On Jan 9, 10:10 pm, "Jon W." <djan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think Ubuntu is a little confusing to new Ruby developers. I> personally wouldn't recommend it. Some things that bug me about it> (coming from a Windows background using Ruby)>> 1. Ubuntu has a Ruby 1.9.1 package that you can install, which is> really Ruby 1.9.2 but when you install it using Synaptic Package Manager> the system also installs Ruby 1.8.7 and then requires you to fiddle> with the symbolic links on the path of Gem and Ruby executables. Also,> the --update flag for ruby commands wont work if you install that way.> Its annoying.>> 2. RVM may be the way to go but Ubuntu doesn't have a default package> for installing it via Synaptic Package Manager. Another annoyance.>> So, im investigating other distros. My guess is that astandard install> of Debian will be the way to go. Fedora seemed a little behind the> times on providing recent packages also.>> If I am going to use RVM then I'll use a system which seems to expect it
Hi Jon,
I've got a CentOS 5 server running Ruby 1.9.2 no problem. The only
package available is 1.8.5, so I needed to build from source, but it's
straighforward enough. (I'm from Windows, moved to Linux a few months
ago knowing nothing about 'nix - a little investigation with; a few
good books, and mostly googling, got me the information required to
build from source with required dependencies installed first.)
I also have Ubuntu 10.04 and 10.10 locally with RVM installed on both
and running different Ruby versions with different Gem's. Everything
works fine.
I want to try to build from source on Ubuntu - because I want to
learn, (I've decided Windows is crap (especially for ruby) IMHO since
moving to *nix - but in the meantime, RVM is ideal for me on Ubuntu.
Best
Paul