bpatrianakos

The short answer is do it right now with whatever tools youve got and learn what you need to learn to get a Rails app up and running.

Your OS doesn't matter so much when you're first starting out. It'll matter later on when you get the hang of some more intermediate to advanced concepts.

My belief (and a question like this will solicit only beliefs from everyone even if presented as facts) is that you probably want a Unix-like OS if you're getting into any web development. The only exception to that rule is if you're going to be primarily using Microsoft technologies like .NET, C#, IIS, or any other number of MS technologies.

I'll give you a rundown of what I've found the best uses for each OS are. This is coming from someone who prefers a Mac (used at home) and uses both Windows and Linux at work. So I've got a lot of experience with all 3 and have used them all for heavy web development projects.

Windows is just fine to start with. You have access to a lot of high level and mainstream tools like code editors and graphics programs. If you're a point-and-click kind of person you'll have no problem. Problems start to arise when you need to set up a local dev environment that would resemble a test or prod environment. You have to jump through hoops and install non-standard programs to get things like Rubygems, and different Ruby versions running locally. It's not difficult per se but you'll find out what I mean when I say its a hassle if you use any other OS. Also, the command line is sorely lacking on Windows and even tools like Cygwin leave something to be desired at times.

Macs are a great alternative to Windows and my Preferred OS for web development. You get a beautiful interface that's relatively easy to switch over to from Windows. You still get all the power of GUI tools plus the vast majority of Unix-y tools under the hood. It's great for design (you can run Photoshop and other great tools natively) and you get equal or better variety of code editos like Wondows. Where the Mac really shines is once you start playing with the terminal. You've got almost all of the Unix tools you'd have in a prod environment installed by default and you can run things like RVM, Rbenv, and server stacks like AMP (apache, MySQL, PHP) or Nginx instead of Apache and generally just replicate a standard Ruby stack locally through the command line like you would in Linux or with MAMP-style programs. It lacks a decent package manager but tools like Homebrew take care of that for you. Macs, to me, are like Linux distros with top notch desig tools (and minus the freedom but I'm not speaking philosophically here).

Linux distros are very similar to OS X in a lot of ways but have extra Unix tools pre installed that a Mac doesn't have (but can get). They're not always the prettiest and its rare that a designer prefers them (I mention design because for me its a standard part of development) but they're usually the most powerful when it comes to the 3 main OSes out there today. By power I don't mean speed and the ability of the software to take advantage of the hardware. I mean it gives you powerful tools and an unspoken but understood "Unix Way" of doing things. There is a bit of a learning curve however. A local development environment on a Linux machine will most likely best mirror anything you'd publish online.

I went from Windows to Mac to Linux when I was learning web development. Windows let me jump right in with the real simple high level stuff but then gave me trouble when it was time to get more advanced. My Macs let me get all the way to an expert level and never got in my way. I was actually able to learn a lot about how Linux works on a Mac and transfer those skills over so when I got into Linux I was very comfortable. Linux taught me even more valuable skills, many of which I brought back to the Mac.

In the end I chose Mac as my preference because for me its a great middle ground between the absolute raw power of the Unix Way and its great GUI and support for design tools. I could use Linux and Mac with about equal ease and efficiency but Windows still cramps my style to this day no matter how much effort I put into learning its tools or "way" of doing things.

My advice to you is to worry about this decision later. You probably don't have enough experience to know what you're missing and what you'd prefer. And before switching from Windows to anything else just try what's out there. Macs always look great in theory but wonderful as they are they're not always for everyone. (I do have a feeling you will make a switch one day to something other than Windows no matter what - I say this because I've seen it many times and its not common for a web developer to prefer Windows unless, like I mentioned, you're using a primarily MS-based tech stack).

The views expressed herein are my own and not meant to start a religious war over OS choice. To each his own and there aren't any right answers.

If you're upset about Tsarnev then you either didn't read that article or get the point. The photo they used was a real one, it wasn't doctored, the point of which was to ask the question of how this seemingly intelligent, non-extreme, all-American looking boy could become radicalized and become involved in a terror plot. That article was an example of the kind of real journalism that's lacking in this country.

