Mongrel users - Jul 2006 - I am a newbie and I would like some help deciding what operating system

I would like first to introduce my self to the community.  I am Steve  
Beyer and I am interested in learning Ruby, ROR, and how to set up a  
production server.  I am going to use OSX for my client/developement  
system but I would like to get some advice on what operating system  
you would recommend for a production server.  I want to use Mongrel  
to start and then move up the ladder as my skill and confidence  
increase.  I would appreciate your 2 cents.  I have looked at Debian,  
Ubuntu, Fedora, Suse, etc and all seem to have backers.  Should I  
just pick one and run with it or are there advantages that I should  
consider.  I am not trying to start a religious war or any fights but  
I have an honest curiosity on what to use and I would rather not spin  
my wheels on the operating system.... I will have plenty of time on  
that for learning all of the other stuff. :-)  Thanks for your help  
and input.


Steve

Those are all fine distros. The choice is a personal preference, as
all are capable. The best thing to do is try them all and pick the one
that suits your personality. If you don''t have time for that, just
pick one. No matter which you pick, each has strengths and weaknesses.

Personally, I use both Ubuntu and Fedora. SuSE is gorgeous but slow.
Ubuntu - the bagillion packages you need to get RoR up and running is
a real hassle. After that, it''s fine. I use Fedora on my VPS where my
sites are hosted, mostly for the SELinux security and Apache 2.2.

I also use Windows and OS X, so I am not offended if you disagree with
my choices.

Hope that helps, and welcome to the Ruby on Rails community!


On 7/19/06, Steve Beyer <steve at beyertribe.com>
wrote:
> I would like first to introduce my self to the community.  I am Steve
> Beyer and I am interested in learning Ruby, ROR, and how to set up a
> production server.  I am going to use OSX for my client/developement
> system but I would like to get some advice on what operating system
> you would recommend for a production server.  I want to use Mongrel
> to start and then move up the ladder as my skill and confidence
> increase.  I would appreciate your 2 cents.  I have looked at Debian,
> Ubuntu, Fedora, Suse, etc and all seem to have backers.  Should I
> just pick one and run with it or are there advantages that I should
> consider.  I am not trying to start a religious war or any fights but
> I have an honest curiosity on what to use and I would rather not spin
> my wheels on the operating system.... I will have plenty of time on
> that for learning all of the other stuff. :-)  Thanks for your help
> and input.
>
>
> Steve
> _______________________________________________
> Mongrel-users mailing list
> Mongrel-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/mongrel-users
>

-- 
Cheers,

Kevin

On 2006-07-19 12:57:35 -0400, Steve Beyer wrote:
> I would like first to introduce my self to the community.  I am Steve  
> Beyer and I am interested in learning Ruby, ROR, and how to set up a  
> production server.  I am going to use OSX for my client/developement  
> system but I would like to get some advice on what operating system  
> you would recommend for a production server.  I want to use Mongrel  
> to start and then move up the ladder as my skill and confidence  
> increase.  I would appreciate your 2 cents.  I have looked at Debian,  
> Ubuntu, Fedora, Suse, etc and all seem to have backers.  Should I  
> just pick one and run with it or are there advantages that I should  
> consider.  I am not trying to start a religious war or any fights but  
> I have an honest curiosity on what to use and I would rather not spin  
> my wheels on the operating system.... I will have plenty of time on  
> that for learning all of the other stuff. :-)  Thanks for your help  
> and input.
<self advertisment>http://en.opensuse.org/Ruby</self advertisment>

of course it includes rails, mongrel and friends.

darix

-- 
          openSUSE - SUSE Linux is my linux
              openSUSE is good for you
                  www.opensuse.org

On 7/19/06, Kevin Williams <kevwil at gmail.com>
wrote:
> Those are all fine distros. The choice is a personal preference, as
> all are capable. The best thing to do is try them all and pick the one
> that suits your personality. If you don''t have time for that, just
> pick one. No matter which you pick, each has strengths and weaknesses.
I would also suggest that it may depend a bit on who your client(s) may be.

