score: 1

      Some time ago I tried using Apache and it was such a headache I ultimately moved on to Symfony. We use Symfony with lighttpd and fastcgi with great results; we have survived the digg effect easily with that setup (16K visits over a few hours), so I vote lighttpd with fastcgi.

    5. Re:Web Server by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nginx does reverse proxying and has a decent rewrite module. The config isn't that bad either once you split your vhosts out into separate files.

      We first looked at Hiawath and andhttpd (which also comes with a security guarantee) a couple of years back. nginx was the one that finally moved us off Apache 1.3x.

  6. Fantastic by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is great news for me. I recently built an Ubuntu system on which to do media production (music, video, like that). It's not my primary system yet, but I've been so disgusted with Windows Vista and Mac OS that I decided it was time to make (another) try at doing my work on a Linux system.

    After three months, the results have far exceeded my expectation. I'm very impressed with the maturity of music production apps for Linux and the performance has been as strong as I expected. I'm still a Linux noob, but the experience has been positively inspirational. In fact, it's been a lot like my first experiences with media production on my first Mac, where just about every day brought another new way to look at the work.

    I'm not a programmer, but I'm learning Ruby and this new release gives me one more reason to sit down at the Linux box instead of my others.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:Fantastic by JohnFluxx · · Score: 1

      Sounds good, but don't use this silly thing.

      Just run synaptic, find ruby on rails, and install. I think it will suggest mysql automatically. If not install that too.

      You'd don't need anything more than that. Then just follow any ror tutorial on the web. It's pretty easy.

    2. Re:Fantastic by charlieman · · Score: 1

      Just aptitude install ruby rubygems rails mysql ncurses openssl zlib

      (I think mongrel isn't in ubuntu, but there's apache and lighttpd)

  7. Apache? by Enderandrew · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Color me stupid here, but isn't Apache the de facto standard that most everyone uses?

    Some may argue that better alternatives exist (of which I'm not really aware) but since Apache is so popular and common place, wouldn't it seem the logical piece of this meta-package?

    People who want specific packages for specific reasons are going to set up their own environment. For a pre-setup environment, shouldn't you shoot for the common setup?

    --
    http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    1. Re:Apache? by andr0meda · · Score: 2, Interesting


      Agreed.

      Apache is not only the most widely used web server, it is also the most supported one, of good quality, and offers countless possibilities alongside the purpose of your typical RR demo program, which is nice to have if you think like a biz.

      --
      With great power comes great electricity bills.
    2. Re:Apache? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many web developers run their apps in a VM with limited memory and Apache is far from great in this situation. This is one of the many reasons the web2.0 crowd favor high-performance, lightweight httpds such as Nginx and (yuk) lighttpd.

      Rails may be a toy but change is in the air for web development. Nginx has all but replaced Apache here and if the nekovm is bundled, we'll probably ditch Zend PHP too (although NOT for HaXe).

    3. Re:Apache? by FooBarWidget · · Score: 5, Informative

      Ruby on Rails cannot be run in Apache.

      Yes, I was stunned when I found this out last year. If one wants to run RoR on Apache, then one has to use either mod_fastcgi (or mod_fcgi or whatever it was called; it'd run RoR as a FastCGI process) or mod_ruby. mod_ruby seems to be abandoned, and I have heard stories about excessive memory usage. mod_f(ast)cgi doesn't seem to work on Apache 2 at all.

      So there are two ways to run RoR: either in Lighttpd (which has proper FastCGI support) or in Mongrel (a web server which can run RoR directly).

    4. Re:Apache? by Simon+(S2) · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Color me stupid here, but isn't Apache the de facto standard that most everyone uses? Yes, for production environments of course, but for development it does not really matter that your webserver is scalable/fast/modular/supported/whatever so webrick or mongrel are better choices.
      --
      I just don't trust anything that bleeds for five days and doesn't die.
    5. Re:Apache? by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      ...unless your development shop considers the whole deployment aspect part of development too. I've basically seen both flavors, and many inbetween.

      Personally; I know the brand of webserver isn't supposed to matter to the webapp, but I'm not betting any money on it. I like my development environment to be as much like production as possible ;)

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    6. Re:Apache? by Dark$ide · · Score: 2, Informative
      > Ruby on Rails cannot be run in Apache. How do you arrive at that conclusion? I have RoR running in Apache. It needs some funky .htaccess stuff and I have a virt host defined for it.


      # SetEnv RAILS_ENV development
      ServerName rails
      DocumentRoot /home/Dark$ide/ruby/myapp/public/
      ErrorLog /home/Dark$ide/ruby/myapp/log/apache.log


      Options ExecCGI FollowSymLinks
      AddHandler cgi-script .cgi
      AllowOverride all
      Order allow,deny
      Allow from all



      Alias /ruby /home/Dark$ide/ruby/myapp/public

      Options ExecCGI FollowSymLinks
      AddHandler cgi-script .cgi
      AllowOverride all
      Order allow,deny
      Allow from all

      The .htaccess file in the public directory needs a quick tweak to match the Alias to get the rewrite rules working. Works well.
      --

      Sigs. We don't need no steenking sigs.

    7. Re:Apache? by suv4x4 · · Score: 1

      Yes, for production environments of course, but for development it does not really matter that your webserver is scalable/fast/modular/supported/whatever so webrick or mongrel are better choices.

      It doesn't hurt either. Especially since you're supposed to use as close environment to production as possible. I run Apache on my winbox for dev and I'm perfectly happy with it (next step is moving to a linux box.. but not yet).

    8. Re:Apache? by stevey · · Score: 1

      A better solution is to use mongrel running on localhost:3000, then use Apache's mod_proxy to proxy to it.

      That loses the overhead of parsing .htacess for each request.

      See here for a Debian-centric guide.

    9. Re:Apache? by metalhed77 · · Score: 1

      Yes, it cannot be run "in" apache, and this is a good thing.

      The way most rails stacks are setup your webserver (I use apache for instance) gets a request.
      The web server looks for the file on the disk, if it's there it sends it and that's the end.
      If the file is not there, the server asks a load balancer (ModProxyBalancer, Pound, Nginx, even FastCGI*)
      to send a request to one of a pool of persistent rails processes which can then handle it.

      Now, if you serve up say, 5 images and 3 JS or CSS files on a page on average, that means that 5 out of 8 requests will use a bloated webserver process containing RoR, when in reality we need far fewer processes since only 1 in 8 requests actually ever touches ruby code. Less loaded and running code makes a big difference.

      The other advantage is that this makes adding extra servers easy. You've already got the scalability built in, expanding out is just adding another server and adding its rails daemons.

