Hi Göran,

> > I guess Josh means the same thing that I mean - a 
> 
> Well, don't make everything so darn black and white!

I was trying to give you an example here which is black and white enough so
that you see what is meant by it.

> Of course we are talking about judgement calls here.
> But you must surely agree with the long term goal of
> partitioning the image into packages with well
> understood interdependencies? I surely hope.

You know that I do.

> We will never get to a partitioned image if people insist on 
> paddling in the other darn direction.

Oh, we will. Perhaps not as quickly. Perhaps not as forcefully. Perhaps
having the time to look a little left and right and pick up a flower along
the way.

> > > And if noone steps forward pursuing the original vision (which
> > > one is that btw? eToys? Dynabook?) then it simply will 
> > > not be pursued!
> > 
> > The flaw in that argumentation is that you assume our 
> > vision would be about computers per se (such as a piece
> > of software or hardware). It is not.

[lots of stuff snipped]

What I tried with the above was explaining to you that all of the things we
pursue are part of a larger context. Your note (quoted above) seemed to
imply that the vision is something that concentrates on a specific computing
artifact (like eToys, or the Dynabook). What you are missing is that all of
these things are merely tools which mean nothing outside of some context -
this is what "the ideas aren't in the computer" means.

[After writing a whole lot more in response I'm deciding to cut it away. All
it most likely would do is to raise another flamewar which I have no
interest in]

Cheers,
  - Andreas