Hi all,

   First of all, I love Ruby and I'm _not_ trolling with this message :-)

   Perhaps it's just a matter of Ruby being a young language, but I find it
too common that you have to use newer versions of Ruby for "many" (for some
definition of "many") application/libraries to work.

   Of course, I can understand that for large applications, you may want to
rely on "advanced" features/libraries from the newer versions of the Ruby
distribution, but I find it frankly annoying that "many" applications require
a relatively new version of Ruby.

   In particular, to use RoR, it seems that you need not only 1.8.x, but 1.8.1
or higher. And, moreover, upgrading the version of RoR breaks applications. Is
it really necessary breaking compatibility? Is this situation that way only
because RoR is < 1.0? David?

   The thing is, many people _can't_ (or don't want to) upgrade their Ruby
interpreter, so we're raising the bar here for the adoption of Ruby :-( For
example, people using Debian stable (flames to /dev/null, please) _can't_
upgrade their Ruby interpreters. If they did, they would lose the benefits of
"automatic" security upgrades.

   And, of course, that mostly fine for _developers_ who happen to administer
the machines they work on, but when administrator and developer aren't the
same person or don't share the same interests, the administrator usually
doesn't give a #### (insert your favourite four-letter bad word here) about
having a recent Ruby interpreter (WTF?).

   So, I wanted to share these thoughts with you all, and wondered what are
your thoughts on this....

   Regards,

-- 
Esteban Manchado Vel?zquez <zoso / foton.es> - http://www.foton.es
EuropeSwPatentFree - http://EuropeSwPatentFree.hispalinux.es