Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Programming Software IT Linux Technology

Rubyx OS - A Testament To The Power Of Ruby 121

Posted by timothy from the makes-good-slippers dept.
Andrew Walrond writes "Rubyx the OS is created from source by rubyx the ruby script. Got it? The same small ruby script handles all subsequent package management, customised parallel and distributed user-mode package builds, and can create a live CD. For good measure, Rubyx (the os) sports an all new init and rationalised service management system written in ....can you guess?..."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Rubyx OS - A Testament To The Power Of Ruby More

Rubyx OS - A Testament To The Power Of Ruby

Comments Filter:

  • Article... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Creepy Crawler ( 680178 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @11:29PM (#8448454)
    ---For good measure, Rubyx (the os) sports an all new init and rationalised service management system written in ....can you guess?..."

    PERL ?
    • RTFA, it's in Malbolge. [mines.edu]
    • That's what I thought at first. I did some investigation. I researched the backgrounds of some of the lead developers. Turns out that none of them had ever written any perl. My next guess was prolog, but upon downloading the source, printing it out, and spending all day at the library sifting through the hundreds of pages, I discovered that the entire thing was actually written in a language called Ruby. You can imagine my surprise.

      What's next, a browser written in Ruby? A ruby interpreter written entirely

  • ROS (Score:4, Informative)

    by davegaramond ( 632107 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @11:46PM (#8448559)
    FYI, there's another initiative [slashdot.org] to develop a fully Ruby-based operating system (including the kernel), though one wonder when -- if ever -- this project will deliver something usable.

    • Re:ROS (Score:3, Interesting)

      by jonadab ( 583620 )
      > FYI, there's another initiative to develop a fully Ruby-based operating
      > system (including the kernel), though one wonder when -- if ever -- this
      > project will deliver something usable.

      The mere existence of the initiative, as anything other than a joke, increases
      my interest in Ruby a thousandfold. I've been passing on learning Ruby because
      I've been figuring it's Yet Another Language With Perl Envy, but if these
      people understand the importance of writing an operating system in a VHLL
      and throwing

  • My thoughts on Rubyx (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @11:51PM (#8448592)
    I am not familiar enough with Rubyx to comment on it one way or another. But I will tell you this - if I am ever in the market for an obscure and potentially very slow object oriented scripted OS - I will certainly consider Rubyx to be in my top 20 picks.

  • Logo (Score:4, Funny)

    by Steven Reddie ( 237450 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @11:52PM (#8448598)
    Lets start an OS written entirely in Logo. Drawing buttons and such will be easy enough, but it's the scheduler that is going to take some creativity. All user apps will also be written in Logo and it will be possible to virtualise the entire OS inside a user app. Extra care must be taken to ensure process don't write over the top of each other.

  • Enhanced Package Management (Score:3, Insightful)

    by osewa77 ( 603622 ) <naijasms@gma[ ]com ['il.' in gap]> on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @11:52PM (#8448600) Homepage
    If Linux can become more flexible in the areas of package management and system configuration... For example, making it easy to run multiple versions of, say, gcc on the same system and switch between them at will; automatically generating configuration files based on system-wide settings. Seamlessly integrating with the latest source or binary packages of my favorite software ... and letting all these features be available from the bash shell, while making it easy for GUI wrappers to be built for those shell apps ... these are the things that can make Linux a more ideal platform! At the end of the day, I really don't care what language the configuration scripts are written in!
    • I don't want to be accused of irrational advocacy of any particular distribution, but for the record, everything you mention in your posts already exists in at least one very popular distribution, and probably more.

      Perhaps you should poke around the existing world a bit more. If you've only tried one distro odds are good you haven't found your match. Red Hat(/Fedora), Gentoo, and Debian are probably good ways to sample the major ways of doing distros; each has a fairly different philosophy and is large eno
      • I'm a Gentoo myself


        Don't worry, on the internet nobody knows you're a penguin [falklandwool.com].
      • I think Debian meets all your requirements too, but I'm not too sure about the multi-gcc one.

        Yes it does.

        If you install gcc v2.9x and gcc v3.x you end up with something like this

        /usr/bin/gcc is symlinked to /usr/bin/gcc-3.3 and there is still a /usr/bin/gcc-2.95.

