on 2001-08-10 2:07 AM, Richard A. O'Keefe at ok at atlas.otago.ac.nz wrote:

> Stephane Ducasse <ducasse at iam.unibe.ch> wrote:
> - why the open-source model of squeak does not work?
> 
> Hmm.  I have a great Smalltalk that didn't cost me a cent.
> I have been able to contribute a few small fixes to this mailing list.
> What do you mean "doesn't work"?

Why improvements are only integrated under the responsibility of SqC?
Why people stop to maintain their wonderful system because they are fed up
to move from version to version without enough support. Ask henrik or Roel
for example.

Why some people do not even send enhancement because they know that this
will not be integrated else the image would more than huge?

Because the system is getting to be too big.


> - call for improvement where people could argue why a
> crucial change have to be done.
> 
> We've had quite a few of those.

And then what's happen, often nothing. For example, I think that removing
pool variable, {} would simplify squeak, then providing a default initialize
schema would be a first step towards a decent mop.

Squeak still does not have block closure, a decent versioning system, a
decent debugger that does not crash on stupid code. (I have to check the
recent work made on the debugger)  So yes this is the coolest stuff of the
world but with weaknesses.

 
> - much better enhancement integration instead of waiting
> that SqC agrees or does the job (I think that this
> should not be their role).  I have the feeling that
> Squeak is not open.  This is not intended against SqC
> but against the process itself.
> 
> How is this different from gcc, exactly?  Or the Linux kernel?
> Or for a closer comparison, SmallEiffel?

I do not know those. But I dream about a system where we could have
a common repository where bug, bug fixes could be submitted, where we could
built an image from a set of identifiable code elements with numbers.

> I'm thinking that we are too self-oriented and not
> looking for successes of the other communities.
> 
> I am having difficulty understanding this.  What does it mean?
> (I'm on several mailing lists and probably count as a "member" of at
> least three other open source "communities".)

So if this is the same, I was dreaming too much and I'm sad about it.

 
> I would suggest that the success of an (open-source) community has
> at least something to do with how many people *want* the product, and
> unfortunately not as many people want Smalltalk as would benefit from it.

I do not believe that. I think that if the process of evolution in Squeak
would be more natural this would help people moving Squeak faster.

 
> - having a infrastructure that support changes
> identification in a much better way that changeset so
> that we can built a squeak from a list of modules.
> 
> Many of us are eagerly awaiting Stable Squeak, which amongst other things,
> appears to offer something like that.

Me too. And I was sad to see Squeak Stable resting but apparently this is
restarting.

> 
> But are you really sure that I'm wrong.
> 
> No.  I'm not even sure what you mean.  Care to explain a bit more fully?
> 
> 
>