+1

I wonder, what is the opinion of the Squeakland people?

The arguments for keeping etoys in Squeak seem even weaker to me if  
the actual stakeholders do not state "yes, this is important for us  
because we plan to keep our Squeakland fork in sync with future  
Squeak versions". If this is not the case it does not make sense to  
have a non maintained version in the main image (and that is what we  
have now). If there are people willing to remove etoys we should not  
miss the opportunity!

Cheers,
Adrian

On Oct 31, 2006, at 16:59 , Hernan Tylim wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I just wanted to state something that I think most of all  
> proponents of keeping etoys are missing. Sorry in advance if its  
> not the case or this statement of mine sound a little harsh.  
> (please blame my lack of a better english, and time to write it  
> better)
>
> I kept reading and reading this thread and the other ones related  
> to it, and everybody who asked to keep etoys on squeak-dev seemed  
> to me that they were not aware that the currently etoy image isn't  
> the current squeak-dev.  If you want to use etoys you need to use  
> the squeakland image.
>
> While its true that etoys works on 3.9, remember that the  
> maintainance of etoys is done on the squeakland image (which is not  
> even a squeak-dev 3.8 image, only one based on it)
>
> So what I don't understand is why everybody insists on  using etoys  
> in squeak-dev 3.9, when the people behind etoys don't use, nor  
> maintain, nor can make any kind of assurance about etoys in 3.9.
>
> In fact I think its contraproducent to keep etoys in this setup.  
> Because we risk that anyone wanting to use squeak because of etoys,  
> they might have a bad etoy experience because they are using 3.9.  
> I, on the other hand, would always direct all the people interested  
> in etoys to an squeakland image instead.
>
> Lastly I would like to ask Ron, Klaus, Jecel, Lex, Marcus, and the  
> other people that on this thread said that wanted to keep etoys if  
> they have considered this issue and I would like to know what they  
> think. Again. Apologies if my mail didn't sound right. I am just  
> curious and no offense was meant to anyone.
>
> Regards,
> Hernán
>
> On 10/31/06, Ron Teitelbaum <Ron at usmedrec.com> wrote: All,
>
> I stand by the suggestion of either replacing Morphic and Etoys  
> with Tweak
> and Tweaks EToy implementation, since there is significant work  
> going into
> both, or adding a script that removes eToys from the main image upon
> developer request.  If a further development of Morphic is wanted  
> and that
> development requires the removal of eToys from the main image, I  
> support
> that also.  In other words if we want Morphic 3.0 then the  
> developer is
> required to unload eToys and then load Morphic 3.0 into their own  
> image.
>
> I do not support removing eToys from the main image without  
> replacing it
> with Tweak and the new OLPC eToys.
>
> The reason for my position is that I support community bridges  
> which I have
> discussed at length in previous postings.
>
> My suggestion for 3.10 is to work towards consolidating current  
> advancements
> from all platforms, Tweak, eToys, Croquet and OLPC into Squeak's  
> main image.
> This follows the suggestion of finding work that is already  
> completed and
> ready for inclusion into the main image.
>
> A question for Juan, can your Morphic 3.0 advancements be applied  
> to Tweak?
>
> Ron Teitelbaum
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: squeak-dev-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org  
> [mailto:squeak-dev-
> > bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org] On Behalf Of goran at krampe.se
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 3:03 AM
> > To: The general-purpose Squeak developers list
> > Subject: I am standing by Juan's proposal, do you? (was Re: Removing
> > Etoys,Morphic and other friends)
> >
> > Hi all!
> >
> > Since it feels that we are getting more concrete here I decided to
> > rename the subject. Perhaps people join up in the discussion  
> again. :)
> >
> > Juan Vuletich < jvuletich at dc.uba.ar> wrote:
> > > Hi Goran!
> > >
> > > goran at krampe.se escribió:
> > > > Hi Juan and all!
> > > >
> > > > I just want to say I am 100% with you on all this.
> > > >
> > > Thanks. It's nice to know that.
> >
> > Though I am just one of "us" you know. :) But yes, it is nice to  
> feel
> > that people agree - and as I said I am all with you for three major
> > reasons:
> >
> > 1. You are a doer. You have already proved that.
> > 2. You are committed to this. We don't have many people committed to