        That way you have a default which is gcc, and the option of being explicit about the version if you really care which compiler you use.

        I think that meets the requirements of having two side-by-side compilers.

    • Re:Enhanced Package Management (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Deagol ( 323173 ) on Wednesday March 03, 2004 @01:56AM (#8449328) Homepage
      (I apologize for this lengthy off-topic post, but I had to respond to the parent's desire for concurrent multiple versions in a package system. Maybe someone with coding skill -- unlike myself -- could run with it.)

      For example, making it easy to run multiple versions of, say, gcc on the same system and switch between them at will...

      I have a home-brew system like this, and I would die of joy if something like Debian's apt or {Free,Open}BSD's ports system would integrate it.

      I actually can't take credit for it, and I really don't know if it's that unique, but the people I've introduced it to love it. And thanks, Lou, for showing it to me. It's a shame this post won't get a larger audience (then again, maybe it's a conceit to believe anyone would actually care. :)).

      Okay, here goes...

      I have on all of my machines (or "boxen", just to annoy those of you who loathe the term), a directory called /mfs -- "my file system". The philosophy is that of /opt or /usr/local: a place to install custom software without colliding with the main system tree.

      Within /mfs, there's dist, src, obj, & pkg. I place the tarballs in dist, I unpack the source into (you guessed it) src, I (sometimes) build in obj, and I install into pkg.

      My most common use is installing OpenSSH onto various platforms, so I'll use that to illustrate.

      I download the tarballs into my dist dir: tcp_wrappers_7.6.tar.gz, openssl-0.9.6l.tar.gz, zlib-1.2.1.tar.gz, & openssh-3.8p1.tar.gz.

      Next, I unpack them into src, where I usually build them, though sometimes I build them in obj.

      Sometimes, it's a matter of a simple --prefix paramater to the config script. Sometimes it takes modifying Makefiles. But usually without fail, I can shoehorn most any application into it's proper place: /mfs/pkg/package/version.

      The goal is to totally isolate the application within its own directory -- even it's own etc, tmp, var (or whatever) directories. If it's possible (never mind the convenience of making it happen), that program will never collide with another version of that program on the system: .pid files, logs, sockets - nothing.

      So when all's said and done, I now have:

      /mfs/pkg/openssh/3.8p1
      /mfs/pkg/zlib/1.2.1
      /mfs/pkg/openssl/0.9.6l
      /mfs/pkg/tcp_wrappers/7.6

      Each, of course, has all of the etc, bin, lib, include, sbin, var, tmp, and man directories the app needs to run.

      Once this structure is in place, it's pretty obvious where it leads: you can painlessly have concurrent versions of any program and/or library you could ask for. Since apps are linked to a specific library version, installing a new version of that library won't collide with the old one.

      Ever try installing a current SRPM of openssh onto an older Redhat release? It's a nightmare! The RPM requires a current version of openssl, but the KDE libraries all require openssl 0.9.5 (or some such). You just cannot get it to work.

      So you may now be thinking to yourself, "Okay, that's kinda useful. But when you have hundreds (or thousands) of apps, your PATH would be insanely long. This just won't work."

      That's a good point -- but there's a solution. Use the "lndir" command from within /mfs, to link your desired package into the root /mfs directory:

      cd /mfs && lndir pkg/openssh/3.8p1

      Now, thanks to the lndir command, you now have the directories /mfs/{bin,etc,sbin,man} populated with symbolic links to the actual programs. Now you can set your PATH, MANPATH, and even init scripts to point to the "main" /mfs directories.

      But wait, there's more! Let's say we h

      • Maybe someone with coding skill -- unlike myself -- could run with it.

        There is already stow [gnu.org].

        Ever try installing a current SRPM of openssh onto an older Redhat release? It's a nightmare! The RPM requires a current version of openssl, but the KDE libraries all require openssl 0.9.5 (or some such). You just cannot get it to work.

        Without upgrading you mean, ok fair enough. Although I'm not sure why I'd care about what version openssh is (unless it's a security errata -- in which case it's coming f

        • There is already stow [gnu.org].
          I prefer to use xstow [sourceforge.net] which is a replacement of GNU Stow [gnu.org] written in C++. It supports all features of Stow with some extensions.
        • Without upgrading you mean, ok fair enough. Although I'm not sure why I'd care about what version openssh is (unless it's a security errata -- in which case it's coming from my vendor anyway). But using a better example of evolution or whatever...

