Squeak-e

squeak-e@lists.squeakfoundation.org

54 discussions

What is E and squeak-e?
by shane＠shaneroberts.com 01 Feb '03

01 Feb '03

I am interested in new operating system technologies and new approaches to software systems. I have been looking at Forth, Plan9, Java, Python, Inferno, Hurd, and other systems. Now I am reviewing Squeak and Smalltalk. I joined the Squeak-E list because I saw a mention of capabilities as a security approach for Squeak or Smalltalk. Can someone give me a little background on how this list appeared and what the topic is? Thanks, Shane email: shane(a)shaneroberts.com

2 5

Market economies
by Robert Withers 01 Feb '03

01 Feb '03

folks, I have an outrageous idea. I'm wondering what you think of it. The real value of squeak is the community. Since we are considering the possibilities of opening a hole can of worms, here, why don't we turn it up a notch. Let's form a corporation and issue preferred stock to a bunch of people. I am thinking the entire squeak and E communities should own stock. We'll want to distribute it commensurate to 'contribution' somehow, but there is really no fair way, is there? So we'll have a vote. And whatever the results, we'll abide by them. I don't know how the vote will work, but maybe each person has 100 shares to distribute and they distribute them to specific people or organizations. Whatever they want to do with it, they can. Perhaps it would be easier to just decide amongst ourselves, I don't know. Then we build a system that can reliable trade that stock, with security. then we look for ways to inject real money into the system. the only way for the stock to ever be worth money is if we build the system to support it the code we write, will be open-source, under our open source license. We could give Apple some of the stock to buy their license from them. :) the value will be in the system we build with the code, not the code itself. so? is it crazy enough to work? It's like an experiment. Do you want to try it, just for the hell of it? It might be possible to get funding to create such a system and track it's growth and evolution. regards, rob

2 2

Re: [e-lang] Re: Comments on Lex's "Object as Capabilities in Squeak"
by Robert Withers 01 Feb '03

01 Feb '03

On Friday, January 31, 2003, at 05:00 AM, Lex Spoon wrote: > Robert Withers <rwithers12(a)attbi.com> wrote: > >> How would it be different? Where would it hurt? I can imagine that >> it >> would be a beautiful engine, asynchronously sending messages and >> making >> sure things synchronize later. Events from the external system would >> just be another message send into the image. You wouldn't need an >> idle >> loop. You could schedule the message sends based on cost feedback. I >> don't have as good a feel for what SafeSqueak would feel like, though. >> >> Well, it wouldn't take a community commitment, of course, but it would >> require some core group of enthusiasts. I think they are out there. >> :-) > > > SafeSqueak would also demonstrate to the Smalltalk community that such > a > wonderful way to do in-language security is available. Honestly, one > reason I got into this is that it drives me crazy whenever someone says > "we need security, so lets add passwords" or "we need security, so lets > start using cryptographic signatures". If I start telling them about > capabilities, they currently just say "that's only theore. It's > spinning my head, and I already understand and can use these other > methods, anyway. Security = passwords. nya nya nya i can't here you". A perfect application of revoking the audible capability to the poor little non-squeaklet. Feed the annoyance some bytecodes and perhaps he'll pipe down. Java, JMS, J2EE, JTS, XML, XTS, XSL, SOAP, RMI, CLR, ML, Ocaml... whatever. If there's no market for secure Smalltalk, so we just have to create our own. > > Yarg!! yeah, Lex. Let it be known. > If we start saying "Well, SafeSmalltalk does it this way", and > even better "SafeSmalltalk automatically prevents the security hole you > just got in your Java program", then these discussions will go a lot > more nicely. such perfect restrained sarcasm and disdain for the opponent. I love it! :) > Further, the world will start getting populated with more > secure software. The most aggravating part of the computing industry > is > that people keep doing stupid things out of ignorance. There's little > respect far what has been studied already. One of the chief designers > actually stood up at OOPSLA in front of 1000+ people a few years ago > and > said he didn't see much point to having closures in his language. Which nincompoop was that? Squeakers are the smartest group of people I have ever had the pleasure of working with. Come join the new list and let's see what ferments, or rather foments. Thanks for your fantastic posts these past few days. I have really enjoyed reading them. cheers, rob ps. Let's transition the discussion to squeak-e. We should leave the other 900 squeakers alone, at this point ;-)

1 0

woohoo! Moving forward with some serious computer science
by Withers, Robert 31 Jan '03

31 Jan '03

Hey Cees. Thank you for setting us up. :-) rob

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

Squeak-e