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."
> 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
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.
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.
"Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
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).
How are .exes on Windows better than apt-based packaging? .exe .exe
... and no clicking through an installer .deb .deb .deb with dpkg or gdebi again with no installer to click through
.exes are better as an installation method.
Windows:
1)find
2)download
3)go through installation wizard
apt:
1)if you already know package, do apt-get install
or
1)search for a package with apt-cache, aptitude, or synaptic
2)install, again without installer
or
1)find a
2)download
3)install
I don't see how
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.
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.
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.
"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."
./configure && make && sudo make install. What's hard about that?"
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
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).