          My specific gripe was Redhat 7.1, I think -- the ssh version is woefully out of date and vulnerable. There are no more vendor upgrades (I don't know if LegacyFedora.org has the updates). The point was that sometimes you run into "dependancy hell" on systems th

          • My specific gripe was Redhat 7.1, I think -- the ssh version is woefully out of date and vulnerable.

            And my probably badly phrased retort was that if the entire OS is out of date there is an obvious solution upgrade the OS. The 95% use case (IMO) is being able to upgrade certain application(s) (those that the user(s) care significantly more about than the rest) when most of the system is at the latest stable version ... ergo. security updates should almost certainly be got in the normal way.

            This is w

      • Yes, it is cool. Check out Dan Bernstein work on package management at http://cr.yp.to/slashpackage.html [cr.yp.to]
      • That sounds a lot like the MacOS bundle [apple.com] system.

        That is, an application and all or most of its dependencies can exist in one directory. To install the application you just copy a directory. Delete the directory to uninstall.

        The ROX filer [sourceforge.net] can also do this for Linux but I haven't used it much.

        By the way, I use GCC 2.95, 3.0, 3.2, and 3.3 on Debian all at the same time (for compatibily tests). Debian is pretty good about concurent versioning.
      • This sounds a LOT like how GoboLinux [gobolinux.org] does things.

        From the GoboLinux FAQ [gobolinux.org]:

        What the heck is GoboLinux?

        GoboLinux is a Linux distribution that breaks with the historical Unix directory hierarchy. Basically, this means that there are no directories such as /usr and /etc. The main idea of the alternative hierarchy is to store all files belonging to an application in its own separate subtree; therefore we have directories such as /Programs/GCC/2.95.3/lib.

        To allow the system to find these files, they are log

      • you might want to look into the gentoo [gentoo.org]linux distribution and their concept of "slots".
      • Dude. Next time before you go through all that work do a google search.

        Check out encap [uiuc.edu].
      • I use and like http://www.encap.org/ [encap.org]
      • > I'm sure there are problems that a real package
        > maintainer would spot right away, but I think
        > this system is probably feasible to roll into a
        > full package management system. And, no, I
        > haven't tried all 1273 linux distros out there,
        > so somebody may actually be doing this already.
        > I'd love to hear about it.

        > Damn -- I hope somebody thinks this is a cool
        > idea. :)

        yeah, I built something like what you describe. Got a packaging management system that builds from code and doe

    • Check out the 'modules' program at modules.sourceforge.net [sourceforge.net]. It makes it fairly easy to switch between versions of any program you like (and choose to set up with modules).

      It's distribution-agnostic (works on non-Linux UN*X, too). The common usage is more or less module load gcc2.95 (now, 'gcc' will execute gcc v2.95).

      Anyway, as someone else mentioned, Debian already offers this for some packages (the package maintainer has to do some things differently to make it work). For gcc, there's a gcc-2.95 packa

    • Isn't switching between multiple versions of gcc as easy as using "gcc-config" under Gentoo? Come to think of it, it uses much the same scheme for switching between multiple versions of everything else which has alternatives... OpenGL, Java, ...

  • Um, isn't this just another Linux distro? (Score:5, Informative)

    by ivern76 ( 665227 ) on Wednesday March 03, 2004 @12:01AM (#8448660)
    I'm not too sure how this isn't 'Rubyx, the Linux distribution with an installer/package manager written in Ruby'. If it had been written in any other language, would it still be cool?

    • Re:Um, isn't this just another Linux distro? (Score:5, Funny)

      by popeyethesailor ( 325796 ) on Wednesday March 03, 2004 @12:22AM (#8448812)
      Damn straight. They should have named it GNU/Glibc/XFree(C)TM/QT/KDE/Ruby-Lang/Rubyx .
    • If I recall correctly, several of the Linux and BSD distros use Python for their installers.

      So, no, I guess it wouldn't be any big deal. Certainly not Slashdot front-page stuff.

      News for nerds, stuff that matters? Not this time.

    • Actually, there are a couple of cool things about Rubyx that make it different from a run-o'-the-mill Linux distro, and the language they're in ain't one of 'em.