      If you're still confused, here's a good diagram:
      http://blog.innerewut.de/articles/2006/04/21/scali ng-rails-with-apache-2-2-mod_proxy_balancer-and-mo ngrel

      *Yes I know FastCGI isn't really a load balancer in the same sense as NGinx and Pound and ModProxyBalancer

      --
      Photos.
    10. Re:Apache? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > That loses the overhead of parsing .htacess for each request.

      And adds the overhead of another HTTP request.

      Well done!

    11. Re:Apache? by Fweeky · · Score: 1

      mod_fastcgi runs fine in Apache 2, threaded mode and all, and has done so for many years. mod_fcgi is an alternative with, supposedly, a smarter application manager (that's the thing which spawns additional FastCGI servers as needed), and it too should work fine in Apache 2, though we've only used mod_fastcgi in production.

      This is our preferred way of running PHP, too. Keeps the webserver nice and lean and isolated and stable. On the other hand, I think it would be tidier if PHP had something like mongrel instead; a minimal webserver for serving PHP applications, so we can just set up mod_proxy(_balancer) instead of faffing about with what is, ultimately, a somewhat crufty solution to a problem HTTP already solves. Anyone fancy porting the HTTP bits of mongrel to a PHP SAPI?

    12. Re:Apache? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But isn't WEBrick only intended for development or very small sites ?

      But isn't mongrel intended for very few connections and must have a load balancer in front of it ?

      What are real life experiences.
      Lighttpd with fastcgi: http://www.lighttpd.net/ ?

      Lightspeed: http://www.litespeedtech.com/products/webserver/do wnload/ ?

    13. Re:Apache? by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      The .htaccess file in the public directory needs a quick tweak to match the Alias to get the rewrite rules working. Works well.

      Oops! You said "quick" and ".htaccess" in the same sentence. From Apache's own documentation, .htaccess files are a last-ditch solution for when you don't control the server and can't edit its config files directly. Really, if you can help it, don't ever use them.

      Oh, if you use some web application that comes with a bunch of .htaccess files that you don't want to manually merge into your httpd.conf (or included files), you can use the Include directive to pull them into you config file once rather than forcing httpd to look for them each time a page loads. For example, replace:

      <Directory "/usr/local/www/myapp/files">
      AllowOverride All
      </Directory>

      with:

      <Directory "/usr/local/www/myapp/files">
      AllowOverride None
      Include /usr/local/www/myapp/files/.htaccess
      </Directory>

      Once you've done that everywhere, set "AllowOverride None" in your main httpd.conf file and make sure it's not overridden anywhere else.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    14. Re:Apache? by ViaD · · Score: 0

      I prefer lighttpd. The config is alot easier, the footprint is really small, and trough my lightweight testing it's fast and stable. (On Debian 4.0)

    15. Re:Apache? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can also use Litespeed to serve Rails applications.

    16. Re:Apache? by FooBarWidget · · Score: 1

      Well yeah, I suppose that it'll work if you run it as regular CGI. But then it will be very slow. Extremely slow. Almost unusabily slow. It will have to start RoR for each request, which can take 2-6 seconds depending on the speed of the server.

    17. Re:Apache? by FooBarWidget · · Score: 1

      "Yes, it cannot be run "in" apache, and this is a good thing."

      While mod_ruby runs Ruby apps inside Apache, FastCGI doesn't. FastCGI is like CGI but keeps processes around so that they can handle requests more quickly.

      "Now, if you serve up say, 5 images and 3 JS or CSS files on a page on average, that means that 5 out of 8 requests will use a bloated webserver process containing RoR, when in reality we need far fewer processes since only 1 in 8 requests actually ever touches ruby code. Less loaded and running code makes a big difference."

      Actually, no, on Unix this will make no difference. All modern Unix systems support copy-on-write semantics. When a process forks, the memory between the two processes are shared, until one of the process writes to the memory. When that happens, that part of the memory will be copied.
      So suppose a hypothetical Photoshop for Linux uses 300 MB memory. If it forks a child process, the child process uses only a few kilobytes of memory, and not 300 MB, because 99% of the memory of the child process is shared with the parent process. When either the parent process or a child process writes to a piece of memory (say, an image buffer), then that memory is copied. Therefore child process cannot change the parent process's memory, even though they may share a lot of memory in the beginning.
      This is also true for Apache. Even if Apache has loaded RoR and uses 150 MB of memory, a typical Apache child process will only use a few hundred kilobytes.

    18. Re:Apache? by metalhed77 · · Score: 1

      Good point wrt copy on write. The most common methods of deploying rails (with mongrel_cluster) do not use fork() but I just found this article on doing so if anyone's interested in it. http://izumi.plan99.net/blog/?p=19

      I would like to say for the record, that I didn't say that FastCGI ran apps inside apache, I don't know where you got that from.

      --
      Photos.
    19. Re:Apache? by FooBarWidget · · Score: 1

      Actually, that's my blog. :)

    20. Re:Apache? by metalhed77 · · Score: 1

      What a coincidence :) Well, thanks for pointing it out. I've read a number of articles on putting together rails stacks and yours is the first to suggest forking. Next time I deploy a new app I just may try some of the stuff you've suggested.

      By the way, great work on the blog, I like how comprehensive your posts are.

      --
      Photos.
    21. Re:Apache? by SyntheticTruth · · Score: 1

      Aroo?

      I'm running several RoR sites using Apache2 with fast_cgi. So, doesn't run at all? Which distro? I'm using Ubuntu and it's been working -great-.

    22. Re:Apache? by FooBarWidget · · Score: 1

      See my replies here.

    23. Re:Apache? by Enahs · · Score: 1

      Color me stupid here, but isn't Apache the de facto standard that most everyone uses?


      OK, you're colored stupid, champ.



      Seriously, Mongrel is good for development; it's a good mix of fast and easy. Though why someone would need an *easy* package of something available as a RubyGem is still beyond me. If you can't run 'gem install rails -y' you'll never get a Rails app going.

      --
      Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
  8. Why not a metapackage? by k-zed · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This thing is completely pointless and unnecessary under modern Linux package management systems. One could just create a metapackage with the proper dependencies.

    Even without such a metapackage, one can install this software with a single apt-get command line. Windows-based development methodology is bad enough, let's not infect linux/unix development with it.

    --
    we discovered a new way to think.
    1. Re:Why not a metapackage? by kevin+lyda · · Score: 1

      Yes, but no one has done that.

      And last I checked Debian didn't include Gems which is really annoying if you're learning Ruby and a book mentions a bunch of gems you should install.

