Killer Application (was: Squeak Foundation)

Andrew C. Greenberg werdna at mucow.com
Sun Jun 9 22:51:38 UTC 2002


 > 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 proposed here 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 also proposed here.  In 
other words, notwithstanding the arguments made in this thread--all 
without more than "because I said so" support, 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.  This would be a benefit to the community if you are right, and 
nothing would please me more.

[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.

Reasoning by argumentum ipse dixit?  In fact, I am not aware of anyone 
who has abandoned Squeak for the reasons you suggested.  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 meaningful evidence to the contrary?  If the 
suggestion is that people abandon from time to time an open source 
project because others failed to implement features they crave, this is 
true of EVERY such project (commercial projects too, by the way).  If 
so, so what?

The economics of free software is quite different than many projects -- 
Squeak is what it is because its creators and contributors so envisioned 
it to be that way.  New contributors make changes all the time, some of 
which are incorporated into the core, some of which are maintained as 
"ever-available" goodies, and some of which are ignored or abandoned.  
The new module repository system dramatically improves opportunities for 
individuals who want more visibility with "minority" projects, and this 
is (IMHO) a good thing.  But the bottom line is this -- if something is 
worthwhile to its community, the community will make it so.

The virtues of windoze compatibility has been touted frequently, and 
discounted as unimportant by the community.  Darwin will decide its fate 
(as it will decide Squeak's fate as well).  So far, Squeak is doing 
fine, and Squeak windows emulation is not.  This can change, and time 
will tell.  But the bottom line stays the same: if you deem it 
important, make it so.  Otherwise, please don't just rehash the same old 
doggerel.

 > 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.

Why?  Have I missed something?  Do you doubt that this subject has been 
discussed ad nauseum here before?  If I am mistaken, would you care to 
cite a few useful quotes you find impressive, or are you going to 
continue to engage in mere and non-productive gainsay?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 6014 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20020609/f1845e71/attachment.bin


More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list