Rolling Stone has for years now been a great source for good journalism. It's not just a music magazine and hasn't been for a long time. They've been doing a lot of good investigative reporting for at least the past ten years that I know of and maybe more.

You may not like what you read but the fact that it came from Rolling Stone is totally irrelevant. You want sources? Read the article. They're in there. You want citations? Read an academic journal. What magazine or newspaper that you know of puts citations for every little thing in their articles? None. Because they're not publishing academic papers. If no source is valid without the citations you require then no magazine is a valid source by your logic - logic that's flawed.

What a crock. I get that some of this may be tongue in cheek but I really despise this attitude. There's this sort of weird pseudo-religious belief that by virtue of being involved in a startup you're somehow doing the world some great good.

Your new social/local/mobile app isn't world changing no matter what kind of hustler you are, no matter how much hype you put out, no matter how much money you raise. Anyone can be a capitalist for good or bad whether its exploiting a niche market segment on your own or with a startup.

I believe that regardless of whether you're on your own or do a startup, if your motivation is purely financial you can still do the world great good. Similarly, do-gooders with a grand vision can harm the world. Your stupid little messaging app can connect people from around the world and change the way people communicate (throw in some good crypto and you've done even more good for private comms) or your energy startup that's supposed to change the way we fuel our vehicles and provide clean cheap energy forever can end up doing great harm to the environment or put millions out of jobs as a side effect. These are obviously very hypothetical examples but the point is that there's no "motivation + execution = ethical/unethical success" formula.

There's way too many shades of gray to even be able to consider generalizing like this post does.

It's so frustrating to see the vast majority of comments here take this seriously. Thank you for having the guts to call it like it is.

I'm on iOS and I used a bunch of the GA apps and they all sucked or asked you to pay which I'm not opposed to but its not worth it for me. Maybe things in iOS land have gotten better since I last tried one.

I've used Piwik for years and it is incredibly simple to use and set up but this post makes it much more complex than it needs to be. In all honesty, it's just as simple as setting up Wordpress. Drop the Piwik folder on a server somewhere, run the installation (connecting to your database and if I recall correctly you don't need to use the root user, just a user with sufficient privileges), and you're done.

I want to love Piwik, and I do like it a lot, but I do have some problems. Piwik gets slow after a while. This may have to do with the server its running on partly but over time the software will slow down especially if you try to pull out somewhat longer date ranges.

It isn't as pretty as GA. I know this is petty and that its themeable but the UI was important to me. Keeping it up to date and maintaining it was also something that requires vigilance. It isn't hard to update but you have to make sure to check for updates. Sounds simple but you'd be surprised how lazy one can be. Also, integration with Webmaster Tools isn't available which is kind of a bummer.

On the plus side there's very little that GA offers that Piwik doesn't. There's even a great mobile app which GA doesn't yet have to my knowledge. You can monitor multiple sites on different servers using a simple JavaScript snippet just like GA, and it breaks down the data in just about every way you'd want.

In the end, despite really wanting to use Piwik long term I wasn't able to do it. I don't see a problem with using Google Analytics for tracking purposes. Google has the power to abuse the data they collect but I trust them not to. I'm not running a site where visitor privacy is a big priority. If I were running such a site I'd reconsider this position. But from an ethical standpoint if it's somehow not okay for Google to collect tracking data on your visitors (and promise not exploit it) why is it okay for any of us to use Piwik and collect that data ourselves. Google has far more data that can do far more damage but they also have far more resources to put into security than most of us. I can take a pledge not to exploit my user's data but Google does too? I know I can trust myself but my users don't. My users might even prefer that if I were to use analytics software that I use software that comes from Google, a name they know and trust, rather than me, a guy who they know a little bit but doesn't have a reputation that can even remotely compete with Google. To me, that's the more interesting aspect of Piwik. The question of why running your own anaytics software is more ethical than using Google.

Edit: When I said I wasn't running a site that made visitor privacy a priority I was excluding the site I run that actually does make user privacy a huge priority. I'm aware I look like a hypcrite now and I think I might actually spend some time thinking of whether or not to switch over to a self-hosted analytics solution for that site. I'm still not sure that a self-hosted service is preferable in my case but I'm open to the idea.

