Hi Klaus!
"Klaus D. Witzel" klaus.witzel@cobss.com wrote:
Hi Goran,
on Mon, 30 Oct 2006 00:13:09 +0100, you wrote:
Hi Klaus! "Klaus D. Witzel" klaus.witzel@cobss.com 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, and even using capital letters - when in fact you are the one that got it wrong. Which is fine of course - we all make mistakes, but why pushing it so hard? For example you write "So how come you still question it?" etc, no - I don't "question" it. 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).
Perhaps I am misunderstanding your choice of words and tone, so ok, fine.
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, so no - I am definitely not part of any "conspiracy" against Pavel - though I sincerely doubt there is such a thing. :)
But the point remains - we are discussing the *separation* between Morphic and eToys. Pavel has made Morphic+eToys unloadable/reloadable - but that is a totally different story IMHO, albeit an interesting one.
Curious.
Hopefully ;-)
regards, Göran
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. 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. But I agree - if it can be made a loadable package I am all with ya.
/Klaus
regards, Göran