ok I understand :)

>
>>> For those of us who care about such things, I think there's 
>>> potentially a very nice model there for commercial use of Squeak: 
>>> develop web apps on OS X using a native UI environment, and then 
>>> deploy headless on linux or any other platform you care for.
>>
>> I try to understand what you imply :).
>> You mean that some people would be interested to have an environment 
>> on mac OS X that looks like a mac application and not squeak :) and 
>> that they would deploy applications I imagine with Seaside
>> running on other platforms.
>
> Right - it wouldn't look like Squeak in that it wouldn't look like 
> Morphic, although it would still be Squeak in every other respect.  It 
> would be useless as an educational or simulation environment, but 
> would be great for writing network code.
>
>>  Do I imply correctly that this would be targeted at non squeakers?
>
> I'd rather say, would expand the group of potential Squeakers.  Many 
> Smalltalkers are unwilling to use Squeak because they don't like 
> Morphic.  It's also a hard sell in corporate environments, whereas 
> VisualWorks and Dolphin are easier - not *just* because of UI, but 
> it's a factor.  This is silly and shortsighted of them, but it doesn't 
> help matters to tell them so.
>
> This isn't about making Squeak a good platform for developing native 
> UI desktop apps - that's a huge amount of work, which I'm happy to 
> leave to Ambrai and Dolphin.  It's certainly not about doing native UI 
> portably.  It's just about putting together enough native development 
> tools so that developers on some platforms (or even just one) get an 
> improved look and feel for browsers, inspectors, debuggers, etc, with 
> Morphic as a fallback for anything else.
>
> Avi
>
>
>