<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 5:43 PM, David T. Lewis <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:lewis@mail.msen.com" target="_blank">lewis@mail.msen.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div>One of the things that I like about Squeak is that I do not feel like<br>
</div></div>
there is a distinction between users and developers. I am a user who<br>
figured out how to be a developer, but I prefer not to think in terms of<br>
those categories.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Well, sure, any categorization or generalization ends up misrepresenting the complexity and richness of reality. But that can be useful at times!</div><div>
<br></div><div>The discussion that came up in the board meeting was around how to manage packages that aren't part of the release image. We tried to understand the role of SqueakMap in terms of several different analogies - CPAN, Ruby Gems, PyPI, Debian, HomeBrew, the App Store. That last one, the App Store, brought up the question of intended audience: the App Store was certainly a break-through for users of Apple products, but developers often need finer granularity and control than the App Store provides. </div>
<div><br></div><div style>So maybe there are really two audiences for Squeak: "users," who, like you, run Squeak as a general purpose computing environment, and "developers," who use Squeak to produce more specialized artifacts.</div>
<div style><br></div><div style>If this is the case, we need to understand how the two groups overlap and where they differ. Perhaps Squeak needs both an App-Store-like tool *and* a CPAN-like tool, with clear distinctions about when they should be used.</div>
<div style><br></div><div style>Colin</div></div></div>
</div>