I have a lot of financial market clients, and being able to point at
RedHat and their documentation for RedHat Enterprise Linux (along with
that magic "Enterprise" word, there), has been helpful with a recent
security audit.


Kirk Haines

I have all my mongrel servers running on Freebsd and never had a problem.
The freebsd ports are awesome.
Mongrel is ROCK SOLID on freebsd.

Sunder

On 7/19/06, Kirk Haines <wyhaines at gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> On 7/19/06, Kevin Williams <kevwil at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Those are all fine distros. The choice is a personal preference, as
> > all are capable. The best thing to do is try them all and pick the one
> > that suits your personality. If you don''t have time for that,
just
> > pick one. No matter which you pick, each has strengths and weaknesses.
>
> I would also suggest that it may depend a bit on who your client(s) may
> be.
>
> I have a lot of financial market clients, and being able to point at
> RedHat and their documentation for RedHat Enterprise Linux (along with
> that magic "Enterprise" word, there), has been helpful with a
recent
> security audit.
>
>
> Kirk Haines
> _______________________________________________
> Mongrel-users mailing list
> Mongrel-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/mongrel-users
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/mongrel-users/attachments/20060719/189b24d9/attachment.html

Freebsd + Apache 2.2 + Mongrel has been working great for me.

Once you''re familiar with FreeBSD, it''s a breeze to maintain.
But as a rule of thumb, I''d say stick with what you''re most
familiar
with.

- Michele Finotto

On Jul 19, 2006, at 18:57 , Steve Beyer wrote:
> I would like first to introduce my self to the community.  I am Steve
> Beyer and I am interested in learning Ruby, ROR, and how to set up a
> production server.  I am going to use OSX for my client/developement
> system but I would like to get some advice on what operating system
> you would recommend for a production server.  I want to use Mongrel
> to start and then move up the ladder as my skill and confidence
> increase.  I would appreciate your 2 cents.  I have looked at Debian,
> Ubuntu, Fedora, Suse, etc and all seem to have backers.  Should I
> just pick one and run with it or are there advantages that I should
> consider.  I am not trying to start a religious war or any fights but
> I have an honest curiosity on what to use and I would rather not spin
> my wheels on the operating system.... I will have plenty of time on
> that for learning all of the other stuff. :-)  Thanks for your help
> and input.
>
>
> Steve
> _______________________________________________
> Mongrel-users mailing list
> Mongrel-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/mongrel-users
>
>

On 19/07/06, Kevin Williams <kevwil at gmail.com>
wrote:
> Ubuntu - the bagillion packages you need to get RoR up and running is
> a real hassle.
Here we go again. Why is `sudo apt-get install rails` so hard? *You*
don''t need to install a ''bagillion'' packages,
that''s apt''s job. Even
if you want to run a more current version of Rails, you only need 6
packages plus rubygems.

Cheers,
-- 
Dave Murphy (Schwuk)
http://schwuk.com

On 19/07/06, Steve Beyer <steve at beyertribe.com>
wrote:
> Should I > just pick one and run with it or are there advantages that
> I should consider.
As already stated, choice of distro is a purely personal thing. There
are realistically two main choices: Red Hat based or Debian based. I
would recommend the latest versions of Fedora Core (the community
version of Red Hat) and Ubuntu (which is based on Debian) and giving
them both a try. You''ll end up finding yourself naturally drawn to one
or the other, or you''ll want to look at others.

The reason I''ve not included SUSE above (even though it''s
comparable
to both Fedora and Ubuntu) is that I''ve not noticed it mentioned much
in the RoR community. Sticking to Fedora or Ubuntu means that any
problems you''ve encountered are likely to have already been seen and
blogged by someone else.

