OK, so there certainly seem to be some people in favor of keeping the
update stream, and that's fine, but is it necessary to tie update
stream maintenance to the bleeding edge of the code, by having the same
people building the images be responsible for the update stream as
well? Could there not be a workflow where new images get built
and released all the time, presumably quicker since there would be less
work involved, and where *somebody else* would take on the role of
'update stream maintainer', coming up with an update stream based on
the released images? Since there seems to be support for keeping
the update stream, one would hope there'd be some volunteers for that
task..<br>
<br>
Andrew<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 10/13/05, <b class="gmail_sendername">Brad Fuller</b> <<a href="mailto:brad@sonaural.com">brad@sonaural.com</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Cees De Groot wrote:
<blockquote cite="http://mid330b6fd60510130846p216ba9ebi25c63d1d7ed38332@mail.gmail.com" type="cite"><div><span class="e" id="q_106eae46efbc8eb5_1">
<pre>Hi Josh, long time no speak :)<br><br>On 10/13/05, Josh Gargus <a href="mailto:schwa@fastmail.us" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)"><schwa@fastmail.us></a> wrote:<br> </pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>Come on now, (I believe that) it is those Squeak users who have the<br>most non-code objects (eg: those using it as an expressive medium,<br>not a programming environment) who are least likely to be able to<br>write such code.
<br> </pre>
</blockquote>
<pre>Apart from the (large) group of Squeaklanders, is there a substantial<br>enough group of Squeak users who don't code themselves to warrant<br>putting a significant load on the shoulders of a couple of volunteers?<br>
<br>Note that I'm *not* argumentative here, just trying to get lots of pro<br>and contra arguments on the table.<br> </pre></span></div>
</blockquote>
Put yourself in the boots of a user (only) and try to forget you can
easily whip something up to update your image or your current non-code
objects. One of the nicest things about Squeak is that a mere user can
update it easily. It's one of the coolest features of the system, and
illustrates in a concrete way, the concern the architects have for
users. You don't have to go thru the rig-a-ma-role of getting the next
image, unzipping it, installing it, etc... Yuck! I'd rather push a
button. I wish it was more extensive.<br>
<br>
I'm not saying that there may not be alternatives. However, we often
don't view the problem (and in this case it's a solution already there)
from the users POV. I also think this feature is a good marketing
bullet to help propagate the usage of Squeak to a much larger audience.
Isn't that an important topical discussion? (maybe we should start a
marketing thread.)<br>
<br>
<br>
brad<br>
<br>
<pre cols="72">-- <br>Brad Fuller<br>(408) 799-6124<br>** Sonaural Audio Studios **<br>(408) 799-6123 West San Jose<br>(408) 799-6124 Cambrian<br>________________________________<br>Hear us online: <a href="http://www.Sonaural.com" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">
www.Sonaural.com</a><br>See me on O'Reilly: <a href="http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/au/2184" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/au/2184</a></pre><span class="sg">
<br>
<br>
</span><br><br><br><br></blockquote></div><br>