      The first is that it's self-bootstrapping--you can just download the Rubyx script and use that to build an install ISO. That's pretty darned cool if you ask me.

      The other cool thing about it is that it completely eschews the entire SysV init system with one of its own, based on dependencies instead of on educated guesses by the sysadmin (read: arb

      • The other cool thing about it is that it completely eschews the entire SysV init system with one of its own, based on dependencies instead of on educated guesses by the sysadmin (read: arbitrary order) as to what order services should start up and shut down in. This lets you speed up booting by starting independent services concurrently instead of waiting for each service to start up individually.

        I'm not booting very often, so the speedup isn't that important to me (a speedup is still nice, tho), but th

    • No, it's more than just another Linux distro. It's more of a way of creating Linux distros. But if you take it a step further, there's no reason why it couldn't also be used to build *BSD systems as well by specifying a *BSD kernel instead. If that can be done, then Rubyx is something much more than just another Linux distro. It would be a sort of a cafeteria-style system builder: I'll take this Darwin kernel and this GnuStep WM and this MPlayer and... There are lots of possibilities. Is Linux too v

  • a Ruby-based package manager? (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    You mean, like FreeBSD's portupgrade [onlamp.com]?

    (Yeah yeah, portupgrade layers on top of the existing FreeBSD package system but still, this isn't *that* mind-blowing.)

    If you want to talk about the power of ruby, I can think of a lot more cool things. Like, how you can add aspect-oriented programming without modifying Ruby or using any pre-compiling, or how you can write a profiler for Ruby programs, in Ruby itself, without any external hooks, in under 200 lines. Or how you define the "+" operator by using "def +(x)

  • Can someone explain clearly why someone who works a lot with python, why one might find it worth while to invest into learning about Ruby? Are they a bit redundant in languages or does one have merit as a tool that the other doesn't.

    If it's basically different tool that does more or less the same thing, I probably should just stick with what I know. I just haven't heard one way or another if it's worth putting that tool on my belt or not.

    • Re:hmm.. maybe a bit Off Topic.. but (Score:4, Informative)

      by Jerf ( 17166 ) on Wednesday March 03, 2004 @12:27AM (#8448852) Journal
      Consensus gestalt that I've gotten as a Python user and reading a lot of debates on this topic is that structurally, Ruby is a little more pure OO then Python, but the practical differences seem minimal, especially after the type/class unification in Python. (Ruby advocates are proud of their block syntax but I'm yet to see something I don't immediately know how to write in Python, too; the question is which fits your mind better.)

      Syntactically, Ruby is more like Perl. If you consider sigils an abomination upon the land, as I do (despite working professionally in Perl), then you'll want Python. If you consider them Larry Wall's gift to syntax, then you'll want Ruby.

      The other thing is, if you're expecting to use a library of some kind, check for availability. Python has the edge right now AFAIK but that doesn't matter unless Python has something that Ruby doesn't that you need, or vice versa; for most people my impression is that the necessary modules are there in both languages.

      • Re:hmm.. maybe a bit Off Topic.. but (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Sigils? You mean punctuation at the front of variables? That's a little misleading, Ruby doesn't *require* them because you can program entirely with method calls:

        class Thing
        attr_accessor :foo, :bar
        def add_me_to_foo_and_bar(me)
        foo + bar + me
        end
        end

        t = Thing.new
        t.foo = 5
        t.bar = 34
        puts "look: #{t.add_me_to_foo_and_bar(4)}"

        And class variables, in my opinion should never be used. You should use instance variables on the class object, which uses similar syntax to the above and feels more consiste
        • One definition of sigil is 'magic symbol'.

          Having recently used Perl for the first time I found the use of 'magic symbols' like '@_' and '$_' confusing. Does Ruby have similar 'features' ?
          • It has some of them. But their use is mostly discouraged... the ugliness of the $s and @@s are supposed to keep people from using them :) Also, there are many excellent constructs built in to replace them. Take Perl's regex match variables, for instance. Here is an example of a Ruby way of using regex matching, where you can collect "MatchData" objects from a match:

            (note that '#' starts a comment, and => (value) in an end-of-line comment is showing the resulting value of an expression.)

            re = /(\d+):(\d

            • For the record... (the >>> indicates I'm running this in the interpreter, and allows you to seperate what I'm entering vs. the interpreter output; if you've got it installed and if you're on Linux you probably do, type 'python' and you can follow along...)

