I am sure there is a good reason for choosing Ruby 1.8.7-p* instead of 1.9.*, but I'd like to know that reason :)
Ruby 1.9.1 segfaults with rails 3 and 1.9.2 is in a state of flux? maybe?
Rails Installer - Get up and running on Windows
11–20 of 38 posts
Re: Rails Installer - Get up and running on Windows
#12What are the differences between RailsInstaller and RubyStack ? http://bitnami.org/stack/rubystack
RubyStack is great - it installs lots of things you need for running Rails in production on Windows, I think. Like Apache and MySQL server, etc. The 20-panel wizard is sort of off-putting, if you really want to be fussy. I don't think RubyStack includes Git when I last looked.
The focus for RailsInstaller is a welcome kit for new developers. Can we give them everything they need for the first 30 days until they fall in love with Rails? After that, they'll learn to create tickets on projects, learn about different Rubies, learn about different ways to do things.
Can we keep them excited and nurture them into the Rails/Ruby communities? Hopefully, yes, if its trivially easy to get started.
Re: Rails Installer - Get up and running on Windows
#13What are the differences between RailsInstaller and RubyStack ? http://bitnami.org/stack/rubystack
RubyStack also has virtual machine and Amazon EC2 versions. RubyStack also supports Linux and Mac, though it seems support for that is planned for RailsInstaller as well.
Re: Rails Installer - Get up and running on Windows
#14What are the differences between RailsInstaller and RubyStack ? http://bitnami.org/stack/rubystack
RubyStack is great - it installs lots of things you need for running Rails in production on Windows, I think. Like Apache and MySQL server, etc. The 20-panel wizard is sort of off-putting, if you really want to be fussy. I don't think RubyStack includes Git when I last looked. The focus for RailsInstaller is a welcome kit for new developers. Can we give them everything they need for the first 30 days until they fall…
Yes, RubyStack includes Git as well
Re: Rails Installer - Get up and running on Windows
#15I am sure there is a good reason for choosing Ruby 1.8.7-p* instead of 1.9.*, but I'd like to know that reason :)
For the first release we wanted a stack of projects that "just worked", rather than the latest release of everything. We have a lot more confidence that a new developer to Rails, if using Ruby 1.8.7 from RubyInstaller will have a good development experience, today.
The intent is to upgrade RailsInstaller to Ruby 1.9.2 definitely. For the first release, we went with 1.8.7 to maximize the likelihood of pleasant experiences.
I'd like an integration test suite around RailsInstaller for common use cases of Rails (and other common ecosystem tools, like git). That might go hand in hand with the promotion of ruby 1.9.2 on Windows.
Re: Rails Installer - Get up and running on Windows
#16My feature wish: I hope for ANSI colors. Oooh, I want pretty colors enabled by default.
the closest we can get to ANSI color support is ANSICON http://adoxa.110mb.com/ansicon/index.html Here's what it looks like with Rspec: http://www.bryanbibat.net/images/rspec-haml.png
Yes, colors!!! I added a feature request here - https://www.pivotaltracker.com/story/show/8786925
Re: Rails Installer - Get up and running on Windows
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
RubyStack is great - it installs lots of things you need for running Rails in production on Windows, I think. Like Apache and MySQL server, etc. The 20-panel wizard is sort of off-putting, if you really want to be fussy. I don't think RubyStack includes Git when I last looked. The focus for RailsInstaller is a welcome kit for new developers. Can we give them everything they need for the first 30 days until they fall…
Yes, RubyStack includes Git as well
[deleted]
Re: Rails Installer - Get up and running on Windows
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
RubyStack is great - it installs lots of things you need for running Rails in production on Windows, I think. Like Apache and MySQL server, etc. The 20-panel wizard is sort of off-putting, if you really want to be fussy. I don't think RubyStack includes Git when I last looked. The focus for RailsInstaller is a welcome kit for new developers. Can we give them everything they need for the first 30 days until they fall…
Yes, RubyStack includes Git as well
Ah ok, thanks. I didn't see it mentioned on http://bitnami.org/stack/rubystack and I didn't remember seeing it when I ran the installer last year.
Re: Rails Installer - Get up and running on Windows
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, RubyStack includes Git as well
Ah ok, thanks. I didn't see it mentioned on http://bitnami.org/stack/rubystack and I didn't remember seeing it when I ran the installer last year.
It's in the readme ;)
Re: Rails Installer - Get up and running on Windows
#20I am sure there is a good reason for choosing Ruby 1.8.7-p* instead of 1.9.*, but I'd like to know that reason :)
For the first release we wanted a stack of projects that "just worked", rather than the latest release of everything. We have a lot more confidence that a new developer to Rails, if using Ruby 1.8.7 from RubyInstaller will have a good development experience, today. The intent is to upgrade RailsInstaller to Ruby 1.9.2 definitely. For the first release, we went with 1.8.7 to maximize the likelihood of pleasant experie…
Over the last year I've done a few workshops for folks on Windows and I can tell you that you are spot on with your dicision to use 1.8.7 for now. It's so much more stable on Windows. The target audience for this package doesn't understand the various nuances that exist with Ruby, and really just expects things to work. With 1.9.2, I can get a newbie through an introductory class and tutorial, but as soon as they go outside and try to follow a RailsCast with a newer library, stuff starts getting weird.
I hope that this increases visibility on Windows so that gem maintainers will pay more attention to that audience when developing and improving their libraries.