Slogans aside, there are tools that are simply not very good. To assume that what I find least offensive is least offensive to other users, or vice versa, is asking for trouble.
Bill ________________________________ From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Mariano Martinez Peck Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 1:12 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] What we should do with the Dev image? Re: question about O2 vs OB On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 2:38 PM, Schwab,Wilhelm K <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: I am very much in favor or providing ready choice in the browsers and tools. It would also help to have the browswers somehow brand themselves. Conversation here centers on things like O2 vs. OB, but there are at least two O2 browswers (package and system). This is exactly why having both browser is confusing a newcomer. If you cannot choose, you don't confuse :) I am probably most concerned about keeping the standard tool set which does away with the new inspector and might have other favorable side effects. Bill -----Original Message----- From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] On Behalf Of Miguel Enrique Cobá Martinez Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 12:20 PM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] What we should do with the Dev image? Re: question about O2 vs OB El mié, 20-01-2010 a las 17:44 +0100, Mariano Martinez Peck escribió: > > That's the reason of having OB and O2. While both now work > together in the same image > without inferring each other, this indeed increases the number > of classes in the image > quite a lot as they duplicate a whole bunch of code. So I > strongly suggest to either use > OB or O2, even though you can have both. But I do not see a > reason why people want to > switch between the two dynamically in the same image. > > > > We have two things to choose: which browser is default and which ones > are installed. Both ? only one ? The solution I like most, is in > these options: > > 1) Install both: OB and O2. Let OB as default. > > 2) Install only OB, of course, as default, and those who wants can > install O2 in that dev image. They way to install O2 now is very easy. > > 3) Install only OB, of course, as default, but create a group in > ConfigurationOfPharo like "StandardDevImageWithO2" so that those > people who want a dev image with O2 can just evaluate that in a core > image and wala! > > With 1 the image will be smaller but won't have O2 preinstalled. With > 2) and 3) you will have also O2 but bigger image. > > I think I will coose 2) AND 3). Those who want to install O2 directly > in a dev image, use the ConfigurationOfO2 and those who wants to > create a dev image over the core, they use ConfigurationOfPharo with > the new group I can create. I think that group are the way to go. A group for pharo dev with OB (and only OB) a group with O2 (and only O2) a group with both (and this could be the default because most new users won't have a preference). Also, this avoid give any package preference over the other. Of course, the documentation for creating a dev image, should state clearly the three options to build an image. my 2 cents > > What do you think ? > > Mariano > > > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project -- Miguel Cobá http://miguel.leugim.com.mx _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[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
