Squeak-dev October 2001

squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org

191 participants
600 discussions

Re: Squeak 3.1???
by Bruce ONeel 31 Oct '01

31 Oct '01

"Roger Vossler" <rvossler(a)qwest.net> wrote: > Howdy, > Any indication when Squeak 3.1 for the Macintosh is going > to be available? > cheers, Roger..... Hi, If you don't mind some assembly required, you can get it right now. Under 3.0/unstable-testPilot on the ftp site you can get a Mac 3.1 VM and a 3.1 beta image/changes. Use SqueakV3.sources from 3.0 and you're good to go. Tonight my time (Europe) I'll create a 3.1 ftp directory and populate it. Then you'll find the mac stuff in 3.1/mac. cheers bruce

1 0

[newbie] Class category
by G.J.Tielemans＠dinkel.utwente.nl 31 Oct '01

31 Oct '01

I was wondering... Again I saw a newbie asking: "OK, I did several beautiful tutorials but what now?" A major problem is often that the complete class-tree is so overwhelming. Of course you will say: "The Royal way to get grip on Squeak is from that moment on to try to survive right away between all the other animals in the Squeak zoo, without any filtering." But maybe for all the domestic animals, preventing that they give up to early: - Is it correct that in the swiki system browser, the only reason for existance for the column "class categories" is to help the user to organize an overview of all these classes in logical chunks? - I see that there is even an menu option Reorganize, so In theory I can reorganize this complete to create my own subset... But: Not for a newbie, he/she does not know what to choose and on which logic base a new ordening should be done. But: If I want to stay compatible with the next code update from the server that is not so handy... But: If I want to organize it in a for me logical hierarchy (a kind of package view) the option browse hierarchy is not possible in this column. NOT FOR INHERETANCE REASONS but as logical organizer/reminder for my mind. QUESTION: I was wondering if it is not possible to add three buttons under that column: - one for the current column-view, - one for the alternativ-column-views, - one for current-project-view. If I push the alternativ column view button, a menu appears where I can select form alternative views: - (maybe a complexity leveling view...? But: Can experts create several levels that really can be more helpful?) - Some people could create a in their eyes logical overview of the current tree (Dan view, Alan view, Your view?) or a subset of that tree (Swiki view, ) and deliver that set as menu-option... - If someone creates a tutorial then during file in this tutorial must be able to blends in tutorial-class-view for this tutorial... - (who decides if new class/methods from updates should appear in their view on what place? The view holder?) If I choose current project view, it must be possible to view only the classes & methods I did already use in my project, ont only the new vreated but also the exsting ones. (can this be done automatic with something like shwo project hierarchy? can this also be helpful for distributing? I feel I lack a lot of knowledge here...

1 0

Another new Squeak book
by Doug Way 31 Oct '01

31 Oct '01

I noticed in one of John Mc's OOPSLA trip reports that he mentioned another Squeak book which I hadn't heard about before, entitled "Squeak: A Quick Trip to ObjectLand", coming out in December. See http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0201731142 Does anyone know anything more about the book? It looks like it might be an adaptation of an earlier "Quick Trip to ObjectLand" book, which was based on Smalltalk/V. From the description, it might be a good beginner-tutorial book. Also, it doesn't look like it's discounted at all on Amazon right now, so perhaps it's worth waiting or ordering it somewhere else. - Doug Way dway(a)riskmetrics.com

3 2

What's "Linking" under the GPL?
by Ed Heil 31 Oct '01

31 Oct '01

I understand that one of the big behind-the-scenes projects that the FSF and their lawyers are working on for future versions of the GPL is a better and more general set of definitions for the "linking" issue. They understand that the license is really written with C in mind and gets less and less comprehensible as your programming model departs from a Unix/C like programming model, but it's not a problem that has an obvious and easy solution. I remember reading this a year or two ago so there may have been progress made on this front that I am not aware of. Ed

1 0

RE: Lots of concurrency
by G.J.Tielemans＠dinkel.utwente.nl 31 Oct '01

31 Oct '01

take a look at: http://members.aol.com/humansandt/techniques/crc.htm know your classics: http://www.c2.com/doc/crc/draw.html and http://c2.com/doc/oopsla94.html and http://c2.com/doc/oopsla89/paper.html#problem (of course these authors are now going extreme, pardon me: Agile?) http://www.softstar-inc.com/Download/Intro%20to%20CRC.pdf Want more? -----Original Message----- From: Stefan Schmiedl [mailto:s@xss.de] Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 11:05 AM To: squeak-dev(a)lists.squeakfoundation.org Subject: Re: Lots of concurrency G.J.Tielemans(a)dinkel.utwente.nl (2001-10-31 10:35): > > Taking the viewpoint of the mouse on the screen became easier this way. > > The same seams to happen when people are asked to take resposibilty for a > card, even being the card, during CRC-Cards-Design during a scenario-check > meeting. > Looking forward to your description of stacking cards on top of each other .-) s. shhhh ... I can't hear my code!