> > Morphic development (on this low level) these days and I value  
> each and
> > every one highly.
> > 3. You have a plan.
> >
> > And my principle is that if someone is itching to improve  
> something and
> > has the above 3 things, then there is not much to argue about - I  
> say
> > go. :)
> >
> > > > Could you possibly (as you probably know Morphic/eToys better  
> than
> > most
> > > > of us) list the parts that we could "decide" about leaving in or
> > ripping
> > > > out? Lex started a list, but he also included some things  
> that I had
> > not
> > > > thought were included (like ImageSegment for example).
> > > >
> > > To me eToys what you can find in the eToys package. That's why  
> I put it
> > > there!
> >
> > :)
> >
> > > Going thru Lex's list. (Lex, I didn't answer to your post  
> because I
> > > think the list should be built by the community, and I didn't  
> want to
> > > sound authoritative on this!)
> > > - Tile based programming system. Yes. The central part of eToys.
> > > - Halos. No. Halos are key to Morphic.
> > > - Named morph search. No. I'd put this in 'MorphicExtras'.
> > > - Uniclasses. Yes. They were implemented in Squeak to support  
> eToys. And
> > > they are not Smalltalky to me. However, 'make own subclass' is not
> > > eTtoys, and distinct from uniclasses to me.
> > > - SmartRefStream and ImageSegments. No! Why would they?
> > > - Projects and saving projects. No.
> > > - Paint tool. No.
> > > - Flaps. No.
> >
> > I think this list sounds perfect to me.
> >
> > > Anyway, I don't want to say what should be removed and what  
> should not.
> > > But clearly in my reduced 3.7 image, I removed lots of stuff  
> besides
> > eToys.
> > > Let me repeat: To me eToys what it is in the eToys package.
> > > > I think it would be a nice way forward in this discussion.
> > > >
> > > > regards, Göran
> > > >
> > > > PS. This subject came up around an OOPSLA hacking table with Dan
> > present
> > > > - he also remarked that Morphic is indeed quite small - if you
> > consider
> > > > only Morphic itself.
> > > :)
> > > > But we did not discuss the issue at any great
> > > > length. Also Doug applied your recipe to have a look at the  
> result
> > etc.
> > > >
> > > Doug, I'd like to know what were your impressions on this!
> > > > We never got around to any personal conclusions, though. But  
> I for one
> > > > applaud and greatly appreciate your diligence in this matter  
> and I
> > think
> > > > it would be GREAT to have a small "isolated" clean Morphic in  
> Squeak
> > > > that is maintained and proven. And I am probably not alone in  
> that.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Well, I hope you're interested in my Morphic 3.0 project then.  
> It is my
> > > vision for morphic improvement. Check www.jvuletich.org !
> >
> > I am. Let me put this interest in some perspective btw:
> >
> > 1. Morphic is proven to work. But seems to be in a mess and thus is
> > brittle and also not maintained much because people can't get a  
> grip and
> > are also appalled about lots of the stuff that is in there today  
> (eToys
> > related I think). So it is sitting still today. Btw, this is MY  
> primary
> > objective behind getting eToys out - because I want a more  
> attractive
> > Morphic that then might get maintained instead of just sit there.
> >
> > 2. Tweak came along and people interested in these things probably
> > decided to hang around and wait to see if Tweak would end up  
> replacing
> > Morphic in "official Squeak". Now it seems to not go that route, at
> > least not in a hurry. I love the fact that we have Tweak and new  
> ideas
> > etc, but perhaps it is time to grab what we have and make the  
> best of it
> > instead of waiting for Tweak.
> >
> > So... Juan stepping up and offering his time to produce a clean,
> > maintainable and rejuvenated Morphic is IMHO Right On Cue.
> >
> > I hope that people raise their voices and give him their support.
> > I then hope that the next release team (3 people that we still do  
> not
> > know who they are) considers giving Juan a slot in 3.10 for this
> > rejuvenation, and I also hope that the board show their support  
> in this.
> > And I hope that Juan is willing to take on the Steward role for  
> Morphic
> > together with a few more brave souls with an interest in Morphic  
> (there
> > are a few I think). I bet perhaps even Dan Ingalls could be  
> interested,
> > but he might be too busy at work.
> >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Juan Vuletich
> >
> > regards, Göran
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Saludos,
> Hernán
>