[ANN] Pharo MIT license clean

Hi all,

With the latest update, #10343, we have reached an important step  
towards Pharo 1.0. There is no method left in Pharo-core that is not  
license clean [1]. Methods from people that did not sign the agreement  
or did not release their code under SqueakL were removed or rewritten.  
There is a wiki page that describes how I did the audit [2].

Thanks to Gabriel for his help.

Cheers,
Adrian

[1] http://code.google.com/p/pharo/wiki/ResultofRelicensing
[2] http://code.google.com/p/pharo/wiki/LicenseCleanEffort
___________________
http://www.adrian-lienhard.ch/


_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

Congratulations, this is excellent news!

On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 9:08 AM, Adrian Lienhard<[hidden email]> wrote:


--
Lukas Renggli
http://www.lukas-renggli.ch

_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 9:08 AM, Adrian Lienhard<[hidden email]> wrote:
> With the latest update, #10343, we have reached an important step
> towards Pharo 1.0. There is no method left in Pharo-core that is not
> license clean [1]. Methods from people that did not sign the agreement
> or did not release their code under SqueakL were removed or rewritten.
> There is a wiki page that describes how I did the audit [2].

Very very cool. Thank you all

--
Damien Cassou
http://damiencassou.seasidehosting.st

"Lambdas are relegated to relative obscurity until Java makes them
popular by not having them." James Iry

_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

Indeed, excellent !
Good job!

Alexandre


On 23 Jun 2009, at 09:53, Damien Cassou wrote:

--
_,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
Alexandre Bergel  http://www.bergel.eu
^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.






_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

Congratulations to all who worked on that massive amount of boring but
important work.

I see that as a signal that Pharo community can indeed achieve
something. I mean, if you are able to organize and complete such a
boring work in these times, when everyone wants to do only the exiting
things, you have an organization which is able to deliver!

Best regards
Janko

Adrian Lienhard pravi:

--
Janko Mivšek
AIDA/Web
Smalltalk Web Application Server
http://www.aidaweb.si

_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

removing etoy
cleaning morphic
removing MVC
is also boring and we nearly finished it.

Stef

On Jun 23, 2009, at 10:56 AM, Janko Mivšek wrote:


_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 09:08:57AM +0200, Adrian Lienhard wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> With the latest update, #10343, we have reached an important step  
> towards Pharo 1.0. There is no method left in Pharo-core that is not  
> license clean [1]. Methods from people that did not sign the agreement  
> or did not release their code under SqueakL were removed or rewritten.  
> There is a wiki page that describes how I did the audit [2].
>
> Thanks to Gabriel for his help.

Awesome job guys. The volume of improvements Pharo has over
Squeak really makes me wonder if the latter has any real
relevance anymore.

> [1] http://code.google.com/p/pharo/wiki/ResultofRelicensing
> [2] http://code.google.com/p/pharo/wiki/LicenseCleanEffort

It looks like you did the relicense perfectly. I'm glad the
image I put together was able to help you. I'm sorry I didn't
help more.

--
Matthew Fulmer -- http://mtfulmer.wordpress.com/

_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

Matthew

> Awesome job guys.

Thanks.

> The volume of improvements Pharo has over
> Squeak really makes me wonder if the latter has any real
> relevance anymore.

I do not know and in itself this is not our goal. We do not do pharo  
against Squeak.
We do pharo to be able to dream about Smalltalk. We are committed  
(even more than for 3.9 which I
think was a success even if there are some points I would reconsider :))
Now people are welcome to pharo. But Pharo will not be squeak.
We want to create a culture where better, faster, more tested,
more documented, new, well-designed, not compatible changes are  
possible and wished. :)

I'm still profoundly sad to remove etoy or complex related morphic  
stuff.
May be some people will reimplement some solutions that were already  
in squeak,
but this is the way to go. Cleaning and making the system lean so that  
we and other
can invent their future.

