On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 1:29 AM, Michael van der Gulik <mikevdg at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Sure, it /could/ be used for Squeak. In reality, it will never become part
> of Squeak because the community would be shifting paradigms without a clutch
> and would probably disintegrate into chaos. The infighting would be
> terrible. There might be blood. There would be so much flaming that you
> could cook eggs on your mail client.

:)

> It would be easier and less stress to wait for SecureSqueak to be usable,
> and use that as a base for any Namespaced projects you want.

Yea, but that's the thing: I don't plan to use SecureSqueak.

Thanks for taking the time to explain it.  Who knows, perhaps someone
will do the work you mentioned to make a version of the image on your
namespaces to try out.