On 07 Dec 2012, at 23:59, Nicolas Cellier <nicolas.cellier.aka.nice@gmail.com> wrote:
So before ranting loud, I digged a bit further: could it be this warning I had at startup about obsolete VM, yes that was it! So if you are episodic user like me :
******** DON'T FORGET TO DOWNLOAD A PHARO SPECIFIC VM *************
I already spent way more time on this than I wished, hope my mistake helps someone else. ( over-estimating pharo planned obsolescence period is indeed a mistake ;) why would the VM be handled differently ? )
Last thing, maybe you should insist on the download page that 2.0 REQUIRES a pharo specific VM. Not sure I would have read it, but then it would be entirely my fault.
Nicolas makes a very valid point; the first, out-of-the-box experience is massively important. Pharo 2.0 does indeed require a newer VM in my experience (related to FileSystem at least). The image _HAS_ to warn about this. It is just that the compatibilty test should not be more strict than absolutely necessary. -- Sven Van Caekenberghe http://stfx.eu Smalltalk is the Red Pill