Hi,

"Dave Thomas" wrote
> "Conrad Schneiker" <schneiker / jump.net> writes:
>
> > But that doesn't preclude making the Ruby distribution maximally useful
for
> > both new users and the overall Ruby community now. It's not an either-or
> > sort of thing.
>
> I've got an idea! (OK - it had to happen sooner or later).
>
> Why don't you (Conrad) _create_ a distribution that has all the
> goodies you feel should be in there? I'm sure it would be linked from
> ruby-lang and rubycentral. That way, Matz can continue with the more
> minimal approach, and you can coordinate the richer functionality of a
> full distribution. That would seem like the best of both worlds. Users
> would have a choice.
>
> Hey - I'd probably use yours given a chance. Personally I've
> downloaded a heap of stuff off RAA ;-)

Well, there are two obvious problems with this: (1) we still wouldn't have a
minimal distribution and (2) we would forsake a common reference
distribution (which was one of the previously mentioned desirables). Recall
that when we got off on this branch of the thread, the notion of a minimal
approach involved omitting OS-dependent parts, and perhaps GUI-related stuff
as well (modulo some ambiguity about "part of the language" and "part of the
standard distribution"). Further recall that I was explaining why I thought
these things should not only be retained but that suitable additions along
the same lines should also be included, subject to conditions of
sufficiently wide utility.

Hey! I got an idea too. :-)

Why don't you offer a minimalist distribution without the OS-dependent and
GUI-dependent pieces, minus whatever else you regard as inessential. I'm
sure it would be linked from ruby-lang and rubycentral. That way, Matz can
continue with the less minimal approach, and you can coordinate the poorer
functionality of a reduced distribution. That would seem like the best of
both worlds. Users would have a choice.

Conrad