              >>> import re
              >>> r = re.compile(r"(\d+):(\d+)")
              >>> md = r.search("Time: 12:34am")
              >>> md
              <_sre.SRE_Match object at 0x400890f8>
              >>> md.group(0)
              '12:34'
              >>> md.group(1)
              '12'
              >>> md.group

              • You are correct, regexes are full-fledged objects in Ruby. In the Ruby interactive interpreter (">>" is me, "=>" is the interpreter):

                >> /foo|bar/.match("this foo that").to_s # the matched string
                => "foo"
                >> %r(/etc/hosts|/bin/sh).class # returns the object's class
                => Regexp
                >> a = /(foo)bar/m # stores it in a variable
                => /(foo)bar/m
                >> /test#{a}test/i # embed it using #{} (string interpolation)
                => /test(?m-ix:(foo)bar)test/i

                Usually the %r syntax is used to make the re

      • If you consider sigils an abomination upon the land, as I do (despite working professionally in Perl), then you'll want Python. If you consider them Larry Wall's gift to syntax, then you'll want Ruby.

        In Ruby, Sigils indicate scope, not type! Whole different thing.

        It doesn't obfuscate the code. Makes it easier to read actually.
        • I'm sure with a little effort a system without any sigils at all could be worked out for Ruby. Indeed, if you set up accessors for all your instance and class variables right off the bat, you needn't ever use the sigils at all outside the initialize method. The only thing the sigils buy you is not having to declare non-local variables to be class or instance variables. In this respect Ruby could stand to learn something from Perl, especially with regards to local(). That said, I much prefer Ruby to Perl in
        • I don't recall claiming that Ruby sigils indicate type. I seem to recall claiming they exist.

          I also don't recall claiming that they "obfuscate" code. I seem to recall claiming that I don't like them, and if you also feel that way you won't want Ruby.

          Please read what I said, not what you expected me to say, it's better for all of us.
          • I don't recall claiming that Ruby sigils indicate type. I seem to recall claiming they exist.
            I also don't recall claiming that they "obfuscate" code.

            I don't recall claiming that you claimed that Ruby sigils indicate type.

            I also don't recall claiming that you claimed they "obfuscate" code.

            Please read what I said, not what you expected me to say, it's better for all of us.

      • The other thing is, if you're expecting to use a library of some kind, check for availability. Python has the edge right now AFAIK but that doesn't matter unless Python has something that Ruby doesn't that you need, or vice versa; for most people my impression is that the necessary modules are there in both languages.

        I have never used python, so I can't comment on whether python has more readily available libraries than ruby has, but ruby has a CPAN-like institution called RAA [ruby-lang.org] and raa-install (the ruby

        • but ruby has a CPAN-like institution called RAA and raa-install (the ruby version of "perl -MCPAN -e shell"). Does python have something similar?

          No, but at this point the only reason for that is that they are typically not necessary. In Perl, when I need to get anything done I need to install 10 or 20 CPAN modules. Generally, in Python, they came with the interpreter and I only need to install two or three. This is why no similar thing has emerged.

          (This is going on the "People are in general equally smar

          • No, but at this point the only reason for that is that they are typically not necessary. In Perl, when I need to get anything done I need to install 10 or 20 CPAN modules. Generally, in Python, they came with the interpreter and I only need to install two or three. This is why no similar thing has emerged.

            (This is going on the "People are in general equally smart"... if Python needed such a thing it would exist. It doesn't, therefore it is a reasonable conclusion that it is not needed. It's not "logically

      • Then again, if you consider things like _foo and __bar__ to be just as ugly as Perl sigils, you won't find ruby to be any more of an abomination than Python!

    • Re:hmm.. maybe a bit Off Topic.. but (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 03, 2004 @12:35AM (#8448911)
      I use Python mostly for "work", but I much prefer Ruby and try to use it whenever possible.

      If you are a theoretical guy who loves a conceptually elegant and consistent language like Smalltalk or Scheme, you'll love Ruby. Ruby is so consistent, it's really lovely.

      If you're more practical and need good documentation and extensive libraries, you'll probably be annoyed by it.