>> [1] http://code.google.com/p/pharo/wiki/ResultofRelicensing
>> [2] http://code.google.com/p/pharo/wiki/LicenseCleanEffort
>
> It looks like you did the relicense perfectly. I'm glad the
> image I put together was able to help you. I'm sorry I didn't
> help more.

it was great that you provided the resources.
It helped a lot. I could play with the idea and this really lowered  
the barrier.
So be sure that you participated. :)

Stef

PS: I should check some pending items of what you did (MC1.5.....)  
just life is too short.
PSPS: I hope your master is going well.

_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

Hi all!

Matthew Fulmer wrote:
> Awesome job guys. The volume of improvements Pharo has over
> Squeak really makes me wonder if the latter has any real
> relevance anymore.

Yes, it is quite an interesting situation IMHO, and one that most of us
could foresee too I think.

NOTE: Read the following with a nice bucket of love, ok? I don't intend
to make anyone upset. :) And sorry for the long post.

On one hand I really appreciate the Pharo project - lots of good people
doing lots of good progress etc. It seems to be doing simply great.

On the other hand the "negative" effect I can see is the "drain" it has
caused (I think) from squeak.org/squeak-dev. In other words, squeak.org
has lost a lot of momentum, and of course not only due to the birth of
Pharo I should add. And in many ways Pharo may also be the "rescue" to
squeak.org. God knows we have been trying to find "our way" lately and
with... less impressive results. :)

So... how will the future evolve? Does the Squeak community (in the
large sense) have anything to gain from keeping both the squeak.org and
the pharo fork "alive"?

I presume we have at least the following three scenarios:

1. Continue as now and take no specific action. This will probably lead
to Squeak.org going weaker and Pharo stronger by the day. Developers
will want to be where the "action" is. Soon squeak.org turns irrelevant
and dies a slow death.

2. Take some decisive action and "merge" the two in some *smart* way
beneficial to both. Impossible? I hope not.

3. Just kill off squeak.org. A mercy kill :). Then people could move
over to Pharo without having to think about it - there is no other "Squeak".

Eh, well, my analysis is probably full of silly holes here. Looking at
the above, 1 and 3 feels less nice. So how could a "merge" look that
would be attractive to *both* camps? I call the theoretical merged
project Phreak below (but I am not proposing name changes etc, but I
need a name to use in the text).

Pharo characteristics:

- A small "benevolent dictator" board. Lots of action, less talk.
- Has a very clear stated "direction".
- Has a website using CMSBox.
- Uses Google code for issue tracker and wiki.
- Has Mailman mailinglists and downloads at gforge.inria.fr (I think)

Squeak.org org characteristics:

- Has an elected SOB, an election process and a Team model. The jury is
still out I think, we seem to have lots of trouble "getting shit done".
- Has very little stated "direction" at the moment.
- Has a website using Swazoo.
- Uses Mantis, Swiki, file archive and Mailman on a community paid
Hetzner server.

Now... why would Squeak.org want to merge with Pharo?

Pros: Get momentum back. 1 + 1 = 2. A revitalization. Very important!

Cons: The SOB & Team model would probably have to be dropped. The work
made since Pharo forked may or may not be a "lost cause", that depends
on if Phreak is interested in utilizing that work. Other cons?

...and Pharo?

Pros: An influx of developers. A much stronger position as Phreak would
be Squeak + Pharo. No "compatibility" to worry about, Squeak is out of
the picture.

Cons: Some people in Pharo may perceive such a merge as dangerous since
they might be afraid that certain aspects of Squeak.org (that Pharo was
created in order to escape from) is coming back "knocking on the door".

I personally don't think there is such a danger if Phreak simply adopts
the simple organisation of Pharo (with board and all) BUT... since it
would make the Pharo community much *larger* the effects of that growth
need to be taken into account. But Pharo should not fear growth, because
that would be an odd position.

How could a merge be done practically? I really don't know :). And I
must stop typing now, this post is waaaaay to long anyway and I have
probably stepped on too many toes already.

regards, Göran


_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

2009/6/28 Göran Krampe <[hidden email]>:
Hello Goran.
You are definitely didn't stepped on any of my toes/toys. And i would
certainly sacrifice my SOB membership (if this is a sacrifice), to see
things moving & progressing as fast as they do in Pharo.
As many others, i eagier to see the squeak/pharo/phreak shining - make
it cool & modern software. The rest of things is barely bothering me.

