LinRails — Ruby On Rails For Linux 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."
Whats wrong with... (Score:2, Insightful)
...up2date?
:-P
monk.e.boy
Re:Why MySQL (Score:3, 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)?
Why not a metapackage? (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
Re:Why MySQL (Score:3, Insightful)
If I throw some common PHP/SQL stuff on there, will it run faster (Gallery2, LotGD, phpbb3, etc)?
- 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)
Re:Aptitude (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re:Aptitude (Score:2, Insightful)
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)
Re:Aptitude (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:Rails is a joke for serious production sites (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Zope (Score:2, Insightful)
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.