Hi Andreas!

"Andreas Raab" <andreas.raab at gmx.de> wrote:
> Hi Goran,
> 
> > Yes there is, as in that I *do* think lots of Squeak projects are being
> > run in a non-open-source fashion. And I would like us to get more open.
> > I stand by that position. And what do you know - it may very well turn
> > out that when time goes by, the open projects are the ones still
> > standing. Just look at Debian.
> 
> Oh, I don't know. I think there is a significant number of projects which 
> wouldn't pass your own definition of "openness"...

Not sure what you mean, but that is what I said. :) I know that I keep
bitching about openness and all that. Can't help it. Perhaps this is
related to the fact that I am in this community all by "myself" and you
guys are working on company paid projects. Different perspectives I
suppose.

> >> Heh. Exactly. Read my message as a search for collaborators.
> >> Together we may even have a chance to master the process of
> >> getting approved into the image.
> >
> > You know - I really like how this sounds. But I must still ask - what
> > will Tweak need more?
> 
> Huh? I don't understand the question (and the form in which it is asked). 
> Are we doing due diligence here? :) How would I know what Tweak will need 
> more given that there isn't even a 1.0 yet...

I should have written "what does Tweak need more?" As in what you know
*today* it needs or you know it will need. I just want a grip on how
"hard" it would be to have the "official Squeak" move more towards Tweak
- regardless of the current abstraction discussion.

> > The Islands stuff (which of course sounds nice too)? This would be
> > interesting to hear about.
> 
> I'll tell you as soon as I find out. Right now I'm still in the midst of 
> getting that part of the architecture right.

*You* are in the midst of getting that right? Surely you mean "the open
Tweak project" is? ;) (I couldn't help myself. Forgive me! It was
totally tongue in cheek. A beer on me next time we meet? :) )

> Cheers,
>   - Andreas

regards, Göran