Damien Cassou wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 8:21 AM, Igor Stasenko <siguctua at gmail.com> wrote:
>   
>>  What i like in above, that it's self-explanatory, easy to find and
>>  don't requires extra UI/GUI to manage package.
>>     
>
> But users needs a UI to install new packages.
>   
Do they?

It has a command line/code UI.  Perhaps you mean a GUI.
For the most part I would expect end users to have images that are 
already configured to perform the task that they are interested in.

Overall "we" have had a stated intention to move to more minimal images, 
and have kernel images which dont have GUI's at all. In this instance a 
solution that can work in a minimal environment is useful.

GUI based tools have been a bottleneck in enabling new GUI frameworks to 
gain acceptance e.g. tweak. So having a GUI is a significant 
disadvantage. GUI tools have been a big source of bugs, remember the 
transparent SqueakMap Package loader.

An additional UI is available since with Launcher a predefined set of 
packages can be built into an image by passing command line params at 
startup.

For production work the process of building a complex image is best 
handles by Installer scripts (or similar) anyhow. Poking around or 
scripting UI's is slow and difficult to automate.

so all in all, I dont see the lack of GUI as a great disadvantage. 
However, if SakeTasks (or similar) catches on, then perhaps a "run task" 
menu item may be added to class browsers.

best regards

Keith