Cheers,
-- 
Dave Murphy (Schwuk)
http://schwuk.com

On Thu, 2006-07-20 at 06:41 +0100, Dave Murphy wrote:
> On 19/07/06, Kevin Williams <kevwil at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Ubuntu - the bagillion packages you need to get RoR up and running is
> > a real hassle.
> 
> Here we go again. Why is `sudo apt-get install rails` so hard? *You*
> don''t need to install a ''bagillion'' packages,
that''s apt''s job. Even
> if you want to run a more current version of Rails, you only need 6
> packages plus rubygems.
Everyone understands you disagree Dave, and that''s fine, nodoby holds
it
against you at all and it''s not a religious war.  If you notice these
folks (including myself) use Debian.  They aren''t saying it sucks,
they''re complaining that Ruby is too sliced.  No amount of arguing or
yelling at them will change their minds since it''s an experience based
judgement.

At some point you have to start blaming Debian and stop blaming the
users.  I hear this one complaint *constantly*.  Go look at the bug
tracker, forums, and mailing list.  #1 recurring bug is Debian not
installing build tools to build Mongrel.  Even after continually telling
people what to do it doesn''t help.

Eventually, the amount of evidence that this package slicing is a
problem will have to be acknowledged.  The sad thing is that Debian
could easily fix it by having a "developer mode" flag to apt-get that
just installed all the developer crap as well.  That would resolve the
conflict between systems admins and developers quite easily.

Also it would help if the packages were named consistently.

-- 
Zed A. Shaw
http://www.zedshaw.com/
http://mongrel.rubyforge.org/
http://www.railsmachine.com/ -- Need Mongrel support?

On 7/19/06, Dave Murphy <schwuk at gmail.com>
wrote:
> On 19/07/06, Kevin Williams <kevwil at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Ubuntu - the bagillion packages you need to get RoR up and running is
> > a real hassle.
>
> Here we go again. Why is `sudo apt-get install rails` so hard? *You*
> don''t need to install a ''bagillion'' packages,
that''s apt''s job. Even
> if you want to run a more current version of Rails, you only need 6
> packages plus rubygems.

s/RoR/Ruby/

On 2006-07-20 06:41:19 +0100, Dave Murphy wrote:
> On 19/07/06, Kevin Williams <kevwil at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Ubuntu - the bagillion packages you need to get RoR up and running is
> > a real hassle.
> 
> Here we go again. Why is `sudo apt-get install rails` so hard? *You*
> don''t need to install a ''bagillion'' packages,
that''s apt''s job. Even
> if you want to run a more current version of Rails, you only need 6
> packages plus rubygems.
yesterday i checked the ubuntu package list for dapper for rubygems
packages. none.

and if this rails package is still not a gem ... you will have fun if
you want to install other gems which maybe depend on rails.

darix

-- 
          openSUSE - SUSE Linux is my linux
              openSUSE is good for you
                  www.opensuse.org

On 2006-07-20 06:52:19 +0100, Dave Murphy wrote:
> On 19/07/06, Steve Beyer <steve at beyertribe.com> wrote:
> > Should I > just pick one and run with it or are there advantages
that
> > I should consider.
> 
> The reason I''ve not included SUSE above (even though it''s
comparable
> to both Fedora and Ubuntu) is that I''ve not noticed it mentioned
much
> in the RoR community. Sticking to Fedora or Ubuntu means that any
> problems you''ve encountered are likely to have already been seen
and
> blogged by someone else.
thats sad. :)
especially since the ruby project [1] on the opensuse buildservice [2] provides
packages that work together with rubygems.

darix

[1] http://en.opensuse.org/Ruby
[2] http://en.opensuse.org/Build_Service

-- 
          openSUSE - SUSE Linux is my linux
              openSUSE is good for you
                  www.opensuse.org

On 20/07/06, Marcus Rueckert <mrueckert at suse.de>
wrote:
>
>
> yesterday i checked the ubuntu package list for dapper for rubygems
> packages. none.