That's not relevant here. The point is that in doing harm to the US government while attaining a higher level of truth one may inadvertently create more problems for its citizens than the original act itself causes.

In the marriage analogy, by revealing the affair you may get one partner to be honest going forward but the other partner may not forgive the first, leading to a divorce or a permanently strained relationship. The children may suffer as a result as well.

Imagine what might happen if damaging information were to get out- information more damaging than the NSA information itself. A healthy and informed debate and, if we're lucky, changes to the US security apparatus may take place but at the cost of putting the US in a weakened position influentially and economically. If you're not a US citizen this may seem like no big deal or a good lesson but for me, living in the US, I don't want to see that.

The fact that the US doesn't recognize Snowden as a whistleblower doesn't prove persecution or anything at all. He broke the law. He and others may not like it or agree and they don't have to but its still clear he broke the law. What has Snowden told us that we didn't alreay know since 2006? He gave us classified documents and the names and operations of classified programs. Programs we already knew about but just didn't know the name of or how they worked. Hell, even with what he did give us we still don't actually know how they work. But we sure as hell always knew our calls and Internet activity were being monitored.

I'm not a fan of what the NSA is doing but I don't think Snowden is even remotely close to a hero either. Did you know you can take that position? That there's a difference between ones position on NSA spying and whether Snowden is a whistleblower? I'm of the opinion that Snowden and the NSA are criminals.

I'm talking about our identities here. I do some charity work on the board of a non profit. When I give talks and attend events with others in that particular field I am an advocate for a cause like everyone else there, not a developer. To take it even further I'll add some details.

The charity is involved with educating the public about the recent heroin epidemic that's been hitting the country pretty badly. Now lets suppose that NIDA or the DEA was involved with a scandal having to do with letting dealers off the hook or fudging some study. And lets suppose the prevention and treatment community, in response to this, announced that no Feds are allowed to attend our annual event (which is real) where we always invite speakers who work in the area of prevention, treatment, and law enforcement. That would not be the right thing to do. Those Feds who normally come to our events have a genuine concern for the cause and offer valuable insights. By not inviting them the organization may make a strong political statement but its really not doing anything except allowing a small group of people to pat themselves on the back and say "yeah, we showed them". Meanwhile all of our attendees and guests are missing out on valuable insights they may have otherwise gotten had the organization not taken this route.

There are betters ways of making political statements. DEF CON themselves could have tried to do something to address the NSA leaks issue at the event without barring a group of people who most likely don't even consider themselves as Feds when they're in the context of a security convention.

That could also have to do with location. I'm in Chicago so I have to admit you're right and that market is hot. I think the trouble there is breaking into it. Toward the end of my run as a full time freelancer I tried to get into web applications. The trouble was that I still got a lot of people with an idea for the next Facebook but could barely use MS Word and thought a web developer was the same job as the guy who fixes your PC when it crashes. I was able to build a few web apps but budgets and preparation were so awful that gaining credibility was tough. I could build a great web app but not for $2k and a Month's time. So many people think they can hire you to build an eBay competitor and that the site will magically just create money by simply existing.

You're right that there's a huge market now but I would qualify that statement and add that the future is in specialized web applications for people with domain knowledge and an actual business plan. I might have been doing something wrong not to find those people or maybe I was unlucky.

I can relate so much. This is so true. Three years ago I was in a position where the only way to get into the business was freelancing. I quit my job at a place that I'm so embarrassed to have worked for I won't mention it (it was fast good) and started freelancing. I did it for two years and still take on side work now after getting a full time position as a developer at a tech company. I was lucky to make that transition and even luckier to have survived as a freelancer.

The Internet using public is changing. Websites are commodities to most people. They don't want to pay and its a huge hustle to get a gig that pays what you're worth. People see the free website they get with hosting and assume you should be able to do it as cheaply, quickly, and the only reason they come to you sometimes is because they just don't want to use the free website builder. They think your job is as valuable as the free site builder and often see you as a mechanical Turk that would just do what they'd do with the free tool.

I see the future of indie web dev being in services, not website design and development.

