ned,

On Thursday, July 29, 2004, at 04:54  pm, Ned Konz wrote:

> On Thursday 29 July 2004 4:40 am, mds wrote:
>> In addition, VW doesn't have the same sort of closed environment as
>> squeak - it's less "weird" to the end user; you simply rename the VM 
>> to
>> your-app.exe, your image to your-app.img and it's almost transparent
>> that this programme is being distributed using a fundamentally
>> different sort of technology.
>>
>
> Actually, it's hard to see how Squeak is any more "closed" than VW in 
> this
> way.

very true: i'm afraid i wasn't quite clear enough here. by 'closed' i 
was referring to the actual nature of the environment being 
self-contained, rather than generated windows running seemingly 
transparently upon the WM.

>
>> Lastly, the image stripping facilities are pretty impressive, even
>> going as far as replacing walkbacks with dialog errors, thus shielding
>> any problems from the user without confusing him terribly. In other
>> words, some of the traditional 'evils' of stripping an image are
>> lessened, and locked down distribution is improved.
>
> My Lockdown package helps quite a bit with this process, though it 
> doesn't do
> any stripping. However, it needs to be updated for 3.7/3.8. Any 
> volunteers?

again, i didn't mean to say that squeak didn't have such facilities as 
lockdown (v. useful i might add), just to say that VW can seem 
overbearing (size wise) and hence image stripping can be of great use 
in the distribution phase.

-M