What i like in Pharo, that they make decisions on strictly technical
basis - no politics. If code is good - it candidate to be included. If
code stinks - its a candidate to be excluded. Simple concept :)

For anyone, interested in my opinion:
  i would put a huge +1 for a merge on a Pharoer's conditions.

> regards, Göran
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pharo-project mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>



--
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko AKA sig.

_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

Göran,

Pharo is not even at beta, and has some speed and (Stef's reaction) stability problems.   Having read Stef's recent reply to me, I'm wondering whether some of the performance/response time problems are related to input starvation, or a false assumption of same.

My vote would be to let Pharo mature under its current leadership and then worry about whether to merge the two projects.

Bill



-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Göran Krampe
Sent: Saturday, June 27, 2009 4:45 PM
To: [hidden email]; The general-purpose Squeak developers list
Subject: [Pharo-project] The future of Squeak & Pharo (was Re: [ANN] Pharo MIT license clean)

Hi all!

Matthew Fulmer wrote:
> Awesome job guys. The volume of improvements Pharo has over Squeak
> really makes me wonder if the latter has any real relevance anymore.

Yes, it is quite an interesting situation IMHO, and one that most of us could foresee too I think.

NOTE: Read the following with a nice bucket of love, ok? I don't intend to make anyone upset. :) And sorry for the long post.

On one hand I really appreciate the Pharo project - lots of good people doing lots of good progress etc. It seems to be doing simply great.

On the other hand the "negative" effect I can see is the "drain" it has caused (I think) from squeak.org/squeak-dev. In other words, squeak.org has lost a lot of momentum, and of course not only due to the birth of Pharo I should add. And in many ways Pharo may also be the "rescue" to squeak.org. God knows we have been trying to find "our way" lately and with... less impressive results. :)

So... how will the future evolve? Does the Squeak community (in the large sense) have anything to gain from keeping both the squeak.org and the pharo fork "alive"?

I presume we have at least the following three scenarios:

1. Continue as now and take no specific action. This will probably lead to Squeak.org going weaker and Pharo stronger by the day. Developers will want to be where the "action" is. Soon squeak.org turns irrelevant and dies a slow death.

2. Take some decisive action and "merge" the two in some *smart* way beneficial to both. Impossible? I hope not.

3. Just kill off squeak.org. A mercy kill :). Then people could move over to Pharo without having to think about it - there is no other "Squeak".

Eh, well, my analysis is probably full of silly holes here. Looking at the above, 1 and 3 feels less nice. So how could a "merge" look that would be attractive to *both* camps? I call the theoretical merged project Phreak below (but I am not proposing name changes etc, but I need a name to use in the text).

Pharo characteristics:

- A small "benevolent dictator" board. Lots of action, less talk.
- Has a very clear stated "direction".
- Has a website using CMSBox.
- Uses Google code for issue tracker and wiki.
- Has Mailman mailinglists and downloads at gforge.inria.fr (I think)

Squeak.org org characteristics:

- Has an elected SOB, an election process and a Team model. The jury is still out I think, we seem to have lots of trouble "getting shit done".
- Has very little stated "direction" at the moment.
- Has a website using Swazoo.
- Uses Mantis, Swiki, file archive and Mailman on a community paid Hetzner server.

Now... why would Squeak.org want to merge with Pharo?

Pros: Get momentum back. 1 + 1 = 2. A revitalization. Very important!

Cons: The SOB & Team model would probably have to be dropped. The work made since Pharo forked may or may not be a "lost cause", that depends on if Phreak is interested in utilizing that work. Other cons?

...and Pharo?

Pros: An influx of developers. A much stronger position as Phreak would be Squeak + Pharo. No "compatibility" to worry about, Squeak is out of the picture.

Cons: Some people in Pharo may perceive such a merge as dangerous since they might be afraid that certain aspects of Squeak.org (that Pharo was created in order to escape from) is coming back "knocking on the door".