He's not even vaguely pro-NSA. He's pro-openness. The fact that this is the top comment is sad and its a testament to knee-jerk reactions in echo chambers around the world. There's a difference between the government as an entity and individuals who are employed by them. Feds attending DEF CON aren't really Feds, their security guys like everyone else there. Depending on the context one could be a fed first and other things second but at DEF CON that's not the case and barring a certain group of people turns it into a situation where you're labelled based on what you don't have in common with other attendees rather than being welcomed because of what everyone at the even shares.

Okay, it's obvious I don't know much about how pharma companies work but that's not the point. Let me put it another way: Lets do something that greatly benefits me, marginally benefits you, and wrap it up in good will and fuzzy feelings so you'll buy it.

Agreed. Are we just believing everything Snowden says without proof here and are we believing that any site that posts a Snowden interview is actually posting a legit interview? That's not to say someone really believed they were talking to him but rather to ask how are we to know? Are there documents that prove the mass data collection is real, especially the British and other European programs. So far the only documents I've seen are related to PRISM. I'm hesitant to just take Snowden's word at face value. There are a few things about him and his behavior that make me question his reliability. I'm willing to believe a lot but not all of it yet.

This comes off as having been written in a bubble. What I hear is someone arguing for their own self interest while using the Middle Class to gin up support. Who wouldn't want to help the middle class? I'm sure the middle class could be helped by more IPOs and less regulation to get more of them but I'm also positive it'll help the wealthy even more.

How about this idea: lets start human trials of drugs earlier and require less regulations before medications are released so we can help fight disease in 3rd world countries... And boost my Pfizer stock.

3/4 of the way through I thought I might be reading a big ad. But I'm glad this guy is doing well anyway.

Why do we see all OS makers as the enemy? I don't think they're trying all that hard to destroy privacy. What I see happening is that the average person doesn't care about their privacy to begin with. So OS makers give the people what they think they want. This isn't necessarily a bad thing. And beyond that, these features can be turned off. There's such a fine line to walk between things like privacy and convenience, security and ease of use, etc. There are no right answers either. These issues all come down to what each user personally prefers and OS makers are catering to the majority of their users. It's up to each one of us to pick the best OS for what we prefer, make sure we know what can and can't be disabled, and make your voice heard when you see something you don't like. There's never any guarantees you'll get what you want but if enough people speak up...

Why is it so terrible that Amazon know your shopping habits? Honest question. I've heard of cases where Amazon knew a woman was pregnant before her family and such things but I can't think of anything that would apply to most people that would be bad and come from Amazon knowing your shopping habits. Heck, even you yourself make a good case for why it's helpful for them to do so.

Sometimes I feel like people are against this as a matter of philosophy, knowing it'd be rare for it to have a negative effect on them. And I'm not saying that's bad or knocking it. I'm just trying to get a sense of why this is so distasteful. I've never seen an Amazon result when I search using the latest Ubuntu by the way. Then again, I'm only searching for applications or files on my machine. I've also never seen an ad on my desktop. I know these things exsits but don't know why I'm not seeing them.

No longer freedom respecting? I disagree. Its no longer hardcore hacker respecting but it's still free. Canonical has been walking this fine line between being a serious Linux distro and an OS that has the potential for average people to adopt. At this point it seems that they're finding they can't walk that line without some sacrifices and they seem to be going after the "average person" market in a lot of ways.

As it relates to freedom, Ubuntu is still open source and licensed under a free license. Technically it does qualify as being free software. The Amazon results may not be something a lot of us like (including myself) but anyone is free to remove that functionality from the OS.

If you choose an OS based on philosophy then I'm not sure that Ubuntu has been on your side for some years now. I don't agree that Ubuntu isn't freedom respecting but I do agree that it probably isn't for you and people like you.

Not everyone is a pro. A lot of Bootstrap users are still learning the front end. Beyond that, I'm pretty advanced with LESS, SASS, and CSS and the first time I looked at Boostrap's LESS files I got overwhelmed. There's just a ton of stuff going on there.

