[squeak-dev] Re: Edgar from the Ostracism Re: Squeak 4.1 release candidate 2

Edgar J. De Cleene edgardec2005 at gmail.com
Thu Apr 8 11:14:50 UTC 2010

On 4/7/10 12:32 PM, "Andreas Raab" <andreas.raab at gmx.de> wrote:

> Okay, I still don't get it. Are you saying you expect Pharo, or Cuis to
> build on your kernel image just for its technical merits?

No my image.
My image is only a step and is not a kernel one.
In the long run if Pharo guys and Cuis agree ,  yes , a common kernel image
and IMHO could be the Pavel proccedure applied to my image,
I have his PharoCore and studying how to get SqueakKernel instead of

> But "Squeak" is a larger image than that, it's
> the image that we as a community agree on is useful for us.

Yes, of course. 
Remember I build FunSqueak , trying to have all projects used this days and
some from the past working well in today image.

The idea is push SqueakCore, a update process for SqueakCore and a mechanism
for any 8 years kid hits a fancy button and he/she have Etoys 4 .

We still do not have 4.1 out and discuss a release one or two steps in the
future .

> But the opposite isn't true either. The goal of the standard image is to
> provide a *useful* set of packages, not to be minimal, not to be
> exhaustive. After 4.1 is released I'll be making an argument to
> reshuffle some of the packages - for example, I'd like to see
> Announcements, FFI, Games in, and Services and some others out. My take
> is that the default image currently is actually not large enough and
> doesn't include things that it absolutely should include.

> Let me summarize this: I am in favor of providing regular small kernel
> images. I am in favor of ensuring that going forward the core images
> only get smaller, as small as we can make it. I am *stricly* against
> shipping any of these images as "the Squeak image" because they're not
> useful for the average Squeaker. The default image needs to be a
> reasonable tradeoff between compactness, convenience, and exploration.
> Cheers,
>    - Andreas

So you really don't believe in the idea...
Ok, discuss what should be in standard and let me polish SqueakLight3.
I try to rebuild from 4.0 (see the other mail about) polish and pack with
some fancy buttons for 8 , 28, 68 and 108 kids :=)

My challenge should be SqueakLight3 follow any trunk have and still be
useful to many.
Not to all, as not all have the same taste about how Squeak should be.


More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list