Hello all, First, I apologize that my last email was somewhat negative.
Yen-Ju Chen wrote: > On 6/23/07, Isaiah Beerbower <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Hello all, >> >> An emulator image wouldn't replace the live CD. It assumes to much: >> >> 1. The user must already have a working install. > > Who doesn't ? Even the ones in stores have working install of Windows or > Mac. Very true. >> 2. The user must have an emulator. > > Some emulator allow you to ship the disk as executable. > It embeds an emulator for running. On any platform? And anyway, it still wouldn't be half as simple as using a live CD. >> 3. The user must know how to use the emulator. > > Again, if they are willing to try a LIveCD, > I don't think this is a barrier. Probably not. >> 4. The user must have a machine that is fast enough to run things in >> emulation. > > This is the only valid argument. > I think i386-on-i386 emulation is fast enough. > But I have no i386 machine to try. > So if people don't think it is fast enough, I am fine with that. > >> My machine is had trouble running the live CD image in emulation. While >> a hard drive image might go faster, it still isn't as nice. I forgot number 5: *I* like the live CD better. (: >> While at this point we're primarily looking for developers, if we want >> to attract users, we should keep the live CD. An emulator image along >> side the live CD would be excellent though... > > Developers are much more capable to use emulator than regular users. > To me, LIveCD are for regular users. My point was that the image would only be better for developers, and not even all developers... > We don't need to ship as much as GNUstep LiveCD, > but at least it is a working system which we can build on top > and remove most of the stuff we don't want. > But other system, like FreeSBIE, may be good, too. Right. Isaiah Beerbower _______________________________________________ Etoile-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/etoile-discuss
