Squeak-dev June 2001

squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org

122 participants
362 discussions

Re: [ANN][GOODIE] New Version QuickTime for Squeak 3.1 -- Windows
by Ali Chamas 04 Jun '01

04 Jun '01

Jim, > Sorry, I'm only going to support a Windows version at this time. I don't own > a Mac anymore. If someone had a *really* good reason for me to do the Mac > side (like an interesting project of some sort), I would consider writing a > Mac port. However, I'm not really inclined to do that at the present time. Oh well, worth a try. ;) > Off topic: [GUITARS] > > I usually play a 1990 White maple neck American Fender Stratocaster. > However, I've been spent most of the last six months in hotels, and have > been using a black Martin 00CXAE for practice. It's a wonderful travel > guitar because it's made with laminated materials, which do not lend > themselves to warp or finish problems inherent to conventional accoustic > guitar construction. It sounds great for a relatively inexpensive > instrument, especially considering its form factor (3 inch deep 00 style). > Plus, it has integrated electronics. I need to write a little drum machine > in Squeak so I can record some tunes when I'm on the road :-) Ah, a guitar and a laptop, just perfect for the travelling thinker. I'm trying to buy a big ol' white Gibson Epiphone, aka George Benson style. Unfortunately, i need a new computer, so i should put my money into that. Damn computers...all i wanna do is jam. Ali. > Jim > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ali Chamas" <ali(a)sparkdigital.com.au> > To: <squeak(a)cs.uiuc.edu> > Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2001 6:10 PM > Subject: Re: [ANN][GOODIE] New Version QuickTime for Squeak 3.1 -- Windows > > >> Outstanding!! Can we have a Mac (cake) version too (and eat it)? >> >>> throw about. I think I'll just go play my guitar instead. >> >> BTW. What kind of guitar is it? >> >> Ali. >> >>> >>> Hello, >>> >>> There is a new revision of QuickTime playback for Squeak -- Windows > version. >>> >>> This provides a couple of extra features over the last revision. >>> >>> First and foremost, QuickTime is fully integrated into the Morphic >>> environment using the new BitBlt functions with external forms. This may > be >>> accessed with: >>> >>> QuickTimeMoviePlayer getAndOpenFromOffscreen. >>> >>> This allows you to impress your friends and confuse your enemies by > rotating >>> your movie window morphs around on the screen. >>> >>> (If maximum speed is required, the previous version is still available > using >>> #getAndOpen ) >>> >>> Second, a 'movie poster' function allows any frame of a movie to be made >>> into an ImageMorph. >>> >>> Third, a new class, QuickTimeImages, is added which allows any QuickTime >>> supported image format to be imported into an ImageMorph. >>> >>> All of this fun is available at: >>> >>> http://people.we.mediaone.net/trade/quicktim.htm >>> >>> under the heading 3.1 Test Pilots. >>> >>> Note that this changeset requires changes up to 4081, and the new > Windows VM >>> located at: >>> >>> ftp://st.cs.uiuc.edu/Smalltalk/Squeak/3.0/unstable-testPilot/ >>> >>> >>> Enjoy, >>> >>> Jim Benson >>> >>> P.S. >>> >>> I almost feel silly at this point actually sending code to the list. I > know >>> I'm supposed to add some profound thoughts about evolution, creationism, >>> chaordic foundations or some such. However as most folks who know me > will >>> tell you, I don't have a thought in my head, much less profound ones to >>> throw about. I think I'll just go play my guitar instead. >>> >>> >> >> >

