----- Original Message -----
From: "Alan Kay" <Alan.Kay at squeakland.org>

> Gary --
>
> It only allows existing OSs to keep running to "be nice". It just
> seemed that running like an app would be a good transitional and
> ecological stategy.

I think its good idea to piggy back and to be able to just copy and paste a
new system onto a desktop without all the integration.

You should know though that Squeak has run on a
> number of platforms (such as some bare chips) without any other code
> (and this is how it ran at Xerox PARC and when it first came out into
> the world in the early 80s). There are only a few things that would
> need to be done (main thing is probably to put more primitive
> Internet stuff into the kernel) to make this the default -- and I
> think I have heard of some folks on the list who are doing just this.

Yes, I know about that. I'd like that too for multi-boot. Device drivers
were the main thing last time I looked.

>
> However, I'm not an exclusivist. I think people should be able to run
> anything they need side by side and interoperably on their computers
> regardless of where they came from. That was one of the main points
> behind my particular conception of OOP (and how it would
> isomorphically relate to the ARPAnet) back in the 60s.

I like that idea as well, versatility.

Regards,
Gary

> Cheers,
>
> Alan
>
> ------
>
>
>
> At 3:37 PM +0100 10/9/01, Gary McGovern wrote:
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "John Hinsley" <jhinsley at telinco.co.uk>
> >
> >>  If you're saying "I can't afford to stay on line long enough to play
> >>  with the Squeakland stuff", I know that feeling. But don't forget that
> >>  you can "save project to file" through the plug-in just as you can
> >>  through your "real" Squeak. You can then load it into Squeak and play
to
> >>  your heart's content offline. I'm damned if I can remember where the
> >>  plugin puts those files in Windows, though.
> >
> >Well thank you John, that could be the missing thing I was thinking of.
If
> >that works how I imagine then that would be almost perfect. My apologies
to
> >Alan Kay, I may see eye to eye now.
> >
> >I was never talking about dlls and registry stuff, because I never
> >programmed that way before Squeak, mostly I did offline Java applet type
> >programs.
> >
> >Now its a matter of how tidy and simple offline projects are. Stephen
Pair
> >needn't take up my offer.
> >
> >>Ken Kahn wrote:
> >>But the bigger issue is to whether to build upon an >existing
environment
> >or build one from scratch.
> >
> >But Squeak piggy backs on OSes so is an environment built from scratch
and
> >built upon an existing environment.
> >
> >No flames please.
> >
> >Regards,
> >Gary
> >
> >
> >>  //snipped//
> >>  >
> >>  > I'm not trying to convert you here, but I can't think of anything
> >simpler
> >>  > than double clicking on an icon except single clicking on one. But
who
> >am I
> >>  > to say.
> >>
> >>  I'm no longer sure of the context of this, but if it's simply to run
> >>  Squeak, I think we've done it to death here! Of course, the drag file
> >>  onto icon stuff is natural to Mac (and Kde) users.
> >>
> >>  Cheers
> >>
> >>  John
> >>
> >>  --
> >>  If you don't care about your data, like file systems which
automagically
> >>  destroy themselves and have money to burn on 3rd party tools to keep
> >>  your
> >>  system staggering on, Microsoft (tm) have the Operating System for
you.
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>
> --
>
>
>