You are completely paranoid. If you really think everything I write is 
about you, you should see a doctor. Quickly.

Cheers,
   - Andreas

stephane ducasse wrote:
> Hi andreas
> 
> This is really fun to see you saying that when we got problems not 
> having 3D in squeak because some guy decided not to really maintain the 
> old 3D engine and never bother to let Squeak get any new one. But 
> anyway, if the squeak community does not want to take care of the people 
> doing Seaside and other software engineering work (you know making a 
> living out of Squeak) and only care about often half broken or old 
> abstraction (Speech was based on a pretty old algorithm for example), 
> then good luck. In addition we always said that people could work on 
> building an image for kids or people willing to toy with Squeak.
> 
> May be finally you want to attract people to Croquet and this is why it 
> is politically important for you to state that,
> and may be this is important for you that Squeak gets "Fun" in that sad 
> way, because I imagine that lot of people will
> not use FunSqueak for doing Seaside dev.
> 
> But of course we are the bad shitty guys, we take responsibility of 
> having monticello and all the rest.
> Don't reply, it is not necessary, I will not read this thread anymore.  
> this just confirms that we took the right decision with
> Sapphire now called Pharo (from faro ~ phare = lighthouse).
> 
> 
> Stef
> 
> 
> 
> On May 8, 2008, at 11:38 PM, Andreas Raab wrote:
> 
>> Keith Hodges wrote:
>>>> Squeak is not welcoming anymore... first time I met Squeak it was on 
>>>> 3.4 I think, and the overall first impression was great, lots of 
>>>> things to discover and wonder at. these days there is a dull grey 
>>>> background with a few windows opened on technical text, details of 
>>>> last updates... it could not be more different.
>>>>
>>> Thats the whole point of derivative images such as Fun-Squeak or 
>>> Squeak-dev image. Its horses for courses.
>>> Those of us who want to actually use squeak for something in 
>>> particular find unloading packages harder than loading them.
>>> So I support the goal of trimming down the main image (though its 
>>> still a bit fat)
>>
>> Then how come that 3.10 basic is larger than 3.6 full? Where is the 
>> "trimming" in that? Isn't it much more accurate to say that the fun 
>> bits have been replaced with boring bits? A quick comparison between 
>> 3.6 and 3.10 shows that games, speech and 3d are gone, and traits, 
>> monticello and universes have been added (there are probably more but 
>> those are obvious major differences).
>>
>> Cheers,
>>  - Andreas
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
>