Removing Etoys, Morphic and other friends

goran at krampe.se goran at krampe.se
Mon Oct 30 12:24:40 UTC 2006


Hi Klaus!

"Klaus D. Witzel" <klaus.witzel at cobss.com> wrote:
> Hi Goran,
> 
> on Mon, 30 Oct 2006 00:13:09 +0100, you wrote:
> > Hi Klaus!
> > "Klaus D. Witzel" <klaus.witzel at cobss.com> wrote:
> >> Hi Goran,
> >> on Wed, 25 Oct 2006 14:49:09 +0200, you wrote:
> >> > Hi!
> >> >
> >> > Ok, let's back up a bit. If I got it right it is all about deciding on
> >> > one of these three ways forward:
> >> ...
> >> >
> >> > 3. Make eToys reloadable (and throw it out), of course, this is the
> >> > "best" route. But who will do it? And if noone steps up to do it, is  
> >> it
> >> > okay to pick #2 above instead of #1?
> >> ...
> >> > PS. If I am not mistaken Pavel's code does not make eToys reloadable
> >> > with Morphic still being in the image, right? I presume Morphic and
> >> > eToys are intertwined. If I am wrong, then hey - that means #3 is
> >> > already done and we can all just go for it.
> >>
> >> Well, *this* part of the debate made me "tout" the "conspiracy" question
> >> in this thread :|
> >>
> >> Did you read Pavel's response to this thread. What he says there is, by
> >> the time of this writing, (computer-) ages long known to the community:
> >> removable and reloadable Etoys, etc, IN THE ACTUAL 3.9 IMAGE (excuse me
> >> for the emphasis).
> >>
> >> So, how come you still question it? What is it that I don't understand,
> >> what exactly are the unknown requirements (and who does require)?
> >
> > As I know that you now understand my question better (having read the
> > rest of the thread) I still must ask, why the heat?
> 
> I have not seen any heat in this thread. I was just asking my questions  
> (instead of misunderstanding other people's questions and answers) and  
> indeed got the information that enlighted me (and others?).

Well, AFAIK you came onto me quite hard asking if I had indeed read what
Pavel wrote etc, and even using capital letters - when in fact you are
the one that got it wrong. Which is fine of course - we all make
mistakes, but why pushing it so hard? For example you write "So how come
you still question it?" etc, no - I don't "question" it. It is just not
relevant in this discussion (for the readers not following this in
detail: since Pavel indeed has not separated eToys from Morphic, which
is the subject at hand).

Perhaps I am misunderstanding your choice of words and tone, so ok,
fine.

> > And what
> > "conspiracy" are you talking about?
> 
> Well, Pavel's work seems to be not interesting enough for people (like  
> you?) to put their hands on and judge themselves. Instead [and (ab-)using  
> your PS remarks] it, the work, is questioned. No clear picture. What  
> would/could be the reason for a public such a discouragement? If you  
> understand tit-for-tat, that's why I put the "conspiracy" word in this  
> thread.

Sigh. I am *not* discouraging the work of Pavel - I am actually very
impressed! And btw, I have been advocating Pavel's work in other
contexts etc, so no - I am definitely not part of any "conspiracy"
against Pavel - though I sincerely doubt there is such a thing. :)

But the point remains - we are discussing the *separation* between
Morphic and eToys. Pavel has made Morphic+eToys unloadable/reloadable -
but that is a totally different story IMHO, albeit an interesting one.

> > Curious.
> 
> Hopefully ;-)
> 
> > regards, Göran
> >
> > PS. And as for the flaps that you wonder why I want to keep - many
> > Squeakers use the flaps in various ways. Some probably use the Tools
> > flap for example, I have also seen people embed a Workspace in a flap in
> > order to have it handily available. In short - they are useful for other
> > things than making eToys.
> 
> But not for every application. So flaps are an option at best and when  
> making things unloadable/reloadable I'd vote for flaps becoming an  
> optional package.

I agree in theory, but as for the actual practicality I leave that to
Juan.
When arguing for flaps I was more thinking along the lines of what kind
of Morphic experience we would like to have in the "default" dev image -
and I can imagine we want flaps to be in there. But I agree - if it can
be made a loadable package I am all with ya.
 
> /Klaus

regards, Göran



More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list