RE: [Slightly OT] Stability of Squeak

Gary,

That is very encouraging.  I am starting to think that I need to begin
tackling some basic porting problems.  There is a long todo list, but
one of my systems really needs to find its way onto Linux for torture
testing.  Would you recommend 3.9 or 3.10??

BTW, don't expect this to be an overnight effort.  I have some
preliminaries to consider, such as making the BibTeX system I might have
mentioned a little more friendly, porting my time-stamp-based backup
system to Squeak, and making it run correctly on Linux and Windows as a
result, and so on.  Bottom line: I need to begin to see if Squeak can
handle the load.

Thanks!

Bill






Wilhelm K. Schwab, Ph.D.
University of Florida
Department of Anesthesiology
PO Box 100254
Gainesville, FL 32610-0254

Email: bschwab@...
Tel: (352) 846-1285
FAX: (352) 392-7029

>>> gazzaguru2@... 10/31/07 11:07 PM >>>
I've not noticed a particular increase in image size, myself. The
semaphore
fixes posted in the dev-list have worked wonders for the stability of
our
client's software... AFAIK they'll be put into 3.10 but must be
installed
manualy for 3.9.

There was a post somewhre in the ui list about unrecoverable garbage.
After
my last respone there has been no feeback, however.

Regards, Gary,
memory
> corruption here) non-collectable garbage under Gary's enhancements?
> Another thing that disturbed me was the Croquet group(???) threatening
> to drop Squeak servers in favor of Java or similar.  There were some
> semaphore/delay/shared queue kinds of fixes.  Did they make it into
> Squeak?
>
> Please don't do my homework for me.  I am hoping someone here happens
to
_______________________________________________
UI mailing list
UI@...
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ui

_______________________________________________
UI mailing list
UI@...
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ui