>From: "Ron Teitelbaum" <Ron at USMedRec.com>
>Reply-To: Ron at USMedRec.com, The general-purpose Squeak developers 
>list<squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
>To: "'The general-purpose Squeak developers 
>list'"<squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
>Subject: RE: Serious Squeak (other "survey")
>Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 11:00:04 -0400
>
>All,
>
>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.
>

I agree that business needs to be a big priority.  After all, it has really 
been business that has driven the successful open source projects (well most 
of them).

But I still maintain that the web is the GUI for business applications.  For 
one thing, how do you deploy a native squeak app anyway?  The way Dolphin 
does it is by stripping out all the un-needed parts, packaging the "non-app 
related but needed" things into DLL's and then turning it into an exe.  But 
as far as I know squeak doesn't have a stripper like that, and I would 
expect it to be years away.

But you can have a seaside app up and doing work for your business in 
literally minutes, depending on what you want to do.  As a matter of fact, I 
would be willing to bet that with the persistancy work Keith has been doing, 
you can go from nothing at all to a functioning Content management system in 
squeak faster then any other system out there.

Not to mention the fact that in my company (and I would expect this of any 
company of size) it is a big deal to roll a desktop application out.  Every 
release has to go through rigerous testing, the Q&A group, possibly an after 
hours deployment, etc. etc.  But a new website I can just put up.  And then 
*everyone* has it.  That is a pretty big advantage.