Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×
Programming Linux

LinRails — Ruby On Rails For Linux 201 201

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

LinRails — Ruby On Rails For Linux

Comments Filter:
  • by monk.e.boy (1077985) on Wednesday July 04, 2007 @07:55AM (#19742107) Homepage

    ...up2date?

    :-P

    monk.e.boy

  • Re:Why MySQL (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Enderandrew (866215) <enderandrew@@@gmail...com> on Wednesday July 04, 2007 @08:16AM (#19742257) Homepage Journal
    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)?
  • by k-zed (92087) on Wednesday July 04, 2007 @08:19AM (#19742277) Homepage Journal
    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.
  • Re:Why MySQL (Score:4, Insightful)

    by dkf (304284) <donal.k.fellows@manchester.ac.uk> on Wednesday July 04, 2007 @08:19AM (#19742281) Homepage

    because MySQL is free.
    And PostgreSQL is BSD, and so open. Please try again to list why MySQL should be used instead.
  • Re:Why MySQL (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Simon (S2) (600188) on Wednesday July 04, 2007 @08:29AM (#19742347) Homepage

    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.
  • Re:Apache? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Simon (S2) (600188) on Wednesday July 04, 2007 @08:59AM (#19742571) Homepage

    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.
  • Re:Aptitude (Score:5, Insightful)

    by compm375 (847701) on Wednesday July 04, 2007 @09:07AM (#19742643)
    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.
  • Re:Aptitude (Score:2, Insightful)

    by ZG-Rules (661531) on Wednesday July 04, 2007 @09:09AM (#19742673) Homepage
    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.
  • Re:Aptitude (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Klaidas (981300) on Wednesday July 04, 2007 @10:04AM (#19743191)
    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.
  • Re:Aptitude (Score:2, Insightful)

    by charlieman (972526) on Wednesday July 04, 2007 @10:17AM (#19743309)
    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.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 04, 2007 @10:50AM (#19743589)
    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.
  • Re:Zope (Score:2, Insightful)

    by samjensen (1098285) on Wednesday July 04, 2007 @02:09PM (#19745479) Homepage Journal
    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.

A fail-safe circuit will destroy others. -- Klipstein

Working...