Craig White wrote:
On Nov 20, 2012, at 8:28 AM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
James B. Byrne wrote:
On Tue, November 20, 2012 06:53, C. L. Martinez wrote:
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Phil Dobbin bukowskiscat@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/20/2012 08:39 AM, C. L. Martinez wrote:
<snip>
Ruby and the various gems/frameworks that it has spawned have been changing more rapidly than an enterprise bundle such as CentOS and its' upstream counterpart could ever embrace (likewise, Ubuntu) and thus the
So, every subrelease breaks something that ran fine on the previous release? Is that what you're saying?
tools like rvm, rbenv and the basic distribution tool of ruby itself, gem are really the only adequate tools which does mean having the development tools on a production box. It seems that the notion of not wanting development tools on a production box has roots in an older world where it would slow down an attacker by making it harder for him to compile software on a hacked account but seriously, that's so old school.
"So old school". Yep. And it's so much more secure, and bullet proof to be hit by crackers and script kiddies?
I don't think so.
mark