I personally don't think there is such a danger if Phreak simply adopts the simple organisation of Pharo (with board and all) BUT... since it would make the Pharo community much *larger* the effects of that growth need to be taken into account. But Pharo should not fear growth, because that would be an odd position.

How could a merge be done practically? I really don't know :). And I must stop typing now, this post is waaaaay to long anyway and I have probably stepped on too many toes already.

regards, Göran


_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

Hi!

Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote:
> Göran,
>
> Pharo is not even at beta, and has some speed and (Stef's reaction) stability problems.   Having read Stef's recent reply to me, I'm wondering whether some of the performance/response time problems are related to input starvation, or a false assumption of same.
>
> My vote would be to let Pharo mature under its current leadership and then worry about whether to merge the two projects.
>
> Bill

Sure, that is an aspect of it all of course. On the other hand - new
fresh work is always done at the "frontier" so for me as a developer
wondering where my time is best spent it is still a valid question I
need to ask myself:

        Where do I put my effort? In latest Squeak.org or latest Pharo?

I agree that as a *user* I might still deploy/develop in a good old and
tried image - say 3.10.2 or whatever.

Tonight I just spent time trying/testing my Blackfoot package in the
Seaside Pharo image. (Works fine btw!) This is time I am spending in
order to make my work (in this case Blackfoot) available to Pharo
people. And thus the question about where these two projects are going
is highly relevant to me.

regards, Göran


_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

Hi!

(still cross posting, hope you don't mind)

Gary Dunn wrote:
> I am new here and not really qualified to comment on this issue. Please
> take my input as having good intentions. Specifically, I do not want to
> start a flame war over the pros and cons of various projects.

Nah, we don't do flame wars in the Squeak community. Well, not bad ones
at least :)

Yeah, that would be a positive future. And I have in fact earlier
strongly advocated the fact that we need to "live with forks" because we
already have several of them (like Croquet, OLPC etc).

But see below...

[SNIP]
> It looks to me like Pharo is a Smalltalk for building grown-up apps.
> Very much like the Smalltalk I began with, which produced apps with the
> look and feel of the host Microsoft Windows. I think there is a need for
> that. I take it Pharo is new, and as such it has been luring developers
> away from Squeak. The potential for good in this outweighs whatever the
> negative consequences may be, because, like the BSDs, the Squeak
> developers can always pull in what they like from Pharo.

In a "perfect world", yes. I even started the DeltaStreams project with
these cross pollination scenarios in my head.

> Do not confuse a fork with a divorce. Think of it as mitosis. The more
> the merrier.

Yes, that is also the way I have argued about it. See:

http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2007-August/119471.html

> I believe that the impact of Squeak on education has yet to be realized.
> The necessary hardware -- the visionary Dynabook -- is just appearing.
> It will be years before there are enough skilled teachers for the
> critical mass required for the paradigm shift to occur. And there is the
> culture change, so difficult in a field as institutionalized as modern
> education. What we have been seeing are the Smalltalk explorers and
> trail blazers, the pioneers to whom we will someday owe an enormous debt
> of gratitude.

Possibly true, but Smalltalk, Squeak, Etoys and even Croquet have been
around for quite some time now - and we haven't seen any real explosion
yet. Croquet was meant to "explode" but hasn't. So I am not holding my
breath for "the day Squeak gets popular" :)

> I am in no position to recommend anything here, but I will just the
> same. Please forgive me. I recommend that Squeak not be killed off, or
> merged. Let the fork live on.

Nothing to forgive, I want to hear lots of opinions in order for me to
personally form an opinion about the idea. The "view" you present above
is a positive one of a forked world. The reality can be harsher:

Take XFree86 vs XOrg for example. The history there is complicated but
the fact remains - XOrg started, added lots of "cool features" quickly
while XFree86 stood still, then when the developers started heavily
voting with their feet the distros also switched and XFree86 was dead
before it even hit the floor.

