>> So you consider something like 3D support not to be infrastructure. 
>> That's a very interesting point of view; totally unlike to my own.
>
> Infrastructure in the sense: Things needed for basic developing and 
> loading other packages. For doing development I do not need 3d support
> in fact.

Yes. You define the ultimate reason for Squeak's being as "basic 
development". I don't.

> There seems to be a problem with 3dBalloon and Wonderland (packaging). 
> What is it actually? A pointer to a problem description?

Just load the package and try to repackage it again (B3DPackageBuilder 
buildStandardPackage). This used to work just fine, like the previous 
version and the version before that (for some reason every Squeak version 
breaks the PackageInfo mechanism in new and unforeseen ways and I'm really 
tired about it).

>> or any single source-code management
>> system. To me, programming is a particular use of the system not its 
>> whole purpose for beinG - that purpose is to be an environment for
>> encountering dynamic media (which may or may not include programming 
>> activities).
>
> We are speaking of the base image here and not of the full image.

Precisely my point. Our definition of what is considered "basic" (e.g., what 
is fundamentally necessary to run Squeak; what is "infrastructure") is so 
different... For me a Squeak without Graphics, Sound and 3D is totally 
unthinkable. What we call now the basic image is a neutered down version of 
Squeak that is almost not worth looking at. The full image has strictly an 
alibi function (notice how all of the discussions center exclusively around 
the basic image). Oh well. Time to draw the consequences I guess.

Cheers,
  - Andreas