1 0

[OT] Re: Debian and SqueakL revisited again...(was Re: Debian source package)
by goran.hultgren＠bluefish.se 31 Oct '01

31 Oct '01

Bijan Parsia <bparsia(a)email.unc.edu> wrote: > On Tue, 30 Oct 2001, Lex Spoon wrote: > > [snip] > > Okay, I was a bit terse, and it *is* relevant. I just didn't relish the > > thought of the inevitable 50+ messages hashing out the subtle > > differences between these licenses. :( > > How about the misuse of the word "commercial". "Proprietory" == > "commerical". If you think that *de facto*, forbidding proprietoriness > eliminates commerical potential, that's *still* a different thing. I might have chosen a bad word initially - I should have used "proprietary" or "closed source" since there is absolutely nothing in GPL/LGPL that says anything about commerce, I used the wrong word. Heck, I could sell a GPL program for 1000$ if someone is "stupid" enough to pay for it. The point I was (if I can rephrase it) trying to make is that GPL is viral and LGPL is not (a bit simplified), which means that I can develop a closed proprietary program that uses a LGPLd library and my code won't "catch the GPL virus". What license I can then use for the resulting executable (or the source of my app I guess) is totally up to me. If I on the other hand modify the LGPLd library and redistributes the modified version I would have to play by the LGPL rules which are quite similar to GPL. (Ok, there are tons of minor aspects here but I think this is the gist of it) > (Contrast with the VisualWorks Non-commercial licence, which *explicitly* > forbids commerical activity. Rather generally. Last I checked, it looked > like even non-profits got swept in.) > > [snip] > > Otherwise, LGPL and GPL are pretty similar, and perhaps even identical. > > For example, they both disallow commercial use of the software. > > And this is even more bogas. At best, the only *use* that might be > constraint is selling derivative works. Using a GPLed word processor to > churn out commerical books is clearly fine on *any* level (even without > the tendentioius connection to proprietoriness. And again, selling is actually totally OK with GPL. :-) You can sell a derivative work - it's just that you have to also distribute the source - so it might be hard to get people to pay A LOT for it. Yes... I see that you also note that below... > To be explicit, from, > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLCommertially: > > "If I use a piece of software that has been obtained under the GNU GPL, am > I allowed to modify the original code into a new program, then distribute > and sell that new program commercially? > You are allowed to sell copies of the modified program commercially, but > only under the terms of the GNU GPL. Thus, for instance, you must make the > source code available to the users of the program as described in the GPL, > and they must be allowed to redistribute and modify it as described in the > GPL." > > Having a licence that, in a certain situation, makes using (or selling) > the product commercially *infeasible* is very distinct from a licence that > forbids commerical *use*. > > But *please* let's not blow this up. :) I'm perfectly willing to concede > that loads of buisness might not be able to sell GPLed software for a > variety of reasons. But they certainly can use it in a variety of ways, > and neither license explicitly forbids, in general, commerical use. > > Terseness isn't the issue; accuracy is. > > Cheers, > Bijan Parsia. Well, even if there are a bunch of interesting points with GPL/LGPL (forcing contributions, levelling the playfield for commercial entities etc) sometimes it just feels so much SIMPLER to go with a BSD/MIT style, don't you think? :-) Cheers too! regards, Göran PS. One interesting aspect mostly forgotten is the fact that quite a few companies in the Linux arena seems to like the GPL since it sortof levels the field. Company A can release improvements to the GPLd product Z without running the risk of having company B grabbing it all closing it up and selling it without openly contributing further. DS

1 0

[Celeste] msgIDs and sharing categories
by Bijan Parsia 31 Oct '01

31 Oct '01

So, I've started dorking with the LWZ threading algo (http://www.jwz.org/doc/threading.html) and something somewhat unrelated smacked me on the head: msgIDs suck. For the uninitiated, Celeste assigns an unique id to each mail message it stores and uses these ids for a good chunk of it's functionality. E.g., Categories are basically just named collections of these ids. Alas, these ids are unique only to the particular Celeste. From MailDB>>nextUnusedID: "Each message needs to have a unique ID. Message ID's are a monotonically increasing integers roughly related to the time that they were requested. The last ID used is kept in lastIssuedMsgID, to guard against reuse (e.g. if the clock changes)." Thus, unless I'm confused or mistaken, I cannot share a categorization of a number of messages with someone else without sharing the particular message file (or subset thereof). That kinda sucks! I'm not quite sure what to do about this. Ideally, the Message-ID header would be ubiquitous and correct...but I suspect it gets garbled. I suppose some sort of heuristic thingy that preserved this as much as possible yadda yadda yadda checksums yadda yadda mappings yadda yadda yadda. Just wondering if anyone else felt this and if so (or even if not) what are folks thoughts on solving this. Cheers, Bijan Parsia.

