Let's make a distinction: I found it a bit of an overkill and I still do. That's not a fact, it's my opinion, but if you read other people replying to my post, they agree (that is that it is an overkill for my situation).
I'm not sure what kind of broad all encompassing definition of fud you have, but in that sentence there is both a "Personally" and a "for me". If from that you can't get that it's an opinion and that I am not arguing with everyone then I am not sure what to tell you.
Oh, and btw I said that it was "only a doubt" because you were quoting a different sentence, this one: "I doubt that it plays nice with other package managers", and I think it's pretty obvious why that should sound like a doubt. Now you go and quote a different sentence... why did you change quote?
Anyway bottom line is that I don't think it was FUD at all, and I think most people here seem to have read it the way it was meant it. If suddenly suggesting that RVM may not be the tool for EVERYBODY upsets your sensitivity, that's your problem. Topic over from my pov.
===As for your actual contribution====
My ruby is installed in /opt by macport (my package manager). Hence both ruby and rubygems are inside there (and I think I had to redefine some environment variables for it to work fine). Macport and rubygems already don't play too nice with each other in the sense that if I install something with rubygem macport is not aware, and if a macport package requires some gems it will try to install them via macport. (I may be wrong about this, it's my understanding from a brief overview).
RVM would be a third layer as pointed out by philwelch. Now it may very well be very clever and work like a charm, but I think I was more than justified in feeling a doubt.
I'm not sure what kind of broad all encompassing definition of fud you have, but in that sentence there is both a "Personally" and a "for me". If from that you can't get that it's an opinion and that I am not arguing with everyone then I am not sure what to tell you.
Oh, and btw I said that it was "only a doubt" because you were quoting a different sentence, this one: "I doubt that it plays nice with other package managers", and I think it's pretty obvious why that should sound like a doubt. Now you go and quote a different sentence... why did you change quote?
Anyway bottom line is that I don't think it was FUD at all, and I think most people here seem to have read it the way it was meant it. If suddenly suggesting that RVM may not be the tool for EVERYBODY upsets your sensitivity, that's your problem. Topic over from my pov.
===As for your actual contribution====
My ruby is installed in /opt by macport (my package manager). Hence both ruby and rubygems are inside there (and I think I had to redefine some environment variables for it to work fine). Macport and rubygems already don't play too nice with each other in the sense that if I install something with rubygem macport is not aware, and if a macport package requires some gems it will try to install them via macport. (I may be wrong about this, it's my understanding from a brief overview).
RVM would be a third layer as pointed out by philwelch. Now it may very well be very clever and work like a charm, but I think I was more than justified in feeling a doubt.