On 15 March 2018 at 16:01, Marcus Denker <marcus.denker@inria.fr> wrote:


On 15 Mar 2018, at 00:08, Cyril Ferlicot <cyril.ferlicot@gmail.com> wrote:


On mer. 14 mars 2018 at 18:18, Marcus Denker <marcus.denker@inria.fr> wrote:


> On 9 Mar 2018, at 23:34, Torsten Bergmann <astares@gmx.de> wrote:
>
> Additional portable versions would be nice too (based on a simple ZIP) instead of only the installable apps
>

Is there a deeper reason for this? If I look at ���other systems���, they manage to have *one* download, *one* way of installing.
For me, offering *a lot* of possible different ways means that the user has to choose without knowing why there is even the option to choose���

The problem is that Pharo is different from other systems. When you install eclipse, you'll use the installed eclipse for all your projects for a long time.

Pharo images are more like a "disposable". You'll not use the same Pharo image for multiple big projects and you'll more easily throw away an image to take a new one from time to time.��

Actually I think I download and delete around 5 images/day sometime.��

This complicate a little things because sometime you want to directly download one image. Sometime you want to have one application to manage your images (Pharo launcher)��

For me, the Launcher should be the ���VM Download���, that comes with a) a default template image of the release and b) the launcher too to discover images.

*But* it should be done in a way that you can of course just download more images (and I would love to have images actually being ���one file���) and, having Pharo installed, you can run them, using the ���Pharo��� that you have installed (the launcher).

The ���Launcher��� should feel more like ���I have installed Pharo, now I can run images���.

As such, I think we should add back links that point to single image downloads on the download page.

Marcus


I'm really glad PharoLauncher has been promoted to the download page,
but it��seems some people want to push PharoLauncher to *be* Pharo.
To me this seems a poor strategy.

The README file in the PharoLauncher zip downloads says...
�� ��"Pharo 1.1-2018.01.16 This distribution was built January 16, 2018."

This seems strange to me and highly likely to confuse newcomers.
Pharo 1.1 more than a few years old.�� ��How can something built in 2018 be named "Pharo 1.1" ?

And if PharoLauncher is instead published as Pharo 7, then it seems strange to use it to run Pharo 5 images and later Pharo 8 images.
Why not have the Downloads page just say "The recommended way to manage Pharo downloads is with PharoLauncher"
and allow PharoLauncher to exist as a separate entity.�� This would be similar similar to those applications where you download��
an initial 500kB installer, which then grabs the other 100MB from the net to complete the install.��

Also, when maybe one day we can use Pharo as a command line shell, how will that relate to PharoLauncher being presented "as" Pharo.


cheers -ben



P.S.�� Perhaps the idea of App Store has some similarities to PharoLauncher,����
since in an App Store you search for programs to download and run.
A further evolution of PharoLauncher might become PharoStore��
Now Apple's app store is not called "OSX" and Microsoft's app store is not called "Windows".
They are separate entities .��