Source installing rubygems isn''t that big a deal. And there is a Debian
package at http://www.sgtpepper.net/hyspro/deb/unstable/ that gets
0.8.11rubygems installed on a Debian based machine. From that you can
bootstrap
the latest version with a gem update --system.

HTH

NeilW





-- 
Neil Wilson (neil at aldur.co.uk)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/mongrel-users/attachments/20060720/c440275b/attachment.html

I just dealt with getting rails going on Debian.   I switched from Fedora.
Basically I used the following two links for ruby/rails/mongrel installs.

https://forum.bytemark.co.uk/viewtopic.php?pid=1697
http://www.jkraemer.net/articles/2006/07/07/mongrel-apache-and-rails-on-debian-sarge

Debian is a little more work to get stuff going than Fedora, but people say
its suppose to be more stable.  Being a newb I also had to compile the
kernel for the first time because it defaults to only supporting 900MB of
RAM.

For newbies like me not knowing how to compile a new kernel
http://www.howtoforge.com/forums/showthread.php?t=21

Cheers,
Dallas




On 7/20/06, Neil Wilson <neil at aldur.co.uk>
wrote:
>
>
>
> On 20/07/06, Marcus Rueckert <mrueckert at suse.de> wrote:
> >
> >
> > yesterday i checked the ubuntu package list for dapper for rubygems
> > packages. none.
>
>
>
> Source installing rubygems isn''t that big a deal. And there is a
Debian
> package at http://www.sgtpepper.net/hyspro/deb/unstable/ that gets
0.8.11rubygems installed on a Debian based machine. From that you can bootstrap
> the latest version with a gem update --system.
>
> HTH
>
> NeilW
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Neil Wilson (neil at aldur.co.uk)
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mongrel-users mailing list
> Mongrel-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/mongrel-users
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/mongrel-users/attachments/20060720/08f33fc9/attachment.html

On 20/07/06, Marcus Rueckert <mrueckert at suse.de>
wrote:
> yesterday i checked the ubuntu package list for dapper for rubygems
> packages. none.
You''re quite right. I''m guessing they don''t package
it because it has
the potential to break the packaging system, but it would be nice if
it was included. As it is, it''s easy enough to install rubygems from a
tarball, so it''s not too much of a problem.
> and if this rails package is still not a gem ... you will have fun if
> you want to install other gems which maybe depend on rails.
Again you''re right. This is why I personally don''t use the
rails
package, and instead install Ruby, manually install rubygems then
install rails via that.

Cheers,
-- 
Dave Murphy (Schwuk)
http://schwuk.com

On 20/07/06, Zed Shaw <zedshaw at zedshaw.com>
wrote:
> Everyone understands you disagree Dave, and that''s fine, nodoby
holds it
> against you at all and it''s not a religious war.
What I disagree with is the exageration. If you want to run what the
distribution considers stable, it''s not that difficult. If you want to
go outside that, you can''t blame the distro any more.

I hardly think it''s turning into a religious war - I''m just
trying to
put these things in perspective for the people that don''t know.
> At some point you have to start blaming Debian and stop blaming the
> users.  I hear this one complaint *constantly*.  Go look at the bug
> tracker, forums, and mailing list.  #1 recurring bug is Debian not
> installing build tools to build Mongrel.  Even after continually telling
> people what to do it doesn''t help.
Actually, I''d blame the project. It is not documented anywhere (I can
see) on the Mongrel website that you need to have a compiler installed
to be to use Mongrel via gems, so how are the users expected to know?
> Eventually, the amount of evidence that this package slicing is a
> problem will have to be acknowledged.
As you say, a developer flag would remove most of the package slicing
problems straight away. It would also be nice if any -dev packages
depended on build-essential but it''s unlikely to happen.

Cheers,
-- 
Dave Murphy (Schwuk)
http://schwuk.com

Thanks for everyone''s input and I am sorry if I stirred it up a bit.   
This has been very helpful since it surfaced a few ideas that I had  
not considered.