      --
      US Citizen living abroad? Register to vote!
    2. Re:Why not a metapackage? by Ian_Bailey · · Score: 1

      It's actually in Debian, so you can go the gems route if you want. It's even in stable (even though it's slightly out-of-date)!
      http://packages.debian.org/stable/interpreters/rub ygems

  9. Ask Slashdot? by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 1

    It seems to me that this would have made a good "Ask Slashdot" article.

    All it would have taken was editing a word or two of the submitted story to make the implicit question more direct and, voila, there's the article...

    --

    "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
  10. Rails is a joke for serious production sites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    How anybody could conclude otherwise is beyond me.

    1. Re:Rails is a joke for serious production sites by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      no, j2ee is the joke. I work for a VAR that sells among other things Weblogic and all the major hardware platforms (Sun, HP, Dell, IBM). My observation is that j2ee sells hardware, that's for sure.

      Good application architecture is independent of language, but the common commercial j2ee platforms automate the creations of layers of bloat that needs expensive hardware and large numbers of servers to power. And the latest craze with SOA just puts middleware on your middleware, more bloat and even more servers.

      So go ahead and use your 1980's warmed-over c++ / half-baked oo crap that is java, make my employer rich.

      or, use your brain and a truly high level language, cut time to market in third and run on one third the front-end and middle-ware hardware.

    2. Re:Rails is a joke for serious production sites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      J2ee and Rails are both a joke, they just target different ends of the comedy market. As it happens, Java and Ruby are both fine languages, and they hardly have the monopoly on over-reaching, ultimately restrictive web frameworks and templating solutions.

    3. Re:Rails is a joke for serious production sites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Simply not true,

      Not only has Twitter proved that Rails is as scalable as any other platform, but the American version of Yellow Pages has just been released on Rails (which has a massive user-base compared to some blue-chip corp.).

      Consistently lack of extensibility has been the reason not to use Rails, and it's now been proven not to be an issue. It's a clean and productive platform and one that should be taken seriously.

    4. Re:Rails is a joke for serious production sites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Troll anyone?

    5. Re:Rails is a joke for serious production sites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ruby is a reasonably nice language but all of the current implementations are crap. Horrible performance, inconsistent API, terrible language support and one of the worst threading models ever conceived. Even Matz has acknowledged that the current implementations suck. Until these issues are resolved, there's almost no reason to use it over Python or a better language like Haskell or Scala.

    6. Re:Rails is a joke for serious production sites by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      so who uses Ruby built-in threading? I fork and use IPC. When performance of any scripting language becomes an issue a fast library can be used. (or you can play with one of the new vm) The forums and IRC give wonderful support, great people in there. No basis to complain about API in Ruby or Smalltalk , if you don't like what's given you can change it dynamically!

  11. your sig ... ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just don't trust anything that bleeds for five days and doesn't die. homo?
    1. Re:your sig ... ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      raging!

    2. Re:your sig ... ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a South Park quote. Mr. Garrison said it back during Season 1.

      Now he's a woman. Go figure!

    3. Re:your sig ... ? by larry+bagina · · Score: 1

      "i'd rather be a woman that can't have an abortion than a homo" -- Mr(s) Garrison.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

  12. Show me one site.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I've read a little about Ruby on Rails. Will somebody list one site that's on Rails and is worth a flip? I've seen the hype, but I'd love to see a site that talks the talk. Thanks!

    1. Re:Show me one site.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RevolutionHealth.com, Blinksale.com, Twitter.com, various 37signals.com applications, just to name a few....

    2. Re:Show me one site.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which of those is worth a flip exactly? Anything on the scale of wikipedia or slashdot and how much more hardware does Rails need for equivalent performance to a site done in perl or Zend PHP with an op-cache?

    3. Re:Show me one site.... by pasamio · · Score: 1

      I believe Penny Arcade (http://www.penny-arcade.com) is running RoR

      --
      I always wondered where this setting was...
    4. Re:Show me one site.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    5. Re:Show me one site.... by cortense · · Score: 1

      I'm assuming, as the previous responder did, that you mean "a site using Rails" when you say "a site that's on Rails", as opposed to a site about Rails. The obvious sites here are the 37signals sites, the ones that were the impetus for the development of RoR by David Heinemeier Hansson the first place. Basecamp, a project management tool, was their first and Highrise is their most recent. There are more of their sites listed on the Wikipedia page as well.

      Another Rails site that's been in the headlines recently is Twitter

      If you're looking for a good place to start, Agile Web Development with Rails by Dave Thomas and DHH is probably the best book out there.

    6. Re:Show me one site.... by Neil+Watson · · Score: 1
    7. Re:Show me one site.... by dubl-u · · Score: 1

      Which of those is worth a flip exactly? Anything on the scale of wikipedia or slashdot and how much more hardware does Rails need for equivalent performance to a site done in perl or Zend PHP with an op-cache?

      Twitter is on the scale of Slashdot, as you can see on Alexa.. You can read about how their site is built and why people expecting to scale are using RoR.

      As far as perl or PHP goes, I'm sure Ruby on Rails is about the same to scale. I think all of them have the problem that they're database-centric, so your real scaling issues are about your database and the limitations of a two-tier architecture.

    8. Re:Show me one site.... by Aighearach · · Score: 1
    9. Re:Show me one site.... by Doctor+Crumb · · Score: 1

      My impressions of RoR is that it has some useful scripts to build a skeleton app, it packages up the environment for you, and Ruby is less painful than C. I have yet to find any compelling reason to switch from perl or PHP, especially given that RoR doesn't scale well.

    10. Re:Show me one site.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      From your link:

      The performance boosts associated with a "faster" language would give us a 10-20% improvement
      So that would be 10-20% more front-end hardware, which wouldn't be significant if Rails provided a small productivity boost over equivalent frameworks for "faster" languages. Erlang/Mnesia would have been better fit for what they're doing, it was literally "made for it". But what do I know, I don't see any point whatsoever in their site. For me the entire thing can be summed up like this;

      Rails: pointless sites that perform 10-20% worse than those with a purpose
    11. Re:Show me one site.... by dubl-u · · Score: 1

      So that would be 10-20% more front-end hardware, which wouldn't be significant if Rails provided a small productivity boost over equivalent frameworks for "faster" languages.

      Sorry, but that's wrong. Have you considered trying, say, math?

      Suppose we're talking a 4-developer, 20-server project, which strikes me as typical for something like Twitter. Those developers will have a loaded cost of $600k per year. The servers will be circa 50k to purchase and the same to run for their two-year lifespan. Total two-year cost: $1.2m versus $100k.

