>> 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.

No, I was not commenting on the look exclusively.
The contents is desynchronised with Squeak.
I agree with avi. The problem is that we are all extremely busy so a  
wiki is the way because we can edit
it and at least making sure that it does not dead.


>> 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.

Exactly! So this is why please go an udpate the new one.
I still think that it would be good to have
     - squeak4fun
     - squeak4edu
     - squeak4business

because the punch lines and the contents could be at the right level  
and much easier to write.

Stef