On Thu, 2006-07-20 at 15:29 +0100, Dave Murphy wrote:
> > At some point you have to start blaming Debian and stop blaming the
> > users.  I hear this one complaint *constantly*.  Go look at the bug
> > tracker, forums, and mailing list.  #1 recurring bug is Debian not
> > installing build tools to build Mongrel.  Even after continually
telling
> > people what to do it doesn''t help.
> 
> Actually, I''d blame the project. It is not documented anywhere (I
can
> see) on the Mongrel website that you need to have a compiler installed
> to be to use Mongrel via gems, so how are the users expected to know?
Dave, you''re right, I haven''t done anything to help people on
Debian.
Nope not a single thing.  I haven''t done any of these things:

1) Installed Ubuntu *just* so I can go through what they go through.
2) Modified the build explicitly so that it warns people with gigantic
numbers of exclamation points that it did not build.
3) Constantly tell them how to build it on the mailing list.

But you''re right Dave, no it''s my fault that Debian
can''t seem to
install a damn build tool right anyway.  Nope.  Time for me to do more
work.

Thanks for the motivator.


-- 
Zed A. Shaw
http://www.zedshaw.com/
http://mongrel.rubyforge.org/
http://www.railsmachine.com/ -- Need Mongrel support?

On Thu, 2006-07-20 at 15:21 +0100, Dave Murphy wrote:
> On 20/07/06, Marcus Rueckert <mrueckert at suse.de> wrote:
> > yesterday i checked the ubuntu package list for dapper for rubygems
> > packages. none.
> 
> You''re quite right. I''m guessing they don''t
package it because it has
> the potential to break the packaging system, but it would be nice if
> it was included. As it is, it''s easy enough to install rubygems
from a
> tarball, so it''s not too much of a problem.
> 
What?! So all your ranting and instructions meant nothing?
> > and if this rails package is still not a gem ... you will have fun if
> > you want to install other gems which maybe depend on rails.
> 
> Again you''re right. This is why I personally don''t use
the rails
> package, and instead install Ruby, manually install rubygems then
> install rails via that.
> 
You know Dave, it''s kind of shameful that you give people instructions
that you don''t use yourself.  You''re running around telling
everyone
Debian is easy to use, but how do you know?  Eh?  I mean, you
"personally don''t use the rails package".  Yet
that''s your instructions
to folks.

Most people who do open source do it for love.  I like working on
Mongrel and it''s fun, and I go to great lengths to help people
out--even
going so far as to install the distro with the most problems so I could
iron things out.  I even run Windows and try to do development there so
I can help them.

So don''t characterize me as not doing enough for people using Debian. 
I
find it the height of arrogance that you think I have to bend my project
around that distro''s horrible packaging mechanism--a mechanism **you
don''t even use**.

But don''t worry Dave.  You''ve inspired me to put an end to the
Debian
problem once and for all.  I''ve been avoiding this solution but I guess
I''m gonna have to buckle down, keep the 0.3.13.4 release back another
weekend, and finally solve Debian.

Thanks for the motivator.

-- 
Zed A. Shaw
http://www.zedshaw.com/
http://mongrel.rubyforge.org/
http://www.railsmachine.com/ -- Need Mongrel support?

On 7/20/06, Zed Shaw <zedshaw at zedshaw.com> wrote:
> .......  I even run Windows and try to do development there so
> I can help them.
And those of us who use Windows appreciate it greatly!


-- 
Cheers,

Kevin

> On 19/07/06, Steve Beyer <steve at beyertribe.com> wrote:
>> Should I > just pick one and run with it or are there advantages
that
>> I should consider.
>
> As already stated, choice of distro is a purely personal thing. There
> are realistically two main choices: Red Hat based or Debian based. I
I''m really not looking to fuel the fire, but why not FreeBSD?  Other
than
it''s not linux, is there a reason I''ve only seen one person
recommend it?