      A full 20% increase in hardware cost is $20k. That's a whopping 1.67% of the developer budget -- 8 minutes per developer-day -- that you need to save to break even using RoR. Get something like a 5% productivity gain, which is still pretty small, and you're well in the black.

      And that's not counting the recruiting boost of using something shiny. Good developers are relatively unmotivated by extra money, so using something relatively new and interesting could easily save you that $20k.

      Erlang/Mnesia would have been better fit for what they're doing, it was literally "made for it".

      And? That doesn't mean that Ruby on Rails isn't better than whatever they were likely to use, which these days is either PHP or Java. Thanks for the pointer to Mnesia, though.

      But what do I know, I don't see any point whatsoever in their site.

      That's normally the point where I'd also wonder if perhaps I'm missing something else as well. Congrats on not getting bogged down by pesky humility.

    12. Re:Show me one site.... by dubl-u · · Score: 1

      Erlang/Mnesia would have been better fit for what they're doing, it was literally "made for it".

      I should have known better than to listen to an AC. As a Prevayler fan, I think Mnesia's neat, but they make pretty clear that Mnesia isn't good for large amounts of data. And given that Twitter's well north of 50 million messages and growing absurdly, it's well outside of Mnesia's envelope. Sure, you could build something federated, but you could do that nicely with all sorts of things, including Ruby.

  13. MySQL == windows by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

    The problem is that MySQL has the lion's share of the market, despite being (relatively speaking) crap. It's a lot like windows in that respect: if you want to ensure that a machine you sell can run random software for grannies, you (sadly) generally put windows on it. Likewise, if you want to ensure easy webapp development, you go with the database that can work with lots of other stuff.

    That said, it's ass-backwards. People should fix the bug --- that some software doesn't have a database abstraction layer --- and then choose that best DB.

    1. Re:MySQL == windows by pfedor · · Score: 1

      The problem is that MySQL has the lion's share of the market, despite being (relatively speaking) crap.

      It is only crap if you assume some very detached notions of what features a database engine should support (like full transactions, enforced foreign keys etc.) Those features are strongly promoted by the academia, which is why all fresh grads cannot understand why everyone uses MySQL and hardly anyone PostgreSQL. They also make for great buzz words, and as we all know nobody ever got fired for choosing Oracle. However, where it matters, it turns out that the actual needs of real life applications are different. Google uses MySQL and so does Yahoo. Most services at Google use a storage system called Bigtable, which has been developed completely in-house. And, surprise, it is not a relational database. As you can read in the paper I linked to, initially there was a plan to support general-purpose transactions in Bigtable, but after carefully inspecting the real applications' needs they decided against it.

      It's a lot like windows in that respect: if you want to ensure that a machine you sell can run random software for grannies, you (sadly) generally put windows on it.

      This analogy is dead wrong. Oracle is like Windows. Government agencies and big non-technical corporations use Oracle. MySQL is like Linux. PostgreSQL is like... umm let's say like Plan 9 from Bell Labs.

      People should fix the bug --- that some software doesn't have a database abstraction layer --- and then choose that best DB.

      Most a database abstraction layer can give you is familiar API across all databases. It won't give you the ability to switch database engines, because they are very incompatible. Perl has DBI which doesn't make Perl applications any less tied to specific DBMSes.

  14. Mongrel is a web server by Gunark · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Mongrel is a web server, hence this package includes a web server (unless it doesn't actually contain Mongrel, despite what the writeup says). Also, Ruby 1.8.6 comes with WEBrick, which is a the web server Rails uses by default...

    Anyway isn't a simplified Rails installer for Linux kind of redundant? Most newer Linux distros I've seen already have a native package that installs Ruby on Rails and all its dependencies. Most people will probably find the Instant Rails package a lot more useful, since it does the same for Windows.

    1. Re:Mongrel is a web server by cortense · · Score: 1

      I certainly agree with the parent poster, I've installed Rails many times on Linux and it's never been more complex than a simple "apt-get install rails".

      A similar product to Instant Rails, but for OS X is Locomotive, a simple, GUI-based way of getting Rails up and running in that environment... one executable, no hassle. Also for OS X, the definitive tutorial for building and installing from source is certainly the one at HiveLogic. I've used this tutorial as well, as installing it from the packages can be a little tricky on OS X 10.4, because it ships with a broken Ruby installation. Good news though, Leopard (10.5) will come with Rails installed by default.

    2. Re:Mongrel is a web server by xiaomai · · Score: 1

      I think the problem is that WEBrick is only meant for development (please for the love of pete never ever try to use it in a production environment), and Mongrel can only handle one request at a time, so you have to have some sort of webserver in front of a mongrel cluster that forwards the requests back to them.

  15. Ruby Sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    That is all.

  16. Special Announcement by delire · · Score: 5, Funny


    After months of hard work I finally bring Debian/Ubuntu/Xandros/[derivativus infinitum] users a computer program that will not only download the latest RoR development packages for you, it will also notify you of new versions when they become available later.

    Moreso, all the packages I provide are registered in a special database so that should you choose to remove the below packages, you can do so with ease using a GUI button or the command line!

    Please download the following code into your computer terminal and compile it by hitting ENTER (one-key compile for convenience).

    sudo apt-get update ; sudo apt-get install rails ruby rubygems libruby1.8-extras mysql libncurses-ruby openssl libzlib-ruby

    The above program is licensed under the "Why Make It Harder Than It Needs 2B License". Please use this link to make a donation to my project.

    1. Re:Special Announcement by foobarf00 · · Score: 4, Informative

      From their blog:

      "We decided to this so that we can share the same development environment with all the team. If programmers have a different Linux distro/version, they will still share the same development environment. This prevents programmers to say "well, it works on mine" when there is a problem. Also if you have a Linux distro package, versions may change when a new Linux distro is released. Also if you want to upgrade to the latest and greatest you are at the mercy of the Linux distribution. We will try to always have the latest versions of each tool. This helps to solve those problems."

    2. Re:Special Announcement by ari{Dal} · · Score: 1

      If only it were that easy.

      I had to get three xen debian instances up and running with Mongrel and RoR a few months ago, and the only bigger headache I've ever encountered was getting trac running with svn. The number of dependencies that kept cropping up was just unbelievable. I spent about four hours working it through on the first instance. Thank god for xensource "clone server".

      --
      Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo - H. G. Wells
  17. Never heard of 'm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Four URLs, and I haven't ever heard of any of them. And I get around on the Web (2.0 Aaarrrgggg!!!).

