On Feb 4, 2013, at 1:46 PM, m.roth@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Phil Dobbin wrote:
>>
>> The doesn't scale well argument hasn't been the case for at least a few
>> years now. Twitter is just one example. Some of the busiest sites on teh
>> Interwebs are still using it.
>
> Um, according to wikipedia, twitter went to scala, and uses ror for the
> user interface.
----
What's wrong with that. They became the next biggest thing - so big that they had to make scaling adjustments. Successful sites do that.
----
>>
>> There are also projects, for example, like Puppet that are written in
>> Ruby that are used by a lot of fairly large organisations.
>>
>> It may be worth your while reappraising Ruby.
>
> I'm an admin these days, and don't get to argue this. However, when it's
> packageable, and pushed out that way, so that someone can update a ton of
> machines, and not hand-craft it, *AND* subreleases don't break working
> code, I'll reconsider my attitude.
>
> And as I think I said, I find the RoR website rather obnoxious in its
> refusal to pay any attention to the biggest market in North America, RH
> and RH-derived repos.
----
It's packaged and pushed out in a way that someone can update a ton of machines.
Trust me, I'm a DevOPS person… that's my job.
Even if Red Hat actually tried to keep up with ruby releases, I wouldn't use them and haven't used them for quite some time. The Enterprise Ruby versions were far superior to any version ever packaged by RH (garbage collection, performance, etc.). The reality is that if you are supporting Ruby/Ruby on Rails apps in any meaningful way, RH's ruby packaging is meaningless.
Craig
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