There were issues with mysql threading in the past, do those same issues 
affect mongrel?  I had thought that was all fixed in 6...

?

-philip

+1 for FreeBSD.  I had ruby + mongrel (albeit with nitro not rails)  
up and running within minutes.  Rails is also very easy to install  
(having done it before).

Aidan

On 20/07/2006, at 6:03 PM, Philip Hallstrom wrote:
>> On 19/07/06, Steve Beyer <steve at beyertribe.com> wrote:
>>> Should I > just pick one and run with it or are there advantages
>>> that
>>> I should consider.
>>
>> As already stated, choice of distro is a purely personal thing. There
>> are realistically two main choices: Red Hat based or Debian based. I
>
> I''m really not looking to fuel the fire, but why not FreeBSD?   
> Other than
> it''s not linux, is there a reason I''ve only seen one
person
> recommend it?
>
> There were issues with mysql threading in the past, do those same  
> issues
> affect mongrel?  I had thought that was all fixed in 6...
>
> ?
>
> -philip
> _______________________________________________
> Mongrel-users mailing list
> Mongrel-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/mongrel-users
>

My only gripe with FreeBSD is/was all the ports not being binary. I
know binary versions are out there, but I could never find them. I
used Gentoo for a few years before trying FreeBSD, and the constant
compiling almost melted the laptop I had it installed on. To FreeBSD''s
credit, especially as a server, is that compiling is orders of
magnitude smaller than what I was doing with Gentoo (KDE and
everything, bleeding edge), so the compiling is very infrequent and
not as much an issue as my brain leads me to believe.

TextDrive servers are still FreeBSD, AFAIK, although they are
threatening to switch to Solaris for its ZFS file system, so FreeBSD
should be a fine choice for a Rails server. Just be sure to use
Mongrel, not FastCGI! :)


On 7/20/06, Philip Hallstrom <mongrel at philip.pjkh.com>
wrote:
> > On 19/07/06, Steve Beyer <steve at beyertribe.com> wrote:
> >> Should I > just pick one and run with it or are there
advantages that
> >> I should consider.
> >
> > As already stated, choice of distro is a purely personal thing. There
> > are realistically two main choices: Red Hat based or Debian based. I
>
> I''m really not looking to fuel the fire, but why not FreeBSD? 
Other than
> it''s not linux, is there a reason I''ve only seen one
person recommend it?
>
> There were issues with mysql threading in the past, do those same issues
> affect mongrel?  I had thought that was all fixed in 6...
>
> ?
>
> -philip
> _______________________________________________
> Mongrel-users mailing list
> Mongrel-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/mongrel-users
>

-- 
Cheers,

Kevin

Phillip,
I installed ruby/rails/mongrel/apache2 on my freebsd box and had ZERO
problems. In fact after all the juggling I had to do with lighttpd, it was
shocking(in a nice way) to see how easy it was with Mongrel. I did not face
a SINGLE problem with any of the components. I was seeing some sporadic lost
connection to mysql server errors.  I then installed the mysql client/ruby
native driver using ports and have not had any problems since. I ran some
supersmack tests and the results look good. I cant wait to launch my
application and slap a "Made with Mongrel" sticker on it.

Sunder

On 7/20/06, Philip Hallstrom <mongrel at philip.pjkh.com>
wrote:
>
> > On 19/07/06, Steve Beyer <steve at beyertribe.com> wrote:
> >> Should I > just pick one and run with it or are there
advantages that
> >> I should consider.
> >
> > As already stated, choice of distro is a purely personal thing. There
> > are realistically two main choices: Red Hat based or Debian based. I
>
> I''m really not looking to fuel the fire, but why not FreeBSD? 
Other than
> it''s not linux, is there a reason I''ve only seen one
person recommend it?
>
> There were issues with mysql threading in the past, do those same issues
> affect mongrel?  I had thought that was all fixed in 6...
>
> ?
>
> -philip
> _______________________________________________
> Mongrel-users mailing list
> Mongrel-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/mongrel-users
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/mongrel-users/attachments/20060720/9b5bb6f5/attachment.html

yup, I dont use freebsd as my dev env. In fact , I use windows(thats a
separate thread)  for dev with mongrel for windows and deploy
on freebsd.

