>From: Serge Stinckwich <Serge.Stinckwich at info.unicaen.fr>
>Reply-To: The general-purpose Squeak developers 
>list<squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
>To: squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org
>Subject: Re: Not very visible Squeak-dev set at squeak.org
>Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2007 14:30:49 +0200
>
>Blake a écrit :
>>On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 01:32:06 -0700, Hilaire Fernandes <hilaire at ofset.org> 
>>wrote:
>>
>>>It would be nice if the Squeak-dev images initiative was more visible in 
>>>the Squeak.org. What about adding it in the orange menu Links or even 
>>>better in the Download green menu?
>>>
>>>Every time a new programmer to Squeak want to take a try I point it to 
>>>squeak-dev because it comes with the interesting packages/extension 
>>>installed for developer. It will be very helpful when promoting squeak if 
>>>we could have these more visible.
>>
>>And to think, just yesterday there was a complaint that Squeak-dev (and 
>>SqueakLight) were too visible and caused confusion about what was 
>>official.
>>
>>I like Squeak-dev a lot, too, mind you, and would tend to recommend it 
>>over vanilla for developers I wanted to lure in. It has so many of the 
>>comforts of home (wherever that was before you found Squeak)....
>
>
>I think Squeak-dev should be the default one. The default Squeak image that 
>could be download from the web site should be thought as a kind of Linux 
>Kernel and Squeak-dev more as a Linux distribution (for developers).
>
>-- Serge Stinckwich
>http://doesnotunderstand.free.fr/

+1

Also, check out Ramon Leon's blog, "A Squeak Smalltalk Development Example", 
and a comment in Blaine Buxton's latest blog entry, "Crabs in the Pot"  
regarding the usability of Squeak-Dev vs "vanilla" Squeak image, especially 
for the newbies.

-Larry Trutter

_________________________________________________________________
http://liveearth.msn.com