1 0

Re: stable Squeak (Fonts) free Accuny for browser.
by John M McIntosh 04 Jun '01

04 Jun '01

>On Sunday, June 3, 2001, at 07:15 PM, John M McIntosh wrote: > >>> >>At 7:35 PM -0400 6/2/01, Andrew C. Greenberg wrote: >>>On the legal side, are you sure these fonts are all completely >>>Kosher? There seem to me to be direct ripoffs, at least, of the >>>early Apple MacOS Chicago, Chancery and Symbol bitmap fonts. If >>>we were aspiring to be purely license-clean, there may be some >>>serious issues. >>> >>This was address by Arts Management Systems Ltd (the suppliers of >>the fonts) in the early 1990's via correspondence with Apple Legal >>department. At the time it was a point of concern since these fonts >>were later marketed as a commercial product, which can be found in >>Informix products, Omnis (Blyth Software), and PowerBuilder >>(Sybase). The fact they got sold to these vendors in the >>early/mid/late 1990's is a result of the discussions with Apple. >> >>The legal reasoning is summed up on >>http://minnow.cc.gatech.edu/squeak/1849 at the comment of > >I agree -- after all, those were my arguments! However, various >members of the community have been troubled by the existence of the >Apple bitmap fonts in the Squeak image, and some have savaged SqC >for failing to remove them, citing to these new fonts as the second >coming of Squeak. If the Accuny fonts heritage is identical to that >of the Apple bitmap fonts, however, what, then, has been gained? Well I'm not sure the heritage is identical, I presume the original Squeak fonts were taken directly from Apple files and manipulated by some Squeak code to produce the bit images. Thus a clear heritage/usage of the apple font bits via the reference to the original bits. Also reference to them in the original license and of course they retain the same names which *is* a licence issue. I sure as far as Apple is concerned the Squeak folks just embedded the Apple font files with alterations into Squeak. Now on the other hand the accufonts were painfully tapped into a Windows 3.0 SDK font bit editor by hand based on images printed to paper which were enlarged by silicon beachs SuperPaint, then compiled into windows 3.0 font files and compared to the macintosh originals for spacing and alignment using the high tech tool of printing to color transparencies and viewing the results by visually overlaying them and squinting. Now I understand these window font files were then read into Squeak by Duane Maxwell & company and translated into the squeak aware bit images. So although they look the same they *do not* share the same heritage from an understanding of were the bits come from. Certainly if they were computer derived from the original apple files (they are not) then we would be no better off. Note: Since we can make clones of bitmap fonts then I'll ask is there a more proper/legal way to do it since the effort took weeks of time... BTW the intercharacter spacing for some of the accufonts is different from the original Squeak fonts, I can't say without doing some analysis which font is wrong in the spirit of being bit identical to the original Apple font. > >So here it is, then. Has AMS granted us rights to "their" fonts, >acknowledged their lack of a Copyright interest, dedicated them to >the public, or not? If so, can we simply agree that there is no big >deal about using these fonts, any of them, including those in the >present Squeak image? I'll refer you to the license text found in the stable squeak project files. I'll let other interpret what it means... Squeak World Tour note: The Apple and Microsoft fonts referred to in this license have been expunged from this image. There are no Apple or Microsoft derived fonts in this image. Information on the fonts in this image may be found in the script titled, AccuFont License. This image is derived from the Squeak 2.8 base image and virtual machine. Additional code provided by Squeakers world wide has been included The AccuFontLicense.text file reads: "Copyright Arts Management Systems, Ltd." © Arts Management Systems Ltd. The fonts distributed as part of this base image are derived from fonts copyright Arts Management Systems, Ltd. Use of the fonts in derivative software products is allowed. The fonts should retain their AccuFont names. The acknowledgement should read: >Doug Easterbrook >Arts Management Systems Ltd. >mailto:doug@artsman.com >http://www.artsman.com >Phone (403) 215-5701 Fax (403) 215-5704 -- -- =========================================================================== John M. McIntosh <johnmci(a)smalltalkconsulting.com> 1-800-477-2659 Corporate Smalltalk Consulting Ltd. http://www.smalltalkconsulting.com ===========================================================================

4 4

Re: stable Squeak (Fonts) free Accuny for browser.
by JArchibald＠aol.com 04 Jun '01

