Les Mikesell wrote: > On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 7:10 AM, mark <m.roth at 5-cent.us> wrote: >>> Fedora's Ruby is 'ruby 1.9.3p362 (2012-12-25 revision 38607) >>> [x86_64-linux]' which is the latest stable version& can be installed >>> via yum. >> <snip> >> Dunno if it'll work on CentOS, but thanks, Phil - this the first >> actually useful response to *my* issue from ruby people. > > But still leaves the question of why a usable version isn't maintained > for RHEL or CentOS, either in the distro or by the project. I agree... but if Craig's the maintainer, or representative of the team doing that, if that's their attitude - we're so great, you should forget everything else and do it our way - seems as though that would explain it. Jeez, the first time I was trying out Linux, back in the mid-nineties, and I'd "only" been programming for about 15 years, mainframes, workstations and pc's, gcc and most other languages were slackware's idea of a package. Certainly, when I went back to Linux again, around '98 or '99, with RH 5? 5.2? any language I needed was a package (though, as I recall, COBOL, should I have wanted it, was a bit more problematical). Around then, and a few years later, as I've mentioned, every python sub-release broke a previous one... but they *wanted* their language used, and easily accessible. This attitude of "we're *so* wonderful, that either our Brilliance Alone (tm) will force you to do it our way, or you're an ignorant idiot.... mark, who uses scripting languages cheerfully, but for *real* production work prefers a real (compiled) language)