> > Surprise!  Another newbie arrives to inform us that Squeak is 
> deficient
> > because it doesn't look like Windows.
>
> Surprise!  Another 'expert' thinking that the only true is the own one!

Nowhere did I suggest that.  I simply observe that your observations are 
commonly seen and often discussed here.

> > The archives are replete with
> > these arguments, which have been discussed substantively again and
> > again.
>
> The list is replete with a lot of time wasted in 'expert' discussion.

You miss the point.  My observation is that you offered nothing new to 
this discussion.

> If we found the same threads in the list again and again, one think is 
> sure: "Something is not closed"

If you say so.

> > Bottom line: don't like it, fix it.
>
> The is half-true... There are a lot of work that is lost because is 
> never included in the 'official' release.  Not only GUI work.  So the 
> really nice phrase "fix it", now means "fix it, keep it working with 
> all the releases, and if you are lucky, the change will be included in 
> official release"

As noted, this "we don't look like Windows" angst has been expressed by 
newbies, yet nobody for years has bothered to pick it up as a worthwhile 
project.  This suggests that the open source economy here does not share 
your priorities.  Squeak is most certainly amenable to what you 
describe.  If you think it important, and the general consensus of 
contributors to be wrong, by all means go ahead and do it yourself.  If 
you want others to spend their time doing it for you, you should offer 
more persuasive arguments than the "same old story," which has been for 
the most part rejected.

> > Many have implemented
> > various forms of "work-alike"-ism in the past -- including direct GUI
> > access, and interestingly enough, nobody really used them -- there
> > simply wasn't the need and demand for it that the newbies anticipated.
>
> I agree, but there are a *lot* of other type of work (and some very 
> good) that is not used too... So, you can said: "If it's not used, it's 
> bad" ? or (using the reverse) "Java and VB are great because they are 
> very used!"

I am suggesting that the parade of horribles you propose as a 
consequence of Squeak's "failure" to emulate Windows never happened, and 
the virtues of providing such services (which existed in the past, but 
has been discarded) never generated the benefits you propose.  In other 
words, notwithstanding your arguments, all evidence is to the contrary.

> > The projects ultimately laid fallow after completion and dropped into
> > the bit bucket.
>
> There are a lot of projects (not only GUI) dropped, and some very good!

So, if you deem them wonderful, pick them up and run with them.  Perhaps 
you will eventually convince someone else who shares your views to join 
in.

> [snip]
> > For the record, I don't find Squeak all that idiosyncratic.  And 
> Squeak
> > hasn't had trouble finding excellent contributors either.
>
> And, by now, has no problem losing excellent contributors.

Does it really?  And who are they?

> > In short, I
> > see no compelling need to make the changes suggested.  But here's the
> > neat thing -- for those that do, Squeak lets you build it.  Instead of
> > arguing about it, just do it.
>
> You are considering only one part of the reality... I know a lot of 
> excellent contributor that get tired trying to contribute with Squeak.

Ipse dixit, you must be right.  If I say that I am unpersuaded by the 
lack of evidence that the absence of windows emulation is the cause 
(since Squeak at one time had it), perhaps you will provide us with 
evidence to the contrary?

> > Otherwise, review the archives and learn
> > why nobody really is interested in doing what Karl and a zillion 
> others
> > before him suggest.
>
> I think that you must review the list too.

Care to cite a few useful quotes you find impressive, or are you merely 
going to continue to engage in non-productive gainsay?