From: Walton Hoops <walton@...>
Date: 2009-12-29T06:27:44+09:00
Subject: Re: glibc detected error!

On 12/28/2009 2:10 PM, Sam Sen wrote:
>> If you are man enough to compile from source on your own already, then
>> at least report your GCC and Glibc version as well. It won't be a
>> guaranteed reply, because not everyone will have enough knowledge about
>> glibc inner workings to know when pointers are invalid (or about the
>> ruby code per se, although there are quite some smart enough to
>> understand the C code of the inner ruby-c)
>>      
> Well, I updated my gcc package and all is well now.
>
>
>    
>> Noone forces you to use 1.9.x when you are NEW to ruby. Quite the
>> opposite - if you are new to ruby, use 1.8.x and learn it. Being "buggy"
>> is relative - ruby 1.6.x was probably "buggier" than 1.8.x and even
>> within the 1.8.x series you had some releases with a bit more bugs than
>> others.
>>
>> If you require stability, use 1.8.x.
>>      
> Well, considering that 1.9 is so much quicker than 1.8, I opted for 1.8.
> No point in learning a new language if I'm going to run an "older"
> version that is slower than the "new" release.
>    

Agreed, I see no reason for new projects to use 1.8.x unless one of 
their dependencies isn't available for 1.9.x.  I've been running 1.9.1 
for some time and have yet to run into stability issues.

Also from the ruby-lang.org download page:
"The current stable version is 1.9.1."
and
"Ruby 1.9.1-p376 
<ftp://ftp.ruby-lang.org/pub/ruby/1.9/ruby-1.9.1-p376.tar.gz> (md5:  
ebb20550a11e7f1a2fbd6fdec2a3e0a3) Stable Version (/recommended/)"

This says to me that 1.9.1 is the recommended stable release.  If it's 
not actually stable (meaning production ready, not bug free), than it 
shouldn't be the recommended option.