I'm the kind of developer who can appreciate reusable front end code and even have my own framework for it (which is my most and only popular GitHub repo) but Bootstrap is just enormous. I'm of the opinion that if you can't confine your reusable modules to a set of about 4 files and customize each by changing just a couple lines of code, mostly variables, then your best bet is to either admit you're going to make your site look like Bootstrap, fight the framework, or just roll your own. If you want to go with options one and two then this post is definitely helpful. The source can only get you so far.

You're kind of implying that being advertised to means you automatically end up buying more than you want it need. I think that can be true but not necessarily. I see tons of advertisements but buy very rarely. For example, I see tons of advertising for tablets. As a developer and the owner of the iPad 1 I don't feel the need to upgrade at all. Mine still does what I want it to. When I find it becomes a nuisance then I'll be glad for the ads. Clothes are another example. I happen to buy somewhat expensive clothes. But I've found what I like (via advertising) and I stick with it. I don't buy more when I see there's a sale, only when they get worn out.

My point is that I don't relate to the stress that people feel from advertising. I'm definitely swayed by it but only when it lines up with a real desire I have. The desire comes first and the advertising shows me the way toward fulfilling it. It doesn't both create and satisfy my desires. Well, not always. For example, after I saw iOS 7 I totally wanted it. Luckily I will but if I had to pay for it I might. Now, I'm wondering - did the advertising create the desire for that or did I just see something I liked and it happened to be a good match? Is there always a difference?

Or seem? That's very polite (and smart) of you to say. I'll be the dumb one that comes out and says they are pedantic. Period. We have some great ones and a lot of "I'm smarter than this guy, look at me, [commence pedantry]" comments. If they appear pedantic they are.

I think that's a difficult question for most people but I can honestly say yes. Sometimes its hard to tell what exactly motivated you to buy a certain thing. My first car was a Volkswagen Jetta. The advertisements made me aware of the brand and its personality. That sounds superficial but its a real part of the appeal of a lot of products. It's hard to be zen and take your ego out of buying decisions. Sometimes it can be one of the few differentiating points of a product. For me, a car is made to drive from point A to point B. I don't care about performance or most tech specs. So to me, without the advertising there's no difference between a VW, Chevy, or Mercedes. They're all cars that'll get me where I want to go and all 3 have some model that looks nice to me. So I identified with the brand personality of VW and chose it. Reviews came into play in the one area where the ads were, to me, misleading: reliability. I heard great things about the reliability of VWs from reviews and that clinched it.

I learned about DigitalOcean from advertisements. I saw the ad, read the site, and their advertising convinced me to try them. They were much newer at the time so I didn't have anything else to go on and never heard of them before. To me, for my preferences, DO is a strong competitor to Linode but what kept me from moving my important projects to DigitalOcean was the reputation of the Linode brand. So its hard to separate the advertising from other information from other sources.

Apple's "it just works" campaign led to me getting my first Mac. I identified with the issues they brought up in the ads, switched, and found out I really did like Macs better. Now, Macs aren't without their own set of problems so when it comes to what would make me choose a Mac over a Windows PC, those intangible, marketing-speak little things is what gets me.

A lot of people try to act like they're above all that but I can't believe that. I know we all hate to think we're swayed by advertising because we want to protect our individuality. I feel like I can still be an individual even if I buy into some marketing.

I don't want to live in an ad-free, review-only world myself. Advertising and reviews serve two different purposes. The one gets the word out about a product or service and lets the creator point out why their audience would like it. A review's purpose is to let others know if the product or service lives up to the advertising and lets you gauge how good a fit a given product is in relation to competitors or on its own.

We need both. Advertising can be unethical at times but its no reason to do away with it all together. Reviews cAn be flawed too.

As far as AdBlock goes, I'm still uncertain of why people dislike advertising so much to begin with. Okay, they collect information about you. I understand the desire to not want to be tracked like that. But lets imagine for a moment that advertisers are collecting your information but they're not doing anything unethical with it. They're just trying to show you add that are relevant. In that situation I really don't care if I see advertisements online at all. I also think the definition of unethical comes into play here too though. For me, advertisers sharing my data with each other is something I don't see as unethical. Others I suspect do. Living the lifestyle I live, I can't think of anything advertisers could know about me that would be at all harmful. I suppose everyone's mileage may vary.

My question is, in the end, what part of online advertising is so distasteful to everyone? Is it the data collection or is it seeing the ads?

