I am standing by Juan's proposal, do you? (was Re: Removing Etoys, Morphic and other friends)

Markus Gaelli gaelli at emergent.de
Tue Oct 31 14:59:04 UTC 2006

Hi Goran,

I don't. I am with Guy, Jecel, Klaus and probably many others.

On Oct 31, 2006, at 1:15 PM, goran at krampe.se wrote:

> Hi!
> "Laurence Rozier" <laurence.rozier at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I don't support what Juan's proposal as stated. I'd like to hear  
>> why you,
>> Juan or anyone else don't agree with what Jecel/Guy proposed
> Ok, let me quote so that you don't need to skip back, Jecel wrote:
>> This is a plan that is practical and which I fully support: if we can
>> unload eToys but not load it back, then let's just include eToys  
>> in the
>> full image that we distribute and allow everyone the one way  
>> option of
>> removing it. I don't mind at all eliminating the Flash logo, the  
>> welcome
>> windows and other stuff every time I begin working with a newly
>> downloaded image. The fact that I can't get any of these easily  
>> back if
>> I want has never been a problem since I could just start over from a
>> clean image.
>> Sure, a reloadable eToys would be even better but I doubt it will
>> happen.


> My problem with that proposal is that it means that Morphic is  
> actually
> not cleaned up - it would just persist as it is today.

Yes, but as long as we don't have sth. cleaned up, I don't see the  
point in removing the part of Squeak which will be actually the  
killer application of Squeak - being installed on millions of  
machines on the OLPC.
Several others - newbies and old-time squeakers - have mentioned  
their interest in Etoys being included in the main squeak-dev. If  
people/ kids using the OLPC or Squeaklanders come to squeak-dev and  
see this essential part removed, they will be puzzled about it and we  
will have difficulties to explain the issue to them.

I also strongly support the view of Ron Teitelbaum who thinks  
removing Etoys to be a fork. Marcus was able to rip of some  
changesets for speeding up Squeak 3.9 for inclusion in the olpc- 
version, I doubt that these synergetic effects will become easier in  
the future by removing Etoys.

Show us an improved version of Etoys which can substitute the current  
one and I am all for _replacing_ the current with a new, tidier, and  
_faster_ one than we currently have.
Let the "gothic" people build their streamlined minimal cathedrals as  
easy as possible, but don't forget us barrock, playfull ones, until  
we come up with something truly modern.

Concerning Juan's point

>>> Removing eToys implies deleting "eToys awareness" in lots of  
>>> methods that would not be deleted. Even several instance  
>>> variables as in MorphExtension. I don't know how to offer the  
>>> user the option for removing it, let alone keep that option  
>>> properly maintained in future Squeak versions.

I think, that overwriting would be allowed in the removal process.
Maintaining Squeak _with_ some form of Etoys is easier and more  
important than maintaining it without them. And as Bert stated,  
making Etoys reloadable is a hard if not impossible task.



More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list