Removing Etoys, Morphic and other friends

Klaus D. Witzel klaus.witzel at
Mon Oct 30 10:07:25 UTC 2006

Hi Goran,

on Mon, 30 Oct 2006 00:13:09 +0100, you wrote:
> Hi Klaus!
> "Klaus D. Witzel" <klaus.witzel at> wrote:
>> Hi Goran,
>> on Wed, 25 Oct 2006 14:49:09 +0200, you wrote:
>> > Hi!
>> >
>> > Ok, let's back up a bit. If I got it right it is all about deciding on
>> > one of these three ways forward:
>> ...
>> >
>> > 3. Make eToys reloadable (and throw it out), of course, this is the
>> > "best" route. But who will do it? And if noone steps up to do it, is  
>> it
>> > okay to pick #2 above instead of #1?
>> ...
>> > PS. If I am not mistaken Pavel's code does not make eToys reloadable
>> > with Morphic still being in the image, right? I presume Morphic and
>> > eToys are intertwined. If I am wrong, then hey - that means #3 is
>> > already done and we can all just go for it.
>> Well, *this* part of the debate made me "tout" the "conspiracy" question
>> in this thread :|
>> Did you read Pavel's response to this thread. What he says there is, by
>> the time of this writing, (computer-) ages long known to the community:
>> removable and reloadable Etoys, etc, IN THE ACTUAL 3.9 IMAGE (excuse me
>> for the emphasis).
>> So, how come you still question it? What is it that I don't understand,
>> what exactly are the unknown requirements (and who does require)?
> As I know that you now understand my question better (having read the
> rest of the thread) I still must ask, why the heat?

I have not seen any heat in this thread. I was just asking my questions  
(instead of misunderstanding other people's questions and answers) and  
indeed got the information that enlighted me (and others?).

> And what
> "conspiracy" are you talking about?

Well, Pavel's work seems to be not interesting enough for people (like  
you?) to put their hands on and judge themselves. Instead [and (ab-)using  
your PS remarks] it, the work, is questioned. No clear picture. What  
would/could be the reason for a public such a discouragement? If you  
understand tit-for-tat, that's why I put the "conspiracy" word in this  

> Curious.

Hopefully ;-)

> regards, Göran
> PS. And as for the flaps that you wonder why I want to keep - many
> Squeakers use the flaps in various ways. Some probably use the Tools
> flap for example, I have also seen people embed a Workspace in a flap in
> order to have it handily available. In short - they are useful for other
> things than making eToys.

But not for every application. So flaps are an option at best and when  
making things unloadable/reloadable I'd vote for flaps becoming an  
optional package.


More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list