3 6

Re: Debian and SqueakL revisited again...(was Re: Debian source package)
by goran.hultgren＠bluefish.se 31 Oct '01

31 Oct '01

"Andrew C. Greenberg" <werdna(a)mucow.com> wrote: > > On Tuesday, October 30, 2001, at 01:26 PM, goran.hultgren(a)bluefish.se > wrote: > > >> One thing I know is that LGPL allows linking with non-LGPL programs, > >> but > >> GPL does not. It's a good thing that GNU libc (the one that Linux > >> uses) > >> is LGPL, because if it was GPL it would be illegal to compile non-GNU C > >> programs on Linux! It's unclear where Squeak images would fall here -- > >> is loading Smalltalk code into Squeak "linking", or is it making a > >> derivative of the base image? Blah, let's be happy we're not using one > >> of these licenses and so don't have to decide. :) > > > > The question on how the image works in this is very much open I guess. > > Not open in practice, given RMS' construction of the GPL. GPL's > interaction with a monolithic image is completely viral in his view. Yes, but what about dynamically (=at startup time) "linking in" .pr or other ImageSegments, or for example loading a changeset of source? Loading a changeset at startup makes it more or less a pure interpreter, right? And those "get away with it" today - I mean you can write GPL programs in interpreted languages even if the interpreter is not GPLed. I agree fully though that a "loaded and shipped" image is probably totally out of the question - I wasn't clear on that point. (I am trying to compare this to for example classloading in Java during runtime) > Indeed, one could theoretically litigate the "open" question, at great > cost and expense. The upside of being right is you get to use the > software for free. The downside of being wrong is you are liable under > the Copyright Act for actual damages, statutory damages (from $500 to > $50K, within the jury's unreviewable discretion), penalties for willful > damages, perhaps (up to $100K, within the judge or jury's discretion), > and significantly, an award of attorney fees. > > One would be insane to risk litigating that issue merely because it is > "very much open," given that the cost of licensing comparable software > is tiny compared to the liability downside, even discounted by the > reasonable expectation of success. Yes, of course. I agree on that. I am just curious... regards, Göran

1 0

[BUG] strange dividing of panes when a window is very small
by Mike Rutenberg 31 Oct '01

31 Oct '01

If you resize a Browser or an Inspector to be really small, the dividing lines between window panes seem to get shifted around and broken up. This is not a major problem, though on a palmtop it might be more annoying. http://www.akasta.com/oneoff/ArrayInspector.gif has a picture of an example. Mike

1 0

Re: Debian and SqueakL revisited again...(was Re: Debian source package)
by goran.hultgren＠bluefish.se 31 Oct '01

31 Oct '01

Hi guys! "Lex Spoon" <lex(a)cc.gatech.edu> wrote: > > "Lex Spoon" <lex(a)cc.gatech.edu> wrote: > > > > > So again, my view is that given a speicific situation I would probably > > > choose between these: > > > > > > - GPL (perhaps without the "version 2 or higher" in case RMS looses it > > > even more... :-) If I want my program not to be turned commercial by > > > someone else > > > - LGPL if I feel that GPL does a good job, but I want to enable people > > > to use it commercially > > > > These are not correct. Perhaps let's not open this discussion here > > Okay, I was a bit terse, and it *is* relevant. I just didn't relish the > thought of the inevitable 50+ messages hashing out the subtle > differences between these licenses. :( Sure! I agree with that. > One thing I know is that LGPL allows linking with non-LGPL programs, but > GPL does not. It's a good thing that GNU libc (the one that Linux uses) > is LGPL, because if it was GPL it would be illegal to compile non-GNU C > programs on Linux! It's unclear where Squeak images would fall here -- > is loading Smalltalk code into Squeak "linking", or is it making a > derivative of the base image? Blah, let's be happy we're not using one > of these licenses and so don't have to decide. :) The question on how the image works in this is very much open I guess. > Otherwise, LGPL and GPL are pretty similar, and perhaps even identical. > For example, they both disallow commercial use of the software. Nope, I believe YOU are wrong regarding this last sentence actually. I can use an LGPL-d library in my next proprietary killer app. That is the whole point with LGPL - see perhaps best explained here: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html This was my original point! > Here's an official site about the GNU licenses: > > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html > > > I dunno about the other open source licenses. Some of them do allow > commercial use, however. Yes, especially the BSD and the MIT license. Sidenote - two other things people wrongly tend to believe: 1. You are forbidden to charge money for GPLd software. (Answer: You can charge how much you want but people will probably buy it cheaper from someone else then since everybody/anybody can redistribute...) 2. If you have release software that you have the copyright to as GPL you can not make any money from it. (Answer: Yes you can - just issue another license! Dual licensing is more and more common, see Mozilla and Qt as prime examples.) > -Lex regards, Göran

3 2

← Newer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
...
60
Older →

Jump to page: