Hi Craig,

>
> Hi Andreas--
>
> > Are you looking into building VMs with minimal footprint too? I'm
> > wondering what the smallest system might be that could run this
> > image...
>
> Yes, exactly. :)  I want to end up with a system that I launch via
> "relief" (the little 25k webpage I wrote that automatically downloads
> and runs a Squeak system when you visit it). I was assuming I'd just use
> PhiHo Hoang's "MobVM" for the initial demos, but I'd like to check out
> what he's done in detail to ensure that it's minimal.
>

    It should be noted that minimality is only a by product of MobVM.

    The true goal is modularity:

            http://minnow.cc.gatech.edu/squeak/2708

    Regarding the size:

            http://minnow.cc.gatech.edu/squeak/2690

< EmphaticallyQuoted>

    Make no mistakes though.

    SmallSqueak is potentially the largest, most capable system 
    to give an answer for The Last Question.

    http://homepage.mac.com/jenkins/Asimov/Stories/Story140.html

<EmphaticallyQuoted/>

> MobVM currently uses 25k and downloads another 389k in order to run
> Alejandro's "3 + 4" snapshot. I think it's swapping in a bunch of
> graphics stuff that isn't stricly necessary, though. 

    For the record, no attempt was made to optimise MobVM
    either for speed or size.

    The mechanism was the main concern. 
    (The policy has been neglected  as well).

> My rough guess is that the total minimal footprint could be about 
> 100k for the snapshot and another 100k for the virtual machine, 
> perhaps smaller on both counts.
>

    Having said all those above. I am looking forward for your
    MinimalSqueak. Let's hope Andreas can chime in.

    Just think of all the experience under his belt after all these in depth
    critical analysis of the Morphic system, "modularing the modules", 
    and SqueakScript.

    Just wondering what has been keeping him from moving Squeak
    forward to the future.

    Cheers,

    PhiHo.