Lex Spoon wrote:

>
>
> Well, what's easier about replacing a VM executable and replacing a
> module?  Especially if it's all hidden behind a package managing tool
> like rpm or whetever built-in thingy Windows has.

The stuff I'm interested in isn't anything to do with windows thank goodness.
The big advantage of having as much as possible in plugins is that we don't
have to shutdown and restart (modulo the plugins being appropriately written of
course) which means the update process can almost always be squeak code only.
No way are we going to expose customers to the nightmare of rpm dependencies,
gnome or kde, xterms and all that.

>
> > I rather suspect that for Mac & Windows it would be possible to make
> > the plugins either live in some resource-fork kind of doohickey, or to
> > find a tolerable install program that would hide the awful complexity.
> >
>
> Bah, let's let people deal with it.  What's hard about ZIP files?

Personally I agree, but some people have made the assertion of it being too
difficult. Like I said, I'll happily donate $100 towards the purchase of a
suitable packager if that will move anyone; come to that I'll pay the $100 even
if the do-er finds an acceptable free packager and just does the work!
Acceptability would have to be someone like Andreas & Johm Mc agreeing they'd
use it henceforth.

tim