Craig White wrote: > On Nov 20, 2012, at 8:28 AM, m.roth at 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 at 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