A squeak3.4 VM will be needed

Lex Spoon lex at cc.gatech.edu
Wed Jan 29 08:14:16 UTC 2003

Julian Fitzell <julian at beta4.com> wrote:

> >> The latter is partly why I like naming the VM just "Squeak.exe" for 
> >> all but
> >> the most experienced Squeakers. It encourages them to think about the 
> >> VM as
> >> "essentially the same" across all versions (which is true - you can run
> >> everything back to Squeak 1.1 on the latest VMs) and (for the largest 
> >> part)
> >> not to worry about "uh... now this is Squeak 3.4 VM ... will this work 
> >> if I
> >> try to start Squeak3.2.image with it???"
> > 
> > 
> > True, that sounds reasonable.  It's definitely better to bundle the VM 
> > with no version number than to have the wrong version number.

It wouldn't hurt to distribute Squeak as a regular package, on OS's that
support the notion.  Windows has it.  Debian has it.  RedHat has it.

Then, you can run Squeak from a menu item, and you can handle upgrades
with no trouble.

(well, upgrading is *slightly* tricky, because you don't want to just
overwrite the image the user is using... but at least the user can keep
track of things.)


More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list