There are Linux users who won't touch binaries. I'm not one of them, though I do have some standards - one might say I spook easily. For something as bleeding edge as Pharo, I would not expect to get away with apt-get. Even if Pharo were installed complete with an entry in a gnome menu, I would still end up creating my own shell scripts and menu entries to load specific images with specific vms.
What I would like is source for whatever vm we recommend using. I would also like an Alien plugin, the absence of which only serves to increase my interest in the source. Bill -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 2:39 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] testing the linux vm of pharo-project I think that presently the motto is "first is better to have the package for your distro, then..." Just my 0.01999... -- Cesar Rabak GNU/Linux User 52247. Get counted: http://counter.li.org/ Em 19/01/2010 12:52, laurent laffont < [email protected] > escreveu: Some thoughts: In the Linux world it's better to have the source code first, and compiled version for convenience. For squeak-3.11 there's the source code and it's easy to build following instructions included in the README. It's clean. For exupery-vm several people have already asked for source code on this list to create packages for their favorite distrib. Furthermore the binary is named squeak, not pharo-vm or whatever.... not really cool. Lot of garbage in the archive. Exupery vm for windows is cleaner (but contains one file called Squeak.exe ;) ). Why on Mac it's squeak 4.2.2 b1, on windows/linux squeak 3.11 ? I suppose there's an influence on unit tests / performance / .... Finally I don't know why there's an "alternative" download ... I think the alternative stuff should be on the wiki, not on the basic download page. Cheers, Laurent 2010/1/19 Mariano Martinez Peck <[email protected]> I don't know. The ideal will be to ask Squeak people for a Squeak-3.11.3.2135 with FTPlugin compiled. In the meanwhile, I will then put exupery are original and that one as alternative. What do you think ? 2010/1/19 laurent laffont <[email protected]> How do you compile FTPlugin in squeak 3.11 ? Laurent 2010/1/19 Mariano Martinez Peck <[email protected]> Ok...so: pharo exupery vm as FTPlugin compiled and 3.11. doesn't. And both are closure-enable. Does someone have a compiled squeak-unix-vm with FTPlugin ? because otherwise, I think I would rather to put again Exupery as the default one. Opinions? 2010/1/19 George Herolyants <[email protected]> So, here are the results (see attachments). On the background of each pharo screenshot you can see the version number of the vm, and command line I used to run pharo image with this vm. As you can see results are far better for the pharo-exupery-linux-vm (which means 0.15.2f), because it has FTPlugin compiled, and squeak-unix-vm (which means 3.11.3-2135) hasn't. _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
