Sean E. Russell wrote:

>None of this bothers me as a developer, because I won't be distributing my 
>libraries as Gems.  However, it bothers me greatly as a user, because now I 
>won't be able to install Ruby libraries without gems, which forces me to use 
>it.  It also means that I won't be able to use Ruby at work, because of 
>RubyGems' aforementioned inability to deal with firewalls properly.
>  
>
Sean, what if Gems could be unpacked just like a tarball and a 
gem-setup.rb available for traditional installation?

_why