> There is hope for the future -- Bundler and RVM make many of the "features" of RubyGems obsolete, IMO. What? Bundler uses RubyGems! Why do you think Gemfile

> There is hope for the future -- Bundler and RVM make many of the "features" of RubyGems obsolete, IMO. What? Bundler uses RubyGems! Why do you think Gemfile is called Gemfile? I think we're talking about two different aspects of RubyGems here: 1. The "gem install" command. 2. The RubyGems database and gem activation code. Bundler merely replaces the first part. It uses the second part at its core. Still, it makes no sense to me that you see Bundler as "hope". It installs the same gems, just to different places now, usually project-dependent spaces. This latter results in duplication and I thought that was one of the things that Debian people despise. > But I still disagree with your statement that Ruby's real users are developers. End users are the whole point of developers. Without end users, developers are just masturbating. It's fun, but it doesn't get anywhere. The end users are the people using the web apps. And they don't install anything. Even if we define "end users" as "people using Ruby apps", or to take a concrete example, "Redmine users", Debian's current packaging is still next to useless. It forces users to install their own Ruby from source just to make any modern Ruby app working.