On 15 March 2018 at 16:01, Marcus Denker <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On 15 Mar 2018, at 00:08, Cyril Ferlicot <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On mer. 14 mars 2018 at 18:18, Marcus Denker <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >> >> > On 9 Mar 2018, at 23:34, Torsten Bergmann <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > Additional portable versions would be nice too (based on a simple ZIP) >> instead of only the installable apps >> > >> >> Is there a deeper reason for this? If I look at “other systems”, they >> manage to have *one* download, *one* way of installing. >> For me, offering *a lot* of possible different ways means that the user >> has to choose without knowing why there is even the option to choose… >> > > The problem is that Pharo is different from other systems. When you > install eclipse, you'll use the installed eclipse for all your projects for > a long time. > > Pharo images are more like a "disposable". You'll not use the same Pharo > image for multiple big projects and you'll more easily throw away an image > to take a new one from time to time. > > Actually I think I download and delete around 5 images/day sometime. > > This complicate a little things because sometime you want to directly > download one image. Sometime you want to have one application to manage > your images (Pharo launcher) > > For me, the Launcher should be the “VM Download”, that comes with a) a > default template image of the release and b) the launcher too to discover > images. > > *But* it should be done in a way that you can of course just download more > images (and I would love to have images actually being “one file”) and, > having Pharo installed, you can run them, using the “Pharo” that you have > installed (the launcher). > > The “Launcher” should feel more like “I have installed Pharo, now I can > run images”. > > As such, I think we should add back links that point to single image > downloads on the download page. > > Marcus > I'm really glad PharoLauncher has been promoted to the download page, but it seems some people want to push PharoLauncher to *be* Pharo. To me this seems a poor strategy. The README file in the PharoLauncher zip downloads says... "Pharo 1.1-2018.01.16 This distribution was built January 16, 2018." This seems strange to me and highly likely to confuse newcomers. Pharo 1.1 more than a few years old. How can something built in 2018 be named "Pharo 1.1" ? And if PharoLauncher is instead published as Pharo 7, then it seems strange to use it to run Pharo 5 images and later Pharo 8 images. Why not have the Downloads page just say "The recommended way to manage Pharo downloads is with PharoLauncher" and allow PharoLauncher to exist as a separate entity. This would be similar similar to those applications where you download an initial 500kB installer, which then grabs the other 100MB from the net to complete the install. Also, when maybe one day we can use Pharo as a command line shell, how will that relate to PharoLauncher being presented "as" Pharo. cheers -ben P.S. Perhaps the idea of App Store has some similarities to PharoLauncher, since in an App Store you search for programs to download and run. A further evolution of PharoLauncher might become PharoStore Now Apple's app store is not called "OSX" and Microsoft's app store is not called "Windows". They are separate entities .
