In article <1567.212.117.193.218.1052209401.squirrel at www.consultar.com> you write:
>Hi,
>
>I think we're really near to find *the* source of all these discussion we
>have periodically since SqC leaves Disney.
>
>What we want with Squeak? Clearly there are 2 groups:
>
>  - The "Media-Squeakers" (in Andreas's words)
>  - The "Traditional-Squeaker" (in my words)
>
>I'll try to explain creating radicalized descriptions of these groups:

[...]

>In the SqC age the Media-Group was in charge and Squeak has excellent
>multimedia capabilities and absolute no support for "traditional"
>development.   In the Guides-Age these goals, imho, are not so clear.

Forgive me if I've misunderstood your post, but it looks to me like
you're saying that we should be focussed on doing one or the other.  I
think that's absolutely the worst thing we could do.

These goals don't cancel each other out.  Making Squeak a better
multimedia platform, for example, doesn't make it a worse development
platform or vice versa.  

In fact, I'd say the converse is true.  Most of the features added by
one group are also useful to the other and as a whole, we increase the
usefulness of the system. The more useful it is, the more people will
use it.  The more users there are, the more contributors there are and
the better it gets at achieving everyone's goals.

Right now, Squeak is used for web applications, teaching, PDAs,
embedded systems, scientific computation and PC application
development.  It runs in a web browser, on bare metal or on a
workstation and can use the existing operating system or get by with
none at all.

Which is, I think, a pretty good start.  Now all we need is a killer
app or three.


                              --Chris


-- 
Chris Reuter                           http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/~cgreuter
"Many people's protestations to the contrary, the 'I' in 'RAID' does not
 actually mean 'biggest, baddest, shiniest, most expensive hardware 
 available'."              --Dave Brown