    This is my main gripe with RoR: It's boasted into the stratosphere by zealots, but hasn't proven itself in The Real World at all. PHP, PERL, Python, etc on the other hand have proven themselves more then enough. Penny-arcade is about the only widely known site I've ever heard of running on RoR, and from what I read, it took a lot of static page generation to keep it fast enough.

    That and the fact that RoR proponents somehow have the notion that RoR is a magical elixer which will cure all your web-dev problems and that it's somehow soooo much better than every other thing out there. RoR is nothing more than a framework with a bunch of (really neat) libs that existed for other languages way before RoR came into the picture.

    I'll wait a while before putting all my eggs in one basket. Until then, I'll happily keep on using PHP and Python for my web development.

    1. Re:Never heard of 'm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is my main gripe with RoR: It's boasted into the stratosphere by zealots, but hasn't proven itself in The Real World at all. PHP, PERL, Python, etc on the other hand have proven themselves more then enough.

      So much so, in fact, that PHP was chosen for rubyonrails.com instead of RoR.

      Penny-arcade is about the only widely known site I've ever heard of running on RoR, and from what I read, it took a lot of static page generation to keep it fast enough.

      You call that fast enough? It seems to fall over every time somebody links to it. Everybody talks about 37Signals, but aren't they the people that keep saying no to feature requests and had massive data loss when the Google Web Accelerator came along because their web applications were buggy? And these are the guys that created RoR!

      Its fanboys keep telling everybody that this is the price you pay for rapid development and you can always go back and optimise later. Well sorry, but I can develop just as quickly with Django, which incidentally was created by a newspaper, so it's not like that hasn't proven itself.

    2. Re:Never heard of 'm by HorsePunchKid · · Score: 1

      This is my main gripe with RoR: It's boasted into the stratosphere by zealots, but hasn't proven itself in The Real World at all...

      Err... In case it wasn't common knowledge, 37signals is largely responsible for the development of Ruby on Rails. As such, I'm pretty sure it powers all of their apps, like Ta-da List, Basecamp, and Highrise. I think Highrise is pretty new, but Basecamp has been around for a while, and I think it qualifies as proven.

      It's hard to believe you "get around on the Web 2.0" and yet haven't heard of 37signals or any of their products; perhaps you just don't remember hearing of them. Jason Fried, the founder (a co-founder?) of 37signals, gave the keynote at our campus webmaster forum this year. I'm pretty sure most of us knew who he was. (I could be wrong!)

      All that said, I've tried RoR and not liked it. It's on my list of things to play with again the next time I have some free cycles. :)

      --
      Steven N. Severinghaus
  18. Even better package by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    RoR's ActiveRecord makes it easy to use sqlite for development/testing and mysql/postgresql/etc for production (if desired.)

    For the goals of LinRails, they would've been better served by packaging sqlite 3.4 instead of mysql.

    Unlike mysql or postgresql, sqlite doesn't require a separate server process and it is ideal for:

    * learning RoR
    * testing RoR
    * websites with few concurrent users writing data
    * websites running in a VM with limited memory

    And lastly, it wouldn't scare noobs as much just in case they are already running mysql and wondering if installing this package might break things.

    A child with a hammer sees everything as a nail--much like developers and their favorite language|database|OS|...

  19. Ok, on site by Colin+Smith · · Score: 2, Interesting

    We have Oracle 8, Sybase 12 and postgresql 8 (I think).

    The whole factory is run off of postgresql.
    The financial system is run off of Oracle.
    The timesheet system is run off of Sybase.

    Guess the systems which gave the most and least problems.

    The winner is PostgreSQL. Untouched for months, perhaps even years. Next we have Oracle which is a pain in the arse to manage but never failed. and last place came sybase which had to be touched, managed and/or restarted regularly[1].

    In terms of transactions, the factory systems took an absolute pounding, the financial system was used extensively daily and the timesheet system got maybe thousand updates per day.

    PostgreSQL's largest benefit is reliability.

    [1] Clearly these attributes are what made Sybase the product of choice for Microsoft to build their enterprise database management system upon.

    --
    Deleted
  20. Not really necessary by MarkWatson · · Score: 1

    The Ruby bundles for Windows have their place but for Linux and OS X, just build Ruby from source, install gems, and you are good to go. Once Ruby and gem are installed use gem for everything.

    A bit off topic, but useful advice: I set up editor projects (TextMate, gedit, etc.) for:

    1. /usr/local/lib/ruby/1.8 - location of Ruby source code for standard libraries on my system
    2. /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems - location of local gem installs (often contain examples/tests and documentation files) on my system

    When you are using a standard library or a gem it is great to have the source right in front of you for reference.

  21. Is it still single-threaded? by Sanity · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Last time I checked, Mongrel was still single threaded, meaning that if you wanted to put together a decent website, you had to run multiple mongrel instances and have Apache load balance between them. The unfortunate reality of Rails in my experience, having deployed several Rails websites (example), is that it is still a toy, it certainly isn't "enterprise ready", and while its possible to make it scale, its an uphill struggle (I'm not the only one who thinks so).

    I can, on the other hand, highly recommend Wicket, its what we used to build Thoof, and so-far its scaling very well indeed.

    1. Re:Is it still single-threaded? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The unfortunate reality of Rails in my experience...

      Interesting. I've always found the unfortunate reality with rails to be that they go best with some Jack and a hooker. "Why, AC, how is that unfortunate?" you say. Well, when your boss catches you "expensing" such trivialities on the company credit card and subsequently relieves your holding of such a card therein, the experience becomes a bit of a financial strain. Besides, have you ever tried to score coke in rehab? The movies make it look so easy! Lies, I tell you!

      Oh? Wrong kind of "rails"?

      Mea culpa!
    2. Re:Is it still single-threaded? by MC+Negro · · Score: 1

      ...Well, when your boss catches you "expensing" such trivialities on the company credit card and subsequently relieves your holding of such a card therein, the experience becomes a bit of a financial strain...

      I want to know where you found a coke dealer that accepts credit cards.

      Seriously.

      Imagine the skymiles potential.
      --
      "You and your third dimension."
  22. Binary? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Slashdot frontpage announces the release of a Linux binary package?? Without the intention of mocking it! I never tought I'd see this.

  23. I got a better one! by gwolf · · Score: 0, Redundant

    sudo aptitude install rails

    Any questions?

    Oh, and regarding foobarf00's reply: All the distributions strive to do exactly the same. Why would you want to keep track of versioning at two different upstream repositories (or... Do you use Gems? Well, s/two/many/ if you please) when you can keep all of your system's versions synchronized with The One True Source?

