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

Jecel Assumpcao Jr jecel at merlintec.com
Tue Oct 31 17:27:13 UTC 2006

Hernan Tylim wrote on Tue, 31 Oct 2006 12:59:14 -0300
> I just wanted to state something that I think most of all proponents of keeping
> etoys are missing. Sorry in advance if its not the case or this statement of mine
> sound a little harsh. (please blame my lack of a better english, and time to write
> it better) 
> I kept reading and reading this thread and the other ones related to it, and
> everybody who asked to keep etoys on squeak-dev seemed to me that they
> were not aware that the currently etoy image isn't the current squeak-dev.
> If you want to use etoys you need to use the squeakland image. 

Perhaps it would be better to say "it is recommended that you use the
Squeakland image".
> While its true that etoys works on 3.9, remember that the maintainance of
> etoys is done on the squeakland image (which is not even a squeak-dev 3.8
> image, only one based on it)

While it is natural that you have this impression, my own impression is
a bit different (it might be wrong). I see the following options
available to someone wanting to use eToys:

Squeak 3.9
Squeakland (based on 3.8)
SmallLand (based on 3.8)
OLPC (based on the Squeakland one)

This last option is the one that has the latest fixes and enhancements
to eToys but I am not sure that there is no plan to make this stuff
available to the others. My impression is that the current situation is
more due to the urgent deadlines of the OLPC project than to some plan
to fork things.

> So what I don't understand is why everybody insists on  using etoys in squeak-dev
> 3.9, when the people behind etoys don't use, nor maintain, nor can make any kind
> of assurance about etoys in 3.9. 

I looked back at the last couple of month's discussions in this list and
found people speculating what the plans of the Squeakland group are but
not actual details from people in a position to know. So I will avoid
guessing myself and will wait to hear from them.
> In fact I think its contraproducent to keep etoys in this setup. Because we risk that
> anyone wanting to use squeak because of etoys, they might have a bad etoy
> experience because they are using 3.9. I, on the other hand, would always direct
> all the people interested in etoys to an squeakland image instead. 

Having helped people on the #squeak IRC channel who were following some
tutorials about eToys and Kedama I agree this can be a problem. But
telling them to get a Squeakland image is not always a good solution.
> Lastly I would like to ask Ron, Klaus, Jecel, Lex, Marcus, and the other people
> that on this thread said that wanted to keep etoys if they have considered this issue
> and I would like to know what they think. Again. Apologies if my mail didn't sound
> right. I am just curious and no offense was meant to anyone. 

What I want to avoid is a squeak-dev / squeakland fork. If this has
already happened (in a definitive way, temporary forks happen all the
time) then all my arguments are silly and should be ignored.

-- Jecel

More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list