There are mainly two aspects here that tells me that the above "bad
future of XFree86" is more likely to happen than the "good future of
Open/Net/FreeBSD":

- Pharo may "sound" like it has a different agenda than Squeak.org but
IMO the large majority of Squeak.org developers share the Pharo agenda.
Thus the differentiation is not there. Most people will just pick the
one with the most momentum, and that is Pharo.

- Squeak.org is standing still. Sure, there are things being done by
some people, no doubt about that. But perception is *everything* and
from the outside it seems to be standing still. Even the squeak-dev list
is quieting down and that is a bad sign.


So although I share your basic view of cross pollinating forks being a
"Good Thing" and something we should embrace (see OLPC, Squeakland,
Croquet etc etc) such forks need to have a specific goal.

IMHO Pharo is not such a fork, Pharo is still very much "generic" as is
Squeak.org. Pharo is more like "Squeak.org going agile" or "Smalltalk,
with less talk" :). And thus it resembles XOrg much, much more than OpenBSD.

> I cannot close without saying that "Phreak" would be a very bad name :-)

Again, I wasn't even advocating a name change - although a name change
may be a good thing if we would merge. Also, I hate to say it, but
"Pharo" sucks pretty bad too I think, and you guys STILL have attracted
lots of developers :) :)

Oh, and a final note:

But what if Squeak.org is abandoned and everyone moves to Pharo, what is
so bad about letting that happen? It is NOT bad. But I think we could do
it in a smoother way and actually turn this into something *positive*.
The merge could be turned into a real BOOST to Squeak/Pharo.

regards, Göran



_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

>> Yes, it is quite an interesting situation IMHO, and one that most  
>> of us
> could foresee too I think.
>
> NOTE: Read the following with a nice bucket of love, ok?

sure :)

I think that squeak has a momentum and should naturally continue to  
exist.

> I presume we have at least the following three scenarios:
>
> 1. Continue as now and take no specific action. This will probably  
> lead
> to Squeak.org going weaker and Pharo stronger by the day. Developers
> will want to be where the "action" is. Soon squeak.org turns  
> irrelevant
> and dies a slow death.

Not necessarily. It depends what squeakers want to achieve.
It is not clear to me.


> 2. Take some decisive action and "merge" the two in some *smart* way
> beneficial to both. Impossible? I hope not.

I do not know. We left for specific reasons and I do not see how
they could be solved. Then the magic: "develop for both" does not work  
in general
because software is complex. too complex.

> 3. Just kill off squeak.org. A mercy kill :). Then people could move
> over to Pharo without having to think about it - there is no other  
> "Squeak".

I do not think that this is wise. Now people should think why and what  
they are doing.
So far pharo is not taking the multimedia space: so if squeakers want  
to continue
or even better build (or rebuild) it:
Imagine some great libraries and scenario that focus on delivering  
high-quality
multimedia experiences. Then this would be cool. May be squeak would  
run on top
of pharo :)))))

> Eh, well, my analysis is probably full of silly holes here. Looking at
> the above, 1 and 3 feels less nice. So how could a "merge" look that
> would be attractive to *both* camps?

which camps? :)


I'm not that convinced.
Let us see that if Squeak would be really active and share common  
interest
for cleaning and delivering good abstractions for multimedia and other
you could see Squeak/phreak based on pharo and this could be cool.
Now so far I see not that much progress.

me neither.

> And I
> must stop typing now, this post is waaaaay to long anyway and I have
> probably stepped on too many toes already.

Not really.

>
> regards, Göran
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pharo-project mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project


_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

Igor I think that this is too early.
Let us deliver something first and see.
I want to see what we can really do.
Can we create a community of doers?
Can we create wealth and a cool community?
Then some people can see how we can merge and if this makes sense

Stef


_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

>
> Sure, that is an aspect of it all of course. On the other hand - new
> fresh work is always done at the "frontier" so for me as a developer
> wondering where my time is best spent it is still a valid question I
> need to ask myself:
>
> Where do I put my effort? In latest Squeak.org or latest Pharo?