      If you like to write programs FAST but not sacrifice readability like Perl, you'll really love Ruby. For instance in Ruby, you don't have to type "self" in method argument lists the way you do in Python. Ruby is 100% object oriented inside and out. Classes are first class objects, subclasses of Module objects. There are no "old style classes" or "new style classes", no cruft held over from previous versions of the language.

      In Python, you have built-ins like "str()" which can call the __str__() method on an object. None of that kind of repetition in Ruby. Just call obj.str (or actually, obj.to_s) directly. You don't need the parens in that case.

      Ruby has "blocks" which are a nice syntactic sugar for a whole class of operations. For instance a database transaction can be implemented as a block:

      transaction { |t|
      do stuff with t
      more stuff
      }

      in Python that would be:

      t = start_transaction()
      try:
      do stuff with t
      more stuff
      finally:
      end_transaction()

      The ruby version is easier to read.

      If you want a large selection of tools and implementations, well, Ruby doesn't have too many like Python.

      Also the Ruby community is still small and friendly. The python community is turning into the Perl community, in my opinion. A little arrogant.

      Python is starting to look more and more like Ruby every revision though.
      • The AC parent should be modded up... Excellent comparison of the two languages.

      • Actually, as a computer science professor... (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        I rather dislike Ruby.

        Oh, it's got consistent semantics and a decent object model (a proto model would have been better) and every CS professor's favorite item: true closures. But Ruby has one nasty feature which trumps 'em all. It was designed by an ex-Perl guy, and as such Ruby has approximately five billion different ways of writing the same syntax. As long as it can't be "misinterpreted", you can delete or change all sorts of stuff.

        This is language design which borders on the grotesque. Great. So

    • Re:hmm.. maybe a bit Off Topic.. but (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Colonel Panic ( 15235 ) on Wednesday March 03, 2004 @03:50AM (#8449852)
      Can someone explain clearly why someone who works a lot with python, why one might find it worth while to invest into learning about Ruby?

      If Python is doing everything you need it to do and you're happy with it and you're not curious, then maybe there isn't any reason for you to learn Ruby.

      However, if you have at least a little bit of intellectual curiosity, you might find it rewarding to spend an hour learning some Ruby and trying it out. I emphasize the tryinging it out part: sure the two languages have very similar capabilities, however it feels much different programming in Ruby than it does in Python. It's difficult to explain, you have to try it. I tend to think it has something to do with the fact that Ruby's built-in libs made use of iterators from the start (and it also has something to do with Ruby's blocks).

      Also, if you prefer not having syntactically significant pieces of your code be invisible then you'll probably prefer Ruby. Yes, it's that indentation-as-syntax thing in Python that kept me from going with the snake a few years back before I found Ruby. Yes, I've heard all the arguments from the Pythonistas about how your editor will just take care of things for you and how life will be so wonderful. However, I was bit by this twice within the first hour that I tried Python. One person might have his editor set to expand tabs and another might not. I haven't got time to spend several minutes trying to figure out why some code (which looks perfectly fine) doesn't work only to find that it's a tab expansion problem, "gee, the code looks identical to the code in the book?! WTF?!" - Life's too short.
    • I have also heard.
      "Why should I learn c I know Pascal/Fortran/ASM."
      And I have often heard "Why should I learn Python I already know Perl."
      The real question is why not learn a new language. Once you know it then you can decide if it is a good solution for you.

  • A little too much Fanboy vibe (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Jerf ( 17166 ) on Wednesday March 03, 2004 @12:20AM (#8448793) Journal
    I wasn't going to say this, but after reading a few of the comments here I've changed my mind.

    The name Ruby x conveys a little too much "Ruby fanboy" vibe. It's a Linux distribution, yet the name doesn't mention it and the website gives only cursory mention of this fact, which borders on the deceptive. I want to emphasize that I mean these things exactly as I say... a little too much fanboy vibe, borders on the deceptive. It's not irredeemably bad, but I do have to say at the moment I'm having a hard time respecting the project.

    In fact this could well hurt even the Ruby advocacy side of the project by scaring people off, thinking they'll need to know Ruby to install, when instead it looks like Yet Another Linux Distribution.

