----- Original Message -----
From: "Ned Konz" <ned at bike-nomad.com>
>

> You can associate .image files with the Squeak.exe in Windows so all you
need
> to do is double-click on a .image file. Doesn't the current Windows
> distribution do this?

I never actually checked this.

> Installing Squeak on Linux has been complicated by imperfectly specified
> dependencies in the various binary distribution packages in the past. But
> then installing many things on Linux is not easy.

But some things are easy !!! (hint):-)

>John Hinsley wrote:
> Well, Alan can fight his own corner, but as I see it, we either give in
> to old and pretty dreadful metaphors, or we try and do something better.

See further down in my comment to Alan.

>On the other hand, rpms should just
> install:
>
> rpm -i (whatever the full name of the file is.rpm)

I concur.

> Can't cope anymore? Desperate for help?

Perhaps by the time I've answered this email.

>Stephen Pair wrote:
>
> Looks like we have two metaphors to compare:
>
> A) Double click and icon and squeak runs
> B) Drag one icon on top of another and run Squeak
>
> Seems to me like B is the more dreadful metaphor.  All this argument
> ever amounts to is that for most of us, the effort required to get a
> double clickable Squeak image (where the image and VM are bundled
> together) or to create an install application for all platforms is just
> not worth it.  A lot of people seem to want it bad enough to complain
> about it, but not so many (none) seem to want it bad enough to actually
> code it.
>

Yes, I certainly would like to and would like to code it. But only when my
"L plates" are gone I think.

> If you're using Squeak to build a shrink wrap application and you really
> need it, I'm available for a few kilo-bucks.  ;)

Hey, isn't this open source stuff free !!! ;o)

>Alan Kay wrote
> The plugin download installs all automatically. One gets projects
> first via the browser, then via Squeak. .pr files are supposed to
> allow double clicking. Seems pretty kosher to me.

That's my real point about questioning a user/task/situation analysis and
idealism. Did you know about my situation for example. Using a modem, on the
waiting list for a cable modem, British telecoms are very happy to slowboat
the transition to higher bandwidth because I pay $1 per hour to be on the
net and spend $15 per month more for the poorer service. And I'm not the
only one and I'm sure the UK isn't the furthest behind. And the bandwidth
hasn't been good enough for the times when I've used Squeakland.

> P.S. Arguments that something bad but long established (such as MS
> Windows conventions) should be catered to don't have a lot of force
> for me.

I'm not trying to convert you here, but I can't think of anything simpler
than double clicking on an icon except single clicking on one. But who am I
to say.

> The whole idea is to get the user into Squeak (but not the
> Squeak on Squeak.org -- that is only for hackers, and hackers should
> be able to cope). Our real experiments are being done from
> Squeakland.org (unfortunately delayed by various retro processes in
> the last 9 months).

I never fully realised that about your personal objectives. I don't fit
either either category :(. I think I'm in between.

Regards,
Gary