Hi Goran,
on Mon, 30 Oct 2006 13:24:40 +0100, you wrote:
Hi Klaus! "Klaus D. Witzel" wrote:
Hi Goran, on Mon, 30 Oct 2006 00:13:09 +0100, you wrote:
Hi Klaus! "Klaus D. Witzel" wrote:
Hi Goran, on Wed, 25 Oct 2006 14:49:09 +0200, you wrote:
Hi!
Ok, let's back up a bit. If I got it right it is all about
deciding on
one of these three ways forward:
...
- Make eToys reloadable (and throw it out), of course, this is the
"best" route. But who will do it? And if noone steps up to do it,
is
it
okay to pick #2 above instead of #1?
...
PS. If I am not mistaken Pavel's code does not make eToys
reloadable
with Morphic still being in the image, right? I presume Morphic and eToys are intertwined. If I am wrong, then hey - that means #3 is already done and we can all just go for it.
Well, *this* part of the debate made me "tout" the "conspiracy"
question
in this thread :|
Did you read Pavel's response to this thread. What he says there is,
by
the time of this writing, (computer-) ages long known to the
community:
removable and reloadable Etoys, etc, IN THE ACTUAL 3.9 IMAGE (excuse
me
for the emphasis).
So, how come you still question it? What is it that I don't
understand,
what exactly are the unknown requirements (and who does require)?
As I know that you now understand my question better (having read the rest of the thread) I still must ask, why the heat?
I have not seen any heat in this thread. I was just asking my questions (instead of misunderstanding other people's questions and answers) and indeed got the information that enlighted me (and others?).
Well, AFAIK you came onto me quite hard asking if I had indeed read what Pavel wrote etc
I asked this silly one because it seemed to me that Pavel wrote at the time between: (your message to me) and: (my response to you). This was not meant hard, just a "have you seen it".
and even using capital letters
... for which I excused me in advance. No need to stress this again.
- when in fact you are
the one that got it wrong.
This was nothing about me getting something right or wrong. I started this thread in order to understand. Please point me to what I got wrong in
- http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2006-October/110648.h...
and/or what I got wrong in
- http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2006-October/110707.h...
Which is fine of course - we all make mistakes,
How can I be wrong by asking questions? I do not tolerate you blame me "making mistakes" when I post questions.
but why pushing it so hard?
It is perhaps so that you and I got confused (somehow) on utility of Pavel's work.
For example you write "So how come you still question it?" etc, no - I don't "question" it.
O.K. I respect what you write here in response to my question. Thank you.
It is just not relevant in this discussion (for the readers not following this in detail: since Pavel indeed has not separated eToys from Morphic, which is the subject at hand).
Well, I read the sentence with the "relevance" word as: you're reflecting on yourself. No comment, could possibly cause confusion.
Perhaps I am misunderstanding your choice of words and tone, so ok, fine.
That's quite possible. And it's also possible that I misunderstood your remarks on Pavel's good work.
I want to point out that [part of] my intention was to understand why Pavel's good work would not be relevant, and this question *is* subject in this thread.
And what "conspiracy" are you talking about?
Well, Pavel's work seems to be not interesting enough for people (like you?) to put their hands on and judge themselves. Instead [and (ab-)using your PS remarks] it, the work, is questioned. No clear picture. What would/could be the reason for a public such a discouragement? If you understand tit-for-tat, that's why I put the "conspiracy" word in this thread.
Sigh. I am *not* discouraging the work of Pavel - I am actually very impressed! And btw, I have been advocating Pavel's work in other contexts etc,
Great! Will value your words by the actions that will be seen in the future - no offense intended!
so no - I am definitely not part of any "conspiracy" against Pavel - though I sincerely doubt there is such a thing. :)
O.K. I respect your doubts. (BTW and OT: a "conspiracy" is not a conspiracy.)
But the point remains - we are discussing the *separation* between Morphic and eToys.
This was not so at the beginning of this thread (and so perhaps caused some confusion, between you and me). I agree that *separation* is [part of] the outcome of this thread.
Pavel has made Morphic+eToys unloadable/reloadable - but that is a totally different story IMHO, albeit an interesting one.
I disagree, since I asked for the whatabouts of this story. This is perhaps why you felt I was asking so hard (you and me had different stories). For your convenience, I repeat from my very first message:
quote "I'm neither a proponent nor an opponent of removing Etoys, Morphic, etc. Instead, I'm wondering what this debate might be about ..." unquote.
PS. And as for the flaps that you wonder why I want to keep - many Squeakers use the flaps in various ways. Some probably use the Tools flap for example, I have also seen people embed a Workspace in a flap
in
order to have it handily available. In short - they are useful for
other
things than making eToys.
But not for every application. So flaps are an option at best and when making things unloadable/reloadable I'd vote for flaps becoming an optional package.
I agree in theory, but as for the actual practicality I leave that to Juan.
O.K. let Juan the maker decide what he puts his hands on.
When arguing for flaps I was more thinking along the lines of what kind of Morphic experience we would like to have in the "default" dev image - and I can imagine we want flaps to be in there.
Sure, me too can imagine that the developers want to use flaps.
But I agree - if it can be made a loadable package I am all with ya.
Now *this* was [part of] what this thread was about :)
/Klaus