On 7/20/06, Philip Hallstrom <mongrel at philip.pjkh.com>
wrote:
>
> > My only gripe with FreeBSD is/was all the ports not being binary. I
> > know binary versions are out there, but I could never find them. I
>
> Ironically that''s what I hate about RPM''s and friends... 
But I don''t use
> FreeBSD as a desktop so can imagine compiling gnome/openoffice would take
> all day and then some :)
>
> > TextDrive servers are still FreeBSD, AFAIK, although they are
> > threatening to switch to Solaris for its ZFS file system, so FreeBSD
> > should be a fine choice for a Rails server. Just be sure to use
> > Mongrel, not FastCGI! :)
>
> We switched from lighttpd/fastcgi to apache/mongrel at work and
it''s a
> *world* of difference.  I will never, ever go back.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mongrel-users mailing list
> Mongrel-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/mongrel-users
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/mongrel-users/attachments/20060720/14350f02/attachment.html

> My only gripe with FreeBSD is/was all the ports not being binary. I
> know binary versions are out there, but I could never find them. I
Ironically that''s what I hate about RPM''s and friends...  But
I don''t use
FreeBSD as a desktop so can imagine compiling gnome/openoffice would take 
all day and then some :)
> TextDrive servers are still FreeBSD, AFAIK, although they are
> threatening to switch to Solaris for its ZFS file system, so FreeBSD
> should be a fine choice for a Rails server. Just be sure to use
> Mongrel, not FastCGI! :)
We switched from lighttpd/fastcgi to apache/mongrel at work and it''s a 
*world* of difference.  I will never, ever go back.

On Thu, 2006-07-20 at 18:05 +0100, Aidan Rogers wrote:
> +1 for FreeBSD.  I had ruby + mongrel (albeit with nitro not rails)  
> up and running within minutes.  Rails is also very easy to install  
> (having done it before).
I too like FreeBSD.  The BSDs have great packaging and listen to people
when they complain about it.  A while back I found that FreeBSD had two
versions of Ruby:  ruby18 and ruby18-nopthreads.  I discovered the
ruby18-nopthreads version was about 60x faster (yes 60x) than the
ruby18.  Turns out that turning pthreads support on is a major
performance hit.

What did the FreeBSD folks do?  They immediately switched to the default
Ruby being the one without pthreads.  Now that''s listening.


-- 
Zed A. Shaw
http://www.zedshaw.com/
http://mongrel.rubyforge.org/
http://www.railsmachine.com/ -- Need Mongrel support?

pkg_add -r gnome ;-)

I use the binaries when they''re available (pkg_add -r works for about  
80% of every day apps) and compile from source for everything else.

Aidan

On 20/07/2006, at 6:33 PM, Philip Hallstrom wrote:
> Ironically that''s what I hate about RPM''s and friends... 
But I
> don''t use
> FreeBSD as a desktop so can imagine compiling gnome/openoffice  
> would take
> all day and then some :)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/mongrel-users/attachments/20060720/8183d16a/attachment-0001.html

On 7/20/06, Philip Hallstrom <mongrel at philip.pjkh.com>
wrote:
> > My only gripe with FreeBSD is/was all the ports not being binary. I
> > know binary versions are out there, but I could never find them. I
>
> Ironically that''s what I hate about RPM''s and friends... 
But I don''t use
> FreeBSD as a desktop so can imagine compiling gnome/openoffice would take
> all day and then some :)
I''m no RPM fan, trust me. To me, it''s all about dependency
resolution.
I want to run "{installer-bin} kde" and it installs X, Qt, and all KDE
packages. The slickest I''ve seen are Gentoo and Arch Linux. Arch
strikes a very happy medium (to me at least) between the console-only
crowd and the easy-to-use crowd. Check out
http://www.archlinux.org/packages/search/?q=ruby - the dependencies
are there and the files (link at right) include ri, rdoc, test/unit,
irb, tcltk, rinda, webrick - everything in the tarball. I just run
"pacman -S ruby" and I can immediately start installing Rails and
other gems.

