Hi Tim,

> A thought that _would_ affect the plugin side; should we separate out
> the B3D(etc) plugins from the image B3D code? The separate 
> plugins parts could then be associated with VMMaker via a loadscript.
> I suspect this might reduce confusion for some people when they attempt
> to make a VM.

Well, I looked into the possibility when I made up 1.0.1 and decided not to
do it at this point. Reasons were mostly that it would require a three-way
split (e.g., B3DConstants, B3DPlugins, and B3DRuntime) which is right now
not really feasable to manage for me given that SM1.1 still isn't there
(aka: no version tracking) and that the DVS vs. Monticello problems aren't
satisfactory solved in my understanding. In short, it would be too much work
having to track three independent packages all of which depend (in one way
or another) on one another. So right now you get the entire enchilada. I
understand that this isn't satisfactory for a number of people but I have to
manage the amount of effort I want to put into maintaining the package(s)
and the way it is right now is just the simplest solution for me.

Cheers,
  - Andreas