    1. Re:I got a better one! by foobarf00 · · Score: 1

      sudo aptitude install rails only applies to Ubuntu/Debian-like distros. On a team of developers, if you have a developer using Gentoo what can he do? With this binary distribution he doesn't have to reinstall his machine to have a development environment like the other developer's running Ubuntu. Also if Ubuntu decides to upgrade to MySQL X+1, I can still keep my development environment using MySQL X. Of course this applies to the rest of the software packages with LinRails. When you have a team using an RAD/Agile Development the last thing you want to worry about is having incompatibilities in software tools between your team.

  24. Why .exe's are better by Krommenaas · · Score: 2, Informative

    As a frustrated Windows user who would like to switch to Linux but can't get it to work, let me explain this to you:

    1) in my experience a Windows .exe always works regardless of what Windows version I'm using, while a Linux package generally doesn't work on the Linux distro I'm trying.

    2) if I'm given a link to a .exe that will fix my internet connection, it's rather obvious to me that I can download the .exe from another PC, put it on a USB key and run it on my own PC. however, if I get an apt-get line to help me fix my internet connection, I have absolutely no clue what to do with it.

    1. Re:Why .exe's are better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a frustrated Windows user who would like to switch to Linux but can't get it to work, let me explain this to you:

      Your problems seem to stem from the fact that you are expecting Linux to work just like Windows. It doesn't. It's better. For example:

      1) in my experience a Windows .exe always works regardless of what Windows version I'm using, while a Linux package generally doesn't work on the Linux distro I'm trying.

      Why are you downloading packages from random websites? You don't need to do that with Linux*. You fire up your package manager, put in the name of what you want to install (or search for the features you want to find suitable software), and click OK. It's all-inclusive, perfect compatibility with your distribution, and no need to go scavenge downloads from websites. It's because you've been conditioned to hunt downloads by Windows that you expect to have to do that. Skip it, you don't need to!

      * Yes, no repository will contain absolutely all software, but as far as newbies are concerned, it might as well do. Power users are the people who tend to find repositories lacking, because they want bleeding edge, customised or obscure software.

      2) if I'm given a link to a .exe that will fix my internet connection, it's rather obvious to me that I can download the .exe from another PC, put it on a USB key and run it on my own PC. however, if I get an apt-get line to help me fix my internet connection, I have absolutely no clue what to do with it.

      Well it might be obvious to you, but it isn't to me. There's plenty of Windows things that require the actual computer for easily retrieving stuff. For example, Windows Update. Sure, there are places to go and tricks to pull in order to get downloadable packages that can be ferried between computers, but you can't count them because for a fair comparison, you'd have to also include the inconvenient ways of ferrying Linux software between machines, which you're clearly excluding from consideration.

      And hey, if you want to talk about the inconvenience of needing an Internet connection, I don't think the system that requires "activation" has anything to brag about.

    2. Re:Why .exe's are better by rjshields · · Score: 1

      As a frustrated Windows user who would like to switch to Linux but can't get it to work, let me explain this to you:

      1) in my experience a Windows .exe always works regardless of what Windows version I'm using, while a Linux package generally doesn't work on the Linux distro I'm trying.
      What kind of Linux are you using? I would suggest getting yourself a copy of Ubuntu. You shouldn't have this problem unless you're using something like an old version of redhat/fedora.

      2) if I'm given a link to a .exe that will fix my internet connection, it's rather obvious to me that I can download the .exe from another PC, put it on a USB key and run it on my own PC. however, if I get an apt-get line to help me fix my internet connection, I have absolutely no clue what to do with it.
      I haven't seen this scenario recently. Maybe years ago your distro might not have drivers for your NIC, you would have to download and install them manually. You might download the driver tarball then follow the instructions in the INSTALL document included. Otherwise, it's probably just a configuration problem that can easily be fixed. Who the hell downloads .exe files to fix connection problems anyway? It this kind of mentality that leads to having a system full of spyware and other crap.
      --
      In this world nothing is certain but death, taxes and flawed car analogies.
    3. Re:Why .exe's are better by jack455 · · Score: 2, Informative

      At some point I installed Fedora Core 2 (now on 7), and the install was very smooth. I installed KDE and already knew how to use that from using the Knoppix Live CD.

      Upon First Boot I immediately allowed Fedora to AutoUpdate, but then had trouble. Without a tutorial, I searched for and found software I wanted to install but I thought I had to compile from 'somepackage.tar.gz'. Oops. Seems silly to me now, but I didn't have anyone helping me. I knew I could go to forums, but didn't. I then found out about rpm's and how to install from the command line. Then I found out that 'yum' was better to use than 'rpm' for installing 'somepackage.rpm'. Weird, at first anyway. Eventually '#yum install yumex' got me a graphical software finder and installer. KMenu(like Start)---System---Yum Extender

      But occasionally I want to install software from a CD or download 'somepackage.rpm'.

      Instead of 'someprogram.exe' it's 'somepackage.rpm'. The one thing I had to learn wasn't so much how to do it, but what the commands meant.

      For the same reason I decided to stop using Windows, I wasn't going to type su into a terminal without knowing why. But you can run Konsole from the "start" menu. Type $su; enter root's password; navigate to your Desktop folder or wherever 'somepackage.rpm' is; type #yum localinstall somepackage.rpm; type y for ok!

      Not blazingly simple after all, but there's very little to understand.

      Remember that intermediate, advanced, or experts on any OS(windows, mac or linux/unix) should all be telling you _not_ to download an exe and run it in order to fix an internet connection.

    4. Re:Why .exe's are better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Instead of 'someprogram.exe' it's 'somepackage.rpm'. The one thing I had to learn wasn't so much how to do it, but what the commands meant.

      I haven't used RedHat since the 90s, but even then, you could just click on the icon and it would prompt you for a password and then install itself. I find it hard to believe that it has regressed in the past seven years.

    5. Re:Why .exe's are better by jack455 · · Score: 1

      I didn't do that then because I didn't know. I was trying to walk through my experience incase it resonated with his. I stated that and it should also be clear from the way I spelled out each step, I hope.

      After all 'somepackage.fc7.i686.rpm' is explicitly accurate. 'someprogram.exe' sometimes does not work so the essence of what he said showed he was confused about Windows and Linux.

      I don't double click rpm's now because yum is a better, more efficient package manager than rpm.

  25. If you can't install rails from gems... by alex_vegas · · Score: 1

    on freaking linux, you really ought to turn in any certifications or degrees you've recieved with regards to computers.