04 Jun '01

=> 6/3/01 10:09:52 PM EDT, johnmci(a)smalltalkconsulting.com => << FYI, I'll refer you all to a sybase manual page to see the table of how the accufonts map to macintosh fonts. http://manuals.sybase.com/onlinebooks/group-pb/corepbm/apptech/@Generic__Bo… extView/36587 >> All-- You might find that the following link works better: http://manuals.sybase.com/onlinebooks/group-pb/corepbm/apptech/@Generic__Bo… iew;hf=0 The link John provided was a frame from a frame-based presentation. I found that it gave me javascript errors, and loaded extremely slowly. yt, Jerry. ____________________________ Jerry L. Archibald systemObjectivesIncorporated ____________________________

1 0

Re: stable Squeak (Fonts) free Accuny for browser.
by John M McIntosh 04 Jun '01

04 Jun '01

>any of them, including those in the present Squeak image? Didn't address this. The intent of acquiring a right to use the accufonts was to get a license for the Squeak community, not just stable Squeak. How that gets into the mainstreamm Squeak image and how the licence file changes etc hasn't as you've noticed been address yet. I've not seen exactly what that licence agreement requires, so perhaps Duane Maxwell can comment since he was responsible for the arrangement. Or maybe the Squeak stable folks can speak since they should be following that agreement. -- -- =========================================================================== John M. McIntosh <johnmci(a)smalltalkconsulting.com> 1-800-477-2659 Corporate Smalltalk Consulting Ltd. http://www.smalltalkconsulting.com ===========================================================================

1 0

Re: [ANN][GOODIE] New Version QuickTime for Squeak 3.1 -- Windows
by Ali Chamas 04 Jun '01

04 Jun '01

Outstanding!! Can we have a Mac (cake) version too (and eat it)? > throw about. I think I'll just go play my guitar instead. BTW. What kind of guitar is it? Ali. > From: "Jim Benson" <jb(a)speed.net> > Reply-To: squeak(a)cs.uiuc.edu > Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 15:35:43 -0700 > To: "Squeak" <squeak(a)cs.uiuc.edu> > Subject: [ANN][GOODIE] New Version QuickTime for Squeak 3.1 -- Windows > Resent-From: squeak(a)cs.uiuc.edu > Resent-Date: 1 Jun 2001 22:34:38 -0000 > > Hello, > > There is a new revision of QuickTime playback for Squeak -- Windows version. > > This provides a couple of extra features over the last revision. > > First and foremost, QuickTime is fully integrated into the Morphic > environment using the new BitBlt functions with external forms. This may be > accessed with: > > QuickTimeMoviePlayer getAndOpenFromOffscreen. > > This allows you to impress your friends and confuse your enemies by rotating > your movie window morphs around on the screen. > > (If maximum speed is required, the previous version is still available using > #getAndOpen ) > > Second, a 'movie poster' function allows any frame of a movie to be made > into an ImageMorph. > > Third, a new class, QuickTimeImages, is added which allows any QuickTime > supported image format to be imported into an ImageMorph. > > All of this fun is available at: > > http://people.we.mediaone.net/trade/quicktim.htm > > under the heading 3.1 Test Pilots. > > Note that this changeset requires changes up to 4081, and the new Windows VM > located at: > > ftp://st.cs.uiuc.edu/Smalltalk/Squeak/3.0/unstable-testPilot/ > > > Enjoy, > > Jim Benson > > P.S. > > I almost feel silly at this point actually sending code to the list. I know > I'm supposed to add some profound thoughts about evolution, creationism, > chaordic foundations or some such. However as most folks who know me will > tell you, I don't have a thought in my head, much less profound ones to > throw about. I think I'll just go play my guitar instead. > >

1 0

Re: stable Squeak (Fonts) free Accuny for browser.
by John M McIntosh 04 Jun '01

04 Jun '01

>> > >Ah, I think New York, Geneva, and Monaco are in the image. Oops I should say fonts that look like these are in the stable squeak image. They have different names of course. -- -- =========================================================================== John M. McIntosh <johnmci(a)smalltalkconsulting.com> 1-800-477-2659 Corporate Smalltalk Consulting Ltd. http://www.smalltalkconsulting.com ===========================================================================