Sorry, got carried away there. And yes, I''ve had six OSes on one box
before. :)

When I was using Gentoo, compiling KDE or Gnome took about 24 hours on
my 1.2GHz P3 / 512MB RAM laptop. OpenOffice was about 30 or 45
minutes. X was a solid hour. I remember one weekend where Gentoo
updated X, KDE, and a bunch of other stuff like GCC, Apache and the
kernel. I started Friday night and it was still compiling when I left
for work Monday morning!
>
> > TextDrive servers are still FreeBSD, AFAIK, although they are
> > threatening to switch to Solaris for its ZFS file system, so FreeBSD
> > should be a fine choice for a Rails server. Just be sure to use
> > Mongrel, not FastCGI! :)
>
> We switched from lighttpd/fastcgi to apache/mongrel at work and
it''s a
> *world* of difference.  I will never, ever go back.
Amen, brother. I''m so happy Zed gets paid to focus on Mongrel, I
can''t
begin to tell you. Actually, I think Mongrel should supplant Webrick
in the main Ruby package. Why do we need Webrick anymore?

-- 
Cheers,

Kevin

On 20/07/06, Zed Shaw <zedshaw at zedshaw.com>
wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-07-20 at 15:29 +0100, Dave Murphy wrote:
>
> > > At some point you have to start blaming Debian and stop blaming
the
> > > users.  I hear this one complaint *constantly*.  Go look at the
bug
> > > tracker, forums, and mailing list.  #1 recurring bug is Debian
not
> > > installing build tools to build Mongrel.  Even after continually
telling
> > > people what to do it doesn''t help.
> >
> > Actually, I''d blame the project. It is not documented
anywhere (I can
> > see) on the Mongrel website that you need to have a compiler installed
> > to be to use Mongrel via gems, so how are the users expected to know?
>
> Dave, you''re right, I haven''t done anything to help
people on Debian.
> Nope not a single thing.  I haven''t done any of these things:
Unneccessary.

I didn''t say you "haven''t done anything to help people on
Debian". I
said the project website tells people how easy it is to get mongrel
via gems, but neglects to mention that you need developer tools to do
this. That''s all.

It wasn''t meant as a personal attack, so please don''t take it
as one.
-- 
Dave Murphy (Schwuk)
http://schwuk.com

On 20/07/06, Zed Shaw <zedshaw at zedshaw.com>
wrote:
> You know Dave, it''s kind of shameful that you give people
instructions
> that you don''t use yourself.  You''re running around
telling everyone
> Debian is easy to use, but how do you know?  Eh?  I mean, you
> "personally don''t use the rails package".  Yet
that''s your instructions
> to folks.
But I do use them myself. I still install Ruby via apt (as described
in the original thread on this topic), for which I install six
packages including ruby1.8-dev and build-essential. I''ve not been
instructing people to just ''use the rails package'',
I''ve been
demonstrating that installing rails is not as hard as everyone else is
making out.
> So don''t characterize me as not doing enough for people using
Debian.  I
> find it the height of arrogance that you think I have to bend my project
> around that distro''s horrible packaging mechanism--a mechanism
**you
> don''t even use**.
I didn''t characterize you in that way, nor have I asked you to
"bend
your project". If you feel that I have, then I''m sorry.
-- 
Dave Murphy (Schwuk)
http://schwuk.com