I have the answer :)
But if you want to find your answer:
        take your preconditions
        take pharo goals

do the same with squeak and check.

> I agree that as a *user* I might still deploy/develop in a good old  
> and
> tried image - say 3.10.2 or whatever.

No not whatever. The ones were people put responsibility to produce.

> Tonight I just spent time trying/testing my Blackfoot package in the
> Seaside Pharo image. (Works fine btw!) This is time I am spending in
> order to make my work (in this case Blackfoot) available to Pharo
> people. And thus the question about where these two projects are going
> is highly relevant to me.

Pharo path is stated on the wiki:
        - clean
        - lean
        - better for the better
        - changing if necessary

We want to make sure that we get agile again to invent new STUFF
any new stuff.  So if you come with URI working and tests,
with network improvements, cruft removal..... we will integrate  
(modulo the license).

Stef

>
> regards, Göran
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pharo-project mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project


_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

A partial reply on the topic of education: in the spirit of Alan's "The Computer Revolution Hasn't Happened Yet" talk, it will likely be a while (perhaps decades) before before people start to figure out how to make real progress in education through computers.

However and whenever it happens, I will go out on the following limb: it will be adults who enable it.  There is nothing wrong with Pharo's focus on "grown-up software," and that should actually be encouraged.  Toys can easily be built on top of such a subtrate, but a toy is unlikely to be a good foundation for tools.  Since we have uses for tools and toys, the sound approach is to start with the tools and build the toys on top of the same foundation that Pinesoft and others use to serve paying customers.

Bill




-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Göran Krampe
Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2009 5:24 AM
To: The general-purpose Squeak developers list
Cc: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] [squeak-dev] The future of Squeak & Pharo (was Re: [ANN] Pharo MIT license clean)

Hi!

(still cross posting, hope you don't mind)

Gary Dunn wrote:
> I am new here and not really qualified to comment on this issue.
> Please take my input as having good intentions. Specifically, I do not
> want to start a flame war over the pros and cons of various projects.

Nah, we don't do flame wars in the Squeak community. Well, not bad ones at least :)

Yeah, that would be a positive future. And I have in fact earlier strongly advocated the fact that we need to "live with forks" because we already have several of them (like Croquet, OLPC etc).

But see below...

[SNIP]
> It looks to me like Pharo is a Smalltalk for building grown-up apps.
> Very much like the Smalltalk I began with, which produced apps with
> the look and feel of the host Microsoft Windows. I think there is a
> need for that. I take it Pharo is new, and as such it has been luring
> developers away from Squeak. The potential for good in this outweighs
> whatever the negative consequences may be, because, like the BSDs, the
> Squeak developers can always pull in what they like from Pharo.

In a "perfect world", yes. I even started the DeltaStreams project with these cross pollination scenarios in my head.

> Do not confuse a fork with a divorce. Think of it as mitosis. The more
> the merrier.

Yes, that is also the way I have argued about it. See:

http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2007-August/119471.html

> I believe that the impact of Squeak on education has yet to be realized.
> The necessary hardware -- the visionary Dynabook -- is just appearing.
> It will be years before there are enough skilled teachers for the
> critical mass required for the paradigm shift to occur. And there is
> the culture change, so difficult in a field as institutionalized as
> modern education. What we have been seeing are the Smalltalk explorers
> and trail blazers, the pioneers to whom we will someday owe an
> enormous debt of gratitude.

Possibly true, but Smalltalk, Squeak, Etoys and even Croquet have been around for quite some time now - and we haven't seen any real explosion yet. Croquet was meant to "explode" but hasn't. So I am not holding my breath for "the day Squeak gets popular" :)

> I am in no position to recommend anything here, but I will just the
> same. Please forgive me. I recommend that Squeak not be killed off, or
> merged. Let the fork live on.

Nothing to forgive, I want to hear lots of opinions in order for me to personally form an opinion about the idea. The "view" you present above is a positive one of a forked world. The reality can be harsher:

Take XFree86 vs XOrg for example. The history there is complicated but the fact remains - XOrg started, added lots of "cool features" quickly while XFree86 stood