Hold your horses Gregg. Maybe my language skills are not what they should be. Because that is not what I am attempting to say. I do not in any way mean to offend anyone. All I am attempting to say is that different people have different needs.
What I am saying is that there is a difference between the requirements of an OS and of a Web application. Aptitude is stricly speeking an application, but it is also system software.
My work depends on the Debian and OpenBSD guys being conservative and creating solid defaults. I want them to be so, as I don't want to deal with that.
I am fanatic about OpenBSD myself, which is way more conservative and opinionated than Debian. I have spent years working with servers, being forced to do low level work. My main dev machine was Gentoo for many years. I understand the issues.
Complex systems are based on layers. The Internet for example is based on layers. The lower the layer the more conservative it should be. The higher layers are more diverse and allow greater flexibility.
After all I didn't choose Ubuntu to run several of my servers for the sake of running Ubuntu. I choose them because I need a stable server OS that I can deploy my applications on.
For someone who is a core Debian developer that might be different. Maybe he does choose Debian for the sake of running Debian.
All I want for them to do is not break what I and 90% of other Ruby developers are doing. Also this is not just Rails. Almost all Ruby developers depend on Gem.
FUD is when you say something is dangerous without giving further reasons. So far in this debate, I have seen lots of people say RubyGem is flawed, but so far the only argument I have seen is that it doesn't follow FHS.
I can live without Debian unbreaking their RubyGem package. I am not scared to install from source. But I still don't understand the reasoning behind it.
If they don't want to support real RubyGems it would be better for Debian users to remove the package all together as opposed to the trojan horse version of ruby gems that it is.
What I am saying is that there is a difference between the requirements of an OS and of a Web application. Aptitude is stricly speeking an application, but it is also system software.
My work depends on the Debian and OpenBSD guys being conservative and creating solid defaults. I want them to be so, as I don't want to deal with that.
I am fanatic about OpenBSD myself, which is way more conservative and opinionated than Debian. I have spent years working with servers, being forced to do low level work. My main dev machine was Gentoo for many years. I understand the issues.
Complex systems are based on layers. The Internet for example is based on layers. The lower the layer the more conservative it should be. The higher layers are more diverse and allow greater flexibility.
After all I didn't choose Ubuntu to run several of my servers for the sake of running Ubuntu. I choose them because I need a stable server OS that I can deploy my applications on.
For someone who is a core Debian developer that might be different. Maybe he does choose Debian for the sake of running Debian.
All I want for them to do is not break what I and 90% of other Ruby developers are doing. Also this is not just Rails. Almost all Ruby developers depend on Gem.
FUD is when you say something is dangerous without giving further reasons. So far in this debate, I have seen lots of people say RubyGem is flawed, but so far the only argument I have seen is that it doesn't follow FHS.
I can live without Debian unbreaking their RubyGem package. I am not scared to install from source. But I still don't understand the reasoning behind it.
If they don't want to support real RubyGems it would be better for Debian users to remove the package all together as opposed to the trojan horse version of ruby gems that it is.