  26. hear hear! by nietsch · · Score: 1

    I completely second the above statement. Nothing is more stupid then creating a package of your own, that installs other software bypassing the package manager. Since there is no oversight/credibility, it is a very good way to root other machines: just release something that appears to be usefull and install a little backdoor in it. Make sure the payload is delayed to avoid immediate detection, you can just hide it somewhere in that huge tarball as nobody will like to sift through all that stuff.
    That is a very good reason to only install software through your package manager combined with trusted repositories. The way to do this thing properly, is to make a metapackage that depends on the packages you want installed and as a post-install edit the configfiles that you need for the whole to function. When you have made that package and you are not a debian or ubuntu developer, get in contact with some and find out what the proper procedures are to get your package in the distro. That way, other people will vet your package, point out those bugs and make sure that it works together with the rest of the distro.

    --
    This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
    1. Re:hear hear! by oliderid · · Score: 1

      I don't.

      I rather prefer a package (you know like this dumb doubleclick on windows) with absolutly everything you need to get started than the Linux way of installation. Each time I have to install a new stuff, it fails on the first run (except those which are part of the distribution)...And three hours of googling later it "may" install the program and it "may" run. You feel like you are wasting your time (especially if it is for your job).

      Why?

      I just spent a whole afternoon yesterday to install a popular program such as Eclipse 3.1 on a OpenSuse 10.1.

      First Chapter No JAVA Environment

      There were no JAVA on the SUSE CDs because of license issues (I understand but it is rather annoying), I had to browse the internet to find the appropriate way to install the package from a remote source (and understand how YAST handles FTP).

      Second Chapter even JAVA is fragmented ?

      And then...It turned out that this Java environement wasn't enough for Eclipse. There was a missing libswt3-gtk2-3.1.1.X. Again googling, reading forums, and find the appropriate way to install it.

      Third Chapter Eclipse not so simple

      The fun didn't end. I had to install the PyDev plug-in fo Python development. The lastest PyDev
      3.X package was incompatible with Eclipse 3.1...It needed Eclipse 3.2. Using the automatic Eclispe Updater was impossible (no way to download/install previous releases). I don't want to upgrade to openSuSe 10.2 (and I don't know if it provides Eclipse 3.2) and I don't know how to upgrade Eclipse 3.1 to 3.2 (I tried. I downloaded it, unzipped it but when I doubleclick on eclipse.bin all I've got is the splash screen then nothing)

      So again I had to browse various web site, forums to finally find the source (sourfeforge) to get previous releases and understand how to install "manually" this Eclipse plug-in (trying everything from PyDev 2.9 to...PyDev 1.8).

      The result

      Windows...Probably +/- 30 min. to get started.
      Linux...5 hours.

      PS:

      I'm certainly not bitching the open source community. I've got everything for free and I have to shut my mouth up...But if somebody comes with a single package philosophy, I will support him.

      Question:
      Why don't you choose Ubuntu, X or Z?
      Because OpneSuSe 10.1 (choise made on +/- April 2007) was the only one distribution handling correctly my 20'' LCD, the MonoDevelop IDE installation was straightforward (read part of the distribution). I tried Ubuntu, it failed (resolution: 640X480 instead of 1680X1050).

      Olivier

    2. Re:hear hear! by Doctor+Memory · · Score: 1

      That's funny, I was about to suggest that people instead just install the latest release of NetBeans 6.0. It comes with Ruby and the Rails packages (including webrick) installed by default. Of course, this won't work if you don't have Java installed, but if you do have something relatively recent (Java 1.5 or later), then it's pretty painless to get it up and running.

      --
      Just junk food for thought...
  27. Zope by Qbertino · · Score: 1

    Zope. - What Rails wants to be when it grows up.

    Also be sure to check out Plone, Symfony, Django, CakePHP, Prado and Turbogears before you blindly join the overhyped Rails bandwagon.

    --
    We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
    1. Re:Zope by samjensen · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Zope, Plone, Django, Turbogears -- cool.
      Cake, Symfony -- stay the hell away from these crummy frameworks.

      And sure Rails may be overhyped, but that doesn't mean that it's bad.

      --
      this space intentionally left blank
    2. Re:Zope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why did you omit Drupal? Of the ones you mentioned, only Plone and Zope are at all comparable to Drupal in terms of popularity, community support, momentum, ubiquity, maturity, any number of metrics.

      Not baiting, just genuinely curious!

  28. MySQL needs to go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If rails (or any other multi-tier app using an RDBMS) wants to get real street cred, it needs to drop MySQL and use something real, like PostgreSQL, as the default database engine. Too many little projects are growing up and can't scale. And no, rails does not completely abstract the database away. There are plenty of little quirky things that get built in that can make migrating difficult.

  29. Informative my butt by xiaomai · · Score: 1

    I don't know how such a wildly incorrect post got rated informative. Rails runs in Apache2 just fine, just about any (cheap) rails host you'll find is running apache 2. It does use FastCGI. Lighttpd works too. Mongrel is generally used by forwarding requests back to several mongrels by an apache process running mod_proxy_balance or something like pound.

    1. Re:Informative my butt by FooBarWidget · · Score: 1

      "Wildly incorrect"? Last year I spent 3 days trying to make mod_fastcgi and mod_fcgi work on Apache 2 on Fedora Core 4. I followed virtually all guides that I could find. Each and every one of them was outdated (at least 1 year old, most are 2 or 3 years old). I couldn't get it to work at all - mod_fastcgi keeps saying something about permission denied, even though the permissions are correct according to all the guides that I could find. Disabling SELinux also didn't help. Eventually I gave up and used Lighttpd - and it worked almost instantly.

    2. Re:Informative my butt by FooBarWidget · · Score: 1

      (Followup to my last post.) And for your information: I asked around on the RoR mailing list and IRC channel. Everybody told me that I shouldn't use Apache.

    3. Re:Informative my butt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I didn't manage to run RoR on Apache" != "RoR cannot be run on Apache".

      What do you think all those RoR servers are running? My guess is >90% Apache. Not because it is any good (in fact it stinks) but because it's been around forever, it's already running on every single server and people know how to deal with its crankiness.

      You know, you could have asked on any forum instead of following all those outdated guides. Rails is evolving fast, documentation lags behind. Most how-to knowledge can only be found in blogs, mailinglists, IRC or by asking around.

    4. Re:Informative my butt by FooBarWidget · · Score: 1

      "I didn't manage to run RoR on Apache" != "RoR cannot be run on Apache". ...
      You know, you could have asked on any forum instead.

      Actually, "RoR cannot be run on Apache" is exactly what the people on the RoR mailing list and IRC told me. I asked them what's going on, they told me to stop wasting my time on FastCGI for Apache (which is abandoned, as they claimed) and that I should use Lighttpd instead.

