On 07 Dec 2012, at 23:59, Nicolas Cellier <[email protected]> wrote:
> So before ranting loud, I digged a bit further: could it be this > warning I had at startup about obsolete VM, yes that was it! > So if you are episodic user like me : > > ******** DON'T FORGET TO DOWNLOAD A PHARO SPECIFIC VM ************* > > I already spent way more time on this than I wished, hope my mistake > helps someone else. > ( over-estimating pharo planned obsolescence period is indeed a > mistake ;) why would the VM be handled differently ? ) > > Last thing, maybe you should insist on the download page that 2.0 > REQUIRES a pharo specific VM. > Not sure I would have read it, but then it would be entirely my fault. Nicolas makes a very valid point; the first, out-of-the-box experience is massively important. Pharo 2.0 does indeed require a newer VM in my experience (related to FileSystem at least). The image _HAS_ to warn about this. It is just that the compatibilty test should not be more strict than absolutely necessary. -- Sven Van Caekenberghe http://stfx.eu Smalltalk is the Red Pill
