On Fri, 09 May 2008 08:30:33 +0200, Stef 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.

Aren't you lamenting here about packaging of distros?

> 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
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>