With one command, apt-get, I can use the same command line to install security updates for the Ubuntu versions of Ruby, Python, Java, Lua, Perl, Tcl, PHP, Erlang, Haskell, Ocaml and whatever else I happen to use. If you have to learn a separate "pretty easy" command to get security updates for the various systems on your computer, you are screwed. I think having one or two extra routes for systems that you use heavily (you're a Ruby dev or a Java dev or something like that) is probably ok, but it's still nothing I'm thrilled about.

but then your stuck using whatever version of ruby your distro is own. If your core development is ruby, I wouldn't leave that decision to someone else.

Actually, it's generally not that hard to take an existing Debian package and update it to the latest version of whatever software you're dealing with, if you absolutely must run a particular version.

Also, Debian takes a lot of efforts to make different major versions run in parallel, like Ruby 1.8 and 1.9, Tcl 8.4 and 8.5 and so on.

One of the points of RVM is to allow different versions of Ruby to be installed side-by-side easily...

Also, large packages like Ruby often have a boat-load of customizations and patches applied to them that may not apply cleanly to subsequent releases of that software. Modifying a debian package to build a new version is significantly more nightmarish than the RVM install process.

that's very different than what you seemed to be implying by "with one command I can update everything".

rvm is easier than creating your own deb or rpm

Yes, once you've gone off and created your own package, you're off the upgrade train, and so it's something you ought to take very seriously.

rvm is easier than doing your own packages, certainly, but imagine if you had to use an 'easy', but different tool for everything on your systems.

Also, 'easy' it may be, but I'm not convinced of how things will work out in terms of security, whereas I have a lot of trust in Debian and Ubuntu's security teams. Time will tell, I suppose.

I think the thing here is just a perspective issue. If your focus is the tool, then you want platform agnostic. If your focus is the platform, then you want tool agnostic.

For example, if I'm a ruby developer that ends up using different platforms often (osx, debian, centos) then it's justifiable that I want to use a packaging abstraction that's platform agnostic but ruby specific.

If I'm a primarily a debian user that happens to program in ruby and a dozen other languages then I would prefer a packaging abstraction that's tool agnostic but debian specific.

exactly, you don't want to do them all with a different "easy" tool. For me, I use ruby and rails for sites, and ruby for scripting everything. Basically, ruby is my core tool. I manage my entire system with apt-get except for ruby, where I use rvm. It's worked really well for me.

Or, at work it's basically the same thing but with java and maven to manage java stuff. Java's had a similar history of butting heads with package management systems.

Truth. I'm not saying it's ideal, just that it's pretty easy compared to say, a source install.

Neat! I'm still working on the basics of rvm and ruby...

I wrote an article about it for RubyLearning a few days ago: http://rubylearning.com/blog/2010/12/20/how-do-i-keep-multip...