Hi Goran,

on Mon, 30 Oct 2006 13:24:40 +0100, you wrote:
> Hi Klaus!
> "Klaus D. Witzel" wrote:
>> Hi Goran,
>> on Mon, 30 Oct 2006 00:13:09 +0100, you wrote:
>> > Hi Klaus!
>> > "Klaus D. Witzel" 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

I asked this silly one because it seemed to me that Pavel wrote at the  
time between: (your message to me) and: (my response to you). This was not  
meant hard, just a "have you seen it".

> and even using capital letters

... for which I excused me in advance. No need to stress this again.

  - when in fact you are
> the one that got it wrong.

This was nothing about me getting something right or wrong. I started this  
thread in order to understand. Please point me to what I got wrong in

-  
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2006-October/110648.html

and/or what I got wrong in

-  
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2006-October/110707.html

> Which is fine of course - we all make
> mistakes,

How can I be wrong by asking questions? I do not tolerate you blame me  
"making mistakes" when I post questions.

> but why pushing it so hard?

It is perhaps so that you and I got confused (somehow) on utility of  
Pavel's work.

> For example you write "So how come
> you still question it?" etc, no - I don't "question" it.

O.K. I respect what you write here in response to my question. Thank you.

> 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).

Well, I read the sentence with the "relevance" word as: you're reflecting  
on yourself. No comment, could possibly cause confusion.

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

That's quite possible. And it's also possible that I misunderstood your  
remarks on Pavel's good work.

I want to point out that [part of] my intention was to understand why  
Pavel's good work would not be relevant, and this question *is* subject in  
this thread.

>> > 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,

Great! Will value your words by the actions that will be seen in the  
future - no offense intended!

> so no - I am definitely not part of any "conspiracy"
> against Pavel - though I sincerely doubt there is such a thing. :)

O.K. I respect your doubts. (BTW and OT: a "conspiracy" is not a  
conspiracy.)

> But the point remains - we are discussing the *separation* between
> Morphic and eToys.

This was not so at the beginning of this thread (and so perhaps caused  
some confusion, between you and me). I agree that *separation* is [part  
of] the outcome of this thread.

> Pavel has made Morphic+eToys unloadable/reloadable -
> but that is a totally different story IMHO, albeit an interesting one.

I disagree, since I asked for the whatabouts of this story. This is  
perhaps why you felt I was asking so hard (you and me had different  
stories). For your convenience, I repeat from my very first message:

quote "I'm neither a proponent nor an opponent of removing Etoys, Morphic,  
etc. Instead, I'm wondering what this debate might be about ..." unquote.

>> > 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.

O.K. let Juan the maker decide what he puts his hands on.

> 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.

Sure, me too can imagine that the developers want to use flaps.

> But I agree - if it can
> be made a loadable package I am all with ya.

Now *this* was [part of] what this thread was about :)

/Klaus