    I mean this as constructive criticism. To the project leaders, I strongly recommend that you more carefully evaluate the goals of the project, more clearly partition the "Ruby" concept from the "Linux Distribution" concept, and determine whether your goals justify the seemingly over-strong focus on Ruby. Yes, I know Ruby lovers have a bit of a persecution complex, I recognize this in myself as I like Python and see the same in the Python community, but in the long run you're going to get more real respect by building a real project on Ruby and discreetly pointing out that it runs on Ruby then by shouting out in the streets that THIS RUBY DISTRIBUTION OF RUBYX IS MADE POSSIBLE BY RUBY, THAT WONDERFUL (RUBY) LANGUAGE! (Yes, this time I'm exaggerating for dramatic effect; again I emphasize I'm not claiming the site actually sounds like this but the tone is definately there.)
    • The name Ruby x conveys a little too much "Ruby fanboy" vibe.

      Perhaps. I suppose I'm a 'Ruby fanboy', but I did wince a bit when I saw the headline for this story which said something like "Rubyx - it shows the power of Ruby". I think there are lots of other things that show the power of Ruby better.

      However, that said, there are zillions of Linux distros out there and they did need a name and since the rather novel init system is written in Ruby (a feature I really like about Rubyx, btw) it sort of mak
    • It's a Linux distribution, yet the name doesn't mention it and the website gives only cursory mention of this fact, which borders on the deceptive.
      Yes, they should be calling it GNU/Linux/Rubyx.
  • ...of making an os based 100% on one language, why not be super hard-core and make it assembly [menuetos.org]?

  • The Slashdot experience - By the Rubyx author (Score:5, Interesting)

    by awalrond ( 707370 ) on Wednesday March 03, 2004 @04:20AM (#8449975)
    How much can you convey in 1 paragraph? Maybe I did a bad job, but I did at least expect/prime (with "can you guess") the ruby/perl/python flamefest.

    But a few people were intelligent enough to pick out the salient points, or were bothered to read the website. And then downloaded 8Gb of Rubyx overnight. (Hang the cost; It made me smile!)

    For those of you who somehow missed those salient points:

    Rubyx is 'yet another linux distro', that builds from source (like gentoo). It is _not_ an OS written in ruby.

    But it's different because...

    Rubyx can be created, with a single command, using the rubyx script.
    With a second command, you can create a bootable Rubyx CD/DVD.
    The same script handles ALL subsequent package management.

    Reread that last bit. This is one small script we are talking about, written in the ruby language.

    I wrote the new init system inside 2 days. Go figure. A complete init replacement in two days.

    Yes, I'm a fan of ruby. Its the most writable, readable scripting language I have tried. Could Rubyx have been done in another language? Surely. But, I argue, not as quickly, elegantly and maintainably.

    Have a lovely day :)

    Andrew Walrond

  • Japanese (Score:3, Insightful)

    by GerritHoll ( 70088 ) <gerrit@nl.linux.org> on Wednesday March 03, 2004 @05:35AM (#8450231) Homepage
    Judging from the background image of the RubyX homepage, it's probably advantegeous to learn Japanese in order to get the full potential from it ;-)

    (Anyone caring to translate this character [rubyx.org]?

  • Cleese (Score:5, Informative)

    by GerritHoll ( 70088 ) <gerrit@nl.linux.org> on Wednesday March 03, 2004 @05:43AM (#8450248) Homepage
    At first glance, I thought this would be similar to Cleese [sourceforge.net], a Python-based operating system, but it isn't: RubyX is a distro with some stuff written in Ruby, and Cleese is an actual effort to write a kernel in Python. Not that it's progressing a lot, though... the CVS tree can be found here [sourceforge.net].

  • So ..... (Score:4, Funny)

    by CoolCat ( 594452 ) on Wednesday March 03, 2004 @06:50AM (#8450448)
    When will it be self aware?
  • I've installed and used Rubyx and have found it a pleasant surprise, my past Linux experiences have been with RedHat, Mandrake and Gentoo. The package management in Rubyx handles package dependencies far better than RedHat RPMs and Gentoos emerge. I can also figure out where my applications have been installed and all the files related to that application by looking in the /pkg directory, so simple yet so effective! I'm sick of operating systems scattering there files across my harddrive not giving me any i

Slashdot Top Deals

The only possible interpretation of any research whatever in the `social sciences' is: some do, some don't. -- Ernest Rutherford

Close