Hi Hannes,

> What do you mean by 'Mob'? The general semantic association with 'mob'
> is misleading or if intended not fair in this context.

    It was called 'MicroVM' before Tim posted the following message on Aug.
14:

>>Dan Moniz <dnm at p...> is widely believed to have written:

>> "Mob Software: The Erotic Life of Code"
>> An Essay in First Person by
>> Richard P. Gabriel & Ron Goldman
>>
>> <http://www.dreamsongs.com/MobSoftware.html>
> Read this - everyone, now. It is important. You may not agree, and that
> is fine, but read it and think about the issues.

    After reading that essay (thanks, Tim, for urging me to read, and Dan
for posting the URL), I decided to call it 'MobVM' with the hope that
hundreds instead of a few will be able to contribute to the Squeak VM.

    Currently there are 34 plugins and one Squeak.exe (and Squeak.ini !). If
you are curious, please have a look at the attached file 'MobSqueak.list'.


> >    1/- Is it appropriate to discuss about the 'MobVM' now or
> > should I wait.
>
> Dan Ingalls created this 'super-topic' on August 15th. So he
> should decide on this. From my part I would suggest
> to wait until a first release of [Modules] is underway.
>

    Maybe so. From what posted in the [Modules], I can imagine that the
modularization process would drastically change Squeak.

> >  2/- Is it approriate to do so within the [Modules] tag or should it
> > be elsewhere ?
>
> The issue you bring up is based upon but different to the modules issue.
> It is about the delivery/deployment process. [Deployment] could be a
> good tag for this.

    I don't know if this is just a deployment issue. What makes 'MobVM' a
*potential* single file Squeak is that the micro kernel, Squeak.exe, is
'http' and 'ftp' enabled and it can load any dll (shared objects).

    A command line like 'Squeak -i
http://www.squeak.org/ModSqueak/windows/3.2/config.ini' would invoke the
micro kernel to load a configuration file to find out where it should look
for the plugins and repository for the Squeak modules to be used to build an
image...

    Cheers,

    PhiHo

----- Original Message -----
From: "Hannes Hirzel" <hirzel at spw.unizh.ch>
To: <squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
Sent: Monday, August 20, 2001 3:58 AM
Subject: Re: [Modules] Introducing MobVM


> Hi PhiHo
>
>
> you wrote:
>
> [snip]
> >OTOH,  I also like the idea of 1 file install Squeak. This is truly
> >1 file, not a zip, tar or self extract archive of any sort. It is
> >truly one Windows executable, Squeak.exe, the 'MobVM'.
>
> What do you mean by 'Mob'? The general semantic association with 'mob'
> is misleading or if intended not fair in this context.
>
> I like the idea of having a one file installation process as well.
>
> Anyhow the installation process for a user at the moment basically
> means just to copy a subdirectory on Windows and Mac with 4 files in
> it (sometimes with minor glitches).
>
>
>
>
> >I have a couple of questions to the list (especially the creator of
> >the [Modules] tag) :
>
> >    1/- Is it appropriate to discuss about the 'MobVM' now or
> > should I wait.
>
> Dan Ingalls created this 'super-topic' on August 15th. So he
> should decide on this. From my part I would suggest
> to wait until a first release of [Modules] is underway.
>
>
> >  2/- Is it approriate to do so within the [Modules] tag or should it
> > be elsewhere ?
>
> The issue you bring up is based upon but different to the modules issue.
> It is about the delivery/deployment process. [Deployment] could be a
> good tag for this.
>
> See
> http://minnow.cc.gatech.edu/squeak/1962
>
>
> Cheers
> Hannes Hirzel
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: MobSqueak.list
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 2081 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20010820/1c8f79aa/MobSqueak.obj