1 0

RE: Squeak for iPAQ
by John.Maloney＠disney.com 03 Jun '01

03 Jun '01

Part of the slowdown may be the cost of getting bits to the screen via the normal WinCE interface. Yoshiki Ohshima found that using the windows games API gave a huge speedup in display update speed. Of course, that is only part of the reason that Morphic feels slow, and you may already be using a VM with Yoshiki's display code. Another possible source of sluggishness is floating point operations, which must be emulated on the StrongARM. Finally--and this is real stab in the dark-- there may be an unexpected interaction between Windows CE and event processing. You might see if an old 2.7 or 2.8 image feels any faster when running Morphic. We've been fairly impressed with the raw computational power of the iPaq, but we're not using Morphic on it. Nor are we doing Squeak development on the iPaq. We develop on a desktop or laptop and just move the image over to the iPaq for testing. -- John At 2:40 AM -0400 5/11/01, Noel J. Bergman wrote: >The point isn't that the iPAQ is slow (heck, I have emulators on iPAQ that >run faster than the original hardware) ... the point is that Morphic on the >iPAQ is so slow as to be unusable. Multi-second response times when moving >windows or popping up menus, etc. I am much happier with the performance of >MVC.

4 4

RE: Multiple disjoint object memory in Smalltalk
by Noel J. Bergman 03 Jun '01

03 Jun '01

> I note that on some versions of mmap you can speicify a starting > address. Therefore if it works you could avoid having to swizzle the > pointers when you access the image since they would never change. > Otherwise you are back to updating all the object slots at load time. The method ObjectMemory>>adjustAllOopsBy in my image was last updated by you, I believe (JMM 11/18/2000 17:50). A comment in it says, "Note: Don't bypass this method even if bytesToShift is zero until the RootBit problem has been fixed in the appropriate places", and the code to shortcut the method when bytesToShift = 0 is commented out. I don't see anything new in my .changes file, so I am assuming the comment is current. I don't know what the RootBit problem is, but the section of code that would be bypassed if the comment were removed is the code that adjusts all of the references, and also clears the RootBit for each object. So if the comment is still correct, then even if the image reloads at the same place, don't you need to still clear each object's RootBit? Or did I misunderstand your point, above? --- Noel

5 5

An MVC scheduling question
by David T. Lewis 03 Jun '01

03 Jun '01

I have a View in MVC with a method which wants to open a new StandardSystemController, sort of like this: MyView>>myMethod | aVar | aVar _ doSomeStuff. aVar inspect. "Opens a new StandardSystemController" self doSomeMoreStuff "This never gets done" Opening the inspector behaves like a goto, such that control is passed over to the inspector, and never returned to doSomeMoreStuff. What is the right way to open the new view without passing control out of the current method? I tried StandardSystemController>>openNoTerminate and it did horrible things to my MVC project, so I don't think that was the answer ;) Thanks, Dave

1 0

Re: [BUG][FIX]Unstable Squeak Won't Load Modules on Macintosh
by Andrew C. Greenberg 03 Jun '01

03 Jun '01

On Sunday, June 3, 2001, at 05:54 AM, Joseph Pelrine wrote: > Lots of complaints here. People want a preview of a work-in-progess, > and then complain that not everything works. I think that John did a > damn good job of just getting this stuff bundled up and distributed. It > IS release 0.1, anyway. The author misunderstands both my intentions and, apparently, the substance of what I had posted. If not, there is a far greater impedance mismatch here than I had thought at first. A bug post and fix to make software work are generally not considered "lots of complaints" in an open-source community. I was under the impression that our advices, thoughts and contributions were affirmatively solicited. A bug post and fix to make software work are, in fact, mother's milk and the most fundamental virtue of open source development. A bug post and fix to make software work are the reason why for-profit entities such as Apple and Netscape give away some software for free. A bug post and fix to make software work are considered, in most open source communities, to be a very good thing. Such reports don't come easily. In this case, it took me about 4 hours to figure out that and why "not everything works" (indeed, nothing AT ALL worked). Ordinarily, people on the Squeak list perceive such efforts, not as snide, but rather as a measure of enthusiasm and support.

1 0

Jump to page: