Serious Squeak (other "survey")
Ron at USMedRec.com
Mon Oct 16 15:00:04 UTC 2006
VW supports multiple UI looks; I think that is a perfectly reasonable
solution. I've been fighting with what to do with look if I wanted to use
Squeak for a long time now. I started with Morphic and threw that out, I
went to wxSqueak and stuck with it for a while but then got worried about
the black boxness of it all and the seemingly lack of support by the
community to embrace it and move it forward. I then decided that Seaside
might be my solution, squeak as a local server and seaside for UI. So right
now I'm using Squeak-Seaside-Glorp-PostgreSQL. I have to say it's pretty
I miss the functionality of VW, and believe that having a UI builder (and
multiple UI looks) would really help move squeak forward in the open source
business solutions area, even if that is not what Squeak was originally
If anyone says that the UI is fine for business development I disagree.
Although it is very cool for games, research, and toys!
I would agree that business development (not windows development but
business development) may only be 10% of the community but I suggest that we
should consider if that is a limiting factor instead of a virtue.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: squeak-dev-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org [mailto:squeak-dev-
> bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org] On Behalf Of Bill Schwab
> Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2006 10:43 AM
> To: squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> Subject: Re: Serious Squeak (other "survey")
> ... the "mainstream" cannot necessarily cater to every subgroup. In
> Jim's case it was pretty clear that this is work that will be
> interesting for a particular subgroup of the community - people who need
> 100% Windows looking apps. Jim did a *great* job at this but the simple
> fact of the matter is that Squeak community is roughly 30/30/30 between
> Windows, Mac, Unix and only a subset of the 30% windows users really
> wants Windows looking apps. Meaning that Zurgle might be interesting for
> (probably less than) 10% of the overall users of Squeak. Personally, I
> don't see how Jim could have been treated "less horribly" other than the
> people who care about the native looking stuff to pick it up and help
> him. That he didn't get much support -to me- is a clear sign that the
> percentage of people who want Windows look is a lot less than 10%.
> An alternate approach would be to ask for a streamlined Zurgle that
> didn't need the external files, was better than the base image, and
> could be turned into the full Zurgle for those who wanted it. I said
> more about this in my response to Edgar.
> BTW, I totally understand that this is a circular argument. Squeak is
> cross-platform which means that a Windows look will never become
> "standard" which means Squeak will not attract Windows programmers etc.
> But that's just what Squeak is, we made it that way. And of course we
> could change it, but then I wouldn't use it.
> With respect, you are taking an overly narrow view. Squeak can provide
> multiple policies to serve a wide range of masters. I must also
> disagree tha the Windows look is crucial to snaring Windows users. Feel
> is another matter, and Squeak's feel leaves a lot to be desired. It can
> also be fixed. You might take a look at my MouseOverMadness change set
> on Mantis as a small down payment.
> > Please note that I am very comfortable with folks like Andreas having
> > far more influence than newcomers. I also do not believe there is a
> > conscious effort to exclude new ideas. However, there appears to be no
> > need to review and close submissions, so they get ignored vs. rejected
> > with an explanation. I suspect that many things that have been ignored
> > would be much harder to actively reject with a reason.
> I don't think so. I think you're getting confused by the absence of any
> visible policy for inclusion into the image. It is hard to guess from
> the grab-bags of stuff that get included why exactly those things ended
> up in the image and why not others. Personally, I feel that about the
> *only* thing that had a right to get into the image in the last three
> Squeak versions was the m17n support. Everything else should have been
> loadable via SqueakMap. And (again personally speaking) I would have had
> no problem to actively reject all these other things merely based on the
> fact that they're not critical and that they should prove their weight
> in package form after which someone might bring forward an argument why
> the inclusion is critical.
> I stand by the glass ceiling and the harm it does by discouraging
> would-be contributors. Otherwise, I see what you are saying, **IF**
> there is ultimately a way for the packages to get included. Absent
> that, SqueakMap will turn into a junk yard of conflicting packages and
> lost opporunities. Squeak needs some configuration management, and
> inclusion critieria must be wider than "non-critical need not apply."
> Put another way, who decides what is critical? Critical to what end?
> As an example, past tense is arguably appropriate for Zurgle, which is a
> shame. I agree that it is/was too much, but fault the configuration
> management process (or lack thereof) for failing to negotiate a mutually
> agreeable solution that could have been with us for years now, not in
> the way of the hard core Squeaker, and serving the needs of those
> burdened with demanding customers or other constraints.
> Wilhelm K. Schwab, Ph.D.
> University of Florida
> Department of Anesthesiology
> PO Box 100254
> Gainesville, FL 32610-0254
> Email: bills at anest4.anest.ufl.edu
> Tel: (352) 846-1285
> FAX: (352) 392-7029
More information about the Squeak-dev