      Regardless of whether it can be done, it should be easy. If you have the time nitpicking about my post then why don't you spend your time doing useful things, like writing a correct guide on setting up RoR with Apache?

      "What do you think all those RoR servers are running?"
      Lighttpd or Mongrel. The only site I know that runs RoR on Apache is Dreamhost.

    5. Re:Informative my butt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I asked around on the RoR mailing list and IRC channel. Everybody told me that I shouldn't use Apache.

      That's because they're lighttpd fanbois, not because Apache doesn't work.
    6. Re:Informative my butt by FooBarWidget · · Score: 1

      Then how am I, back then a newbie RoR developer, supposed to distinguish Lighttpd "fanbois" from people who are genuinely trying to help me? Especially when RoR-on-Apache documentation was very bad back then (and may still be now)? Somehow you're blaming me for not being able to see the difference?

  30. Don't believe the hype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is not a newsworthy item. Someone compiled some pre-existing (and buzzword compliant) programs and released them. When I want this kind of news I go to Freshmeat.net.

    Is it possible that M$ is hyping Ruby on the sly? RoR is a somewhat dead-end, somewhat slow, somewhat too complicated, somewhat isolated system. Segmenting the LAMP crowd would be a logical strategy for M$ (and it'll help their Netcraft webserver survey numbers). Also, Ruby's incredible hype has for the most part coincided with the development and release cycle of M$'s new dynamic web site development tools.

  31. It's already easy by PhotoGuy · · Score: 1

    I found Ruby to be one of the easiest environments to get up and running quickly already.

    It's a one-liner apt-get, and then let "gem" to the rest for you (kind of like apt-get/cpan for Ruby packages).

    Seems like a slight non-story to me.

    -dale

    --
    Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
  32. This site.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    loaded slow as shit for me.. for 1 login page

  33. Trademark dispute by Schraegstrichpunkt · · Score: 1

    "Do the Lin---ls rock!"

    See this blast from the past.

  34. flase by linuxIsLife · · Score: 1

    MySQL == windows means false
  35. What's your problem with Cake and/or Symfony? by Qbertino · · Score: 1

    Cake, Symfony -- stay the hell away from these crummy frameworks.

    Care to elaborate? I'd like an educated opinion, why you think these aren't worth it. Do you have real experience with them or did you just dick around with each for 20 minutes? Or is it PHP that you don't like? I'm really interested. Propels XML is the only potential downside I can see. And that doesn't seen to much of a problem.

    --
    We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
    1. Re:What's your problem with Cake and/or Symfony? by samjensen · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Care to elaborate? I'd like an educated opinion, why you think these aren't worth it. Do you have real experience with them or did you just dick around with each for 20 minutes? I did say that based on a quick hour-or-less session I did with several PHP frameworks. I checked out Symfony, Cake, Qcodo, Zend framework, and I may have taken a cursory look at a couple other. After evaluating those last summer (about a year ago exactly) I ended up using the Zend framework for that project.

      Both Symfony and Cake seemed nice at first, but I couldn't even follow their 101 tutorials because the instructions were not correct for the current stable versions. Sure I could have figured it out, but when I have a fairly short time to evaluate these things I'm not going to start diving into the source just to get started! I didn't have to do that with Rails, and I didn't have to do that with the Zend framework (which was at v0.14 at the time).

      Qcodo is interesting. Seagull looked fairly interesting as well, but this was a small internal project and the Zend framework fit the bill nicely.

      So it was based on a quick 20-minute dicking around. If you're very interested in the projects then they may work well for you, and for all I know the docs actually match the code by now which I guess was the biggest turn off.

      Or is it PHP that you don't like? I'm really interested. Propels XML is the only potential downside I can see. And that doesn't seen to much of a problem. I won't pretend to be a PHP fan but that didn't factor into my choice of framework since it had to be done in PHP. I didn't take more than a 20-minute glance at Propels (as part of Symfony iirc) so I don't have much of an opinion on it.

      Cake and Symfony try very hard to be Rails. If you have a choice of language I strongly urge anyone looking at those 2 to just use the real deal instead. If you want to use PHP then I would still urge you to look at Prado, Seagull, Zend framework or Qcodo before these 2. At least those have some unique features and direction, rather than just picking up the scraps Rails throws away.
      --
      this space intentionally left blank
  36. Quit staring at your belly button! by nietsch · · Score: 1

    It's good that you documented your struggles with installing eclipse. I too have found it a pain to install. But you have only summed up your problems (and is for a development environment FCS! you should be able to hold up your own trousers). You did not address any of the advantages of using the distribution provided package manager, some that I listed above (the rest is obvious, for instance reduction of maintenance).
    Calling for a monolithic package will do away with a lot of these advantages. Your problem is not caused because of limitations of the package manager(s), but because nobody has taken the time to create a suitable meta-package. Exactly the same situation as for a monolithic eclipse package (I hope...).
    You should call for an solution to the problem (1-click installing of eclipse) and not specify the technical implementation.
    Like this blob-package the heisa was about, If the developers had been familiar with package-management concepts and knew/studied how to build a package, they could have made the superior solution in about the same time.

    --
    This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
  37. Symptomatic of RoR by CptPicard · · Score: 1

    If someone is really planning on seriously web-developing anything, it shouldn't be an issue to set up a Linux development environment on their own. They might actually learn something about how stuff works in the process.

    RoR in general is weird like this -- yes, you might be able to "create a blogging application in 2 minutes" by calling some appropriate code-generation wizards, but does that really make you a developer who is able to actually do something on his own outside the scope of what is provided out of the box?

    --
    I want to play Free Market with a drowning Libertarian.
  38. Easy, but irrelevant by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1

    I have no relationship with the LinRails project, and this is the first I've heard of it, but even I can tell you why they include mysql database. They include it because it's more popular and quicker to get up and running.

    The idea of LinRails isn't to spread good database ideology. It's to get Ruby on Rails up and running as quickly as possible for the greatest number of users.

    The whole thing is irrelevant, anyhow. Chances are if you want to make a Rails app, you already know what database server you'll be using and already have your database configured. Even if you use LinRails, it takes 0.2 seconds of config file editing to point your app at postgres is that's your thing. Rails doesn't really care what database server it's connecting to.

    --
    They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
  39. LAMP - LAMR - LLMR WFT??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Should we call it now LLMR (Linux + LightHttpd + MySQL + Rails), CMON, LAMP is already everywhere and with solutions like Akelos (see video at http://akelos-org.s3.amazonaws.com/akelos_php_fram ework_screencast.mov) you can have the magic of Rails conventions in your old C-style language ;)