It really doesn't help that Snowden himself keeps asking for attention. He broke the story, gave away the docs, and still checks in every week so we all don't forget about him. I still think his leak was at least in part motivated by selfish reasons.

Ghost was a good idea but seems to be dead. Last post I can find is from last year. It's design inspired my own service however which was a nice silver lining.

It's even more relevant now with all the front end JavaScript frameworks that so many web apps rely on these days. In an age where web sites are now web apps that rely almost totally on JavaScript to function removing this option except for those who really have a good reason is acceptable and probably preferable. I feel like educating users is becoming harder and harder due to how hard we've all pushed for "it just works" type experiences so rather than fight the tide Mozilla is going with it.

Plus, apart from security concerns which can be dealt with other ways, JavaScript engines are now capable of running multiple web apps in many tabs simultaneously without being noticed. Wasn't performance one of the primary reasons for having this option back in the day? Now its not an issue. Going forward we might not see a disable js button and think it just as normal as not seeing an option to disable CSS or even html. It's kind of a non-optional piece of the web now.

There's outrage everywhere but I hear what you're saying and I kind of agree. This kind of opinion will get you ignored or looked down upon on Reddit and HN but I kind of dont care. What I see in those places is a lot of impotent rage and speculation that comes a lot like "how smart can I make myself sound here".

I personally am not okay with the alleged surveillance of practically everyone in the world who uses a phone or the web. That's just not okay. But is that really what's happening? What I'm seeing in the actual documents that have leaked is that the NSA has the ability to surveil anyone using most services but I'm not seeing anything that shows that they actually are just collecting these vast swaths of data and aimlessly looking for incriminating things. What I do see is that they use this ability to target certain individuals and that they're allowed to do this because of a rubber stamp process in secret courts. I also see that sometimes in the process of targeting on person or a group of people, other innocent parties get caught in that net. This is what I've seen in the evidence. Now the editorial that goes along with it, which is what everyone is loving to eat up right now paints a darker picture.

Is what we really know scary? It certainly can be but I'm of two minds about it. On the one hand I see law enforcement doing its job and doing it without breaking the law and, for the most part, ethically. I'm talking about capturing the data of known terrorists and such. Then there's the egotistical, kind of immature, smarter-than-everyone-else side of me who hates this and thinks its the devil. This power can be abused in so many ways its not even funny. But how narcissistic can I be to think that anything I do is being watched by the NSA. Even if I were an activist, would they really care? There are so many other ways to target free speech and stamp out political dissent that are already in use today that you don't even need the NSA's prism to do it.

What I guess I'm getting at is that I don't think either view is right. Those who think this is just fine and no big deal are naive and those who think this is a grand government conspiracy to create a police state are also naive. It's hard to take either group seriously. The truth is somewhere in the middle where PRISM can be a useful tool but at the same time needs to be just open enough to where citizens can have an intelligent discussion of where to draw certain lines and what kind of oversight is needed.

As for Snowden, he now comes off as a narcissist who got played by a reporter for a huge story. Is there an element of giving a shit to Greenwald's reporting? Of course. But to think Greenwald ran with this out of pure love of democracy or some other equally trite reason is hard to believe. And for Snowden to take so fucking many top secret documents then fly off to, so far, two countries who would absolutely love to get their hands on them for their own purposes only looks bad for him. Being a whistleblower would qualify him as heroic but taking all that classified info then flying to Hong Kong (regardless of how close their government is or isn't with China) and Russia would qualify him as a traitor.

I know this isn't the big bad government conspiracy story we all like to jump in on around here but I think its closer to reality than either of the other two ends of the spectrum that we normally hear the vast majority of the time.

I'm here because it's like an abusive relationship. You think that this time will be different and sometimes you get a sense that you might be right but then you get disappointed every time and realize that things will never be as good as they used to be. Please don't reply with a Wikipedia link to "Whoever's Law" because that would make the abuse worse. The only thing even worse than that would be a link to yourlogicalfallacyis.com.

I could totally use this! The only question I have is can you exclude certain things. I'd want to clone 95% of a production server but then would need to exclude SSL settings and such.