Hi Avi -

> I agree with you in general, but I don't think that (b) isn't fixable  - 
> or at least, I would claim that it currently needs fixing.  Look at  the 
> very first sentence on the current squeak.org: "With the Squeak  
> programming system, we have made some delightful and powerful  
> educational applets. "  For someone coming to Squeak looking to use  it 
> for business, that will be the first sentence and quite possibly  the 
> last they read - not because there's anything wrong with  educational 
> applets (there's everything right with them, in fact),  but because that 
> person will assume that this tool is not aimed at  them and go elsewhere.

I agree. And please understand me correctly - I am not saying that 
Squeak.org doesn't need updating. I'm saying the contrary, I'm saying we 
need up-to-date, compelling content for the new site. But I'm also 
saying that the content that's up on the new site *right now* is not as 
good as what's up on Squeak.org *right now*. And the discussion about 
how "ugly", "crappy" or outright "bad" the current website is seems to 
be exclusively focused on the "childish look" rather than anything 
that's content related.

> For the other half:
> 
>>> Because may be squeak.org is dead anyway.
>>
>> Only once we start ignoring the contents for the looks of the site.
> 
> The contents have been ignored, apparently, for about 5 years: the  
> "Where is Squeak Headed" section claims to be "coming soon" and  offers 
> "Entering 2000" as the latest material.  Anyone would think  that Squeak 
> has been stagnant or abandoned since the days of  superbowl ads for 
> online petfood... we need to fix this if we're  going to have any 
> credibility.

Precisely! *That* is the stuff we need to be looking at and argue about.

Cheers,
   - Andreas