"Laurence Rozier" <laurence.rozier at gmail.com> writes:
> I think this is an important topic to discuss regardless of what position
> one takes. Not discussing it isn't likely to make the issues go away or get
> handled in a manner agreeable to most. Even when there is a unified kernel
> that projects like Croquet, Sophie, Seaside, OLPC et al can chooose to build
> off of, it will still be possible to have variations. While one can choose
> to make a case that there need not be a single kernel, that doesn't address
> the brand issue. What will "Squeak kernel" mean if the one downloaded from
> squeak.org isn't the same as the one downloaded from squeakland.org? Which
> "Squeak kernel" will Croquet, Sophie et al build from?

I agree that the topic.  From afar, I guess that the direction will be
determined by the current board, the current mailing list, and the
folks actively using and contributing to Squeak.

A big question right now is whether Squeakland and OLPC are going to
be a part of it.  I guess Croquet, too, now that you mention it.

I think we should not be blaise when such groups start drifting away.
Our cool guys are leaving and the software engineers are taking over.
I love software engineering, and think Squeak is a great basis for
serious software development, but it would hate that to be all that we
are.  Besides, can't good software engineers come up with a way for
most of these projects to share code?  Isn't that a big part of what
software engineers are supposed to be good at?



> The way I see it, in the more organic, "live" econet Spoon will enable,
> there's no need to have a single kernel - objects can modify behavior in
> whatever ways their creators see fit to allow. 

We are there already.  Such divisions go back at least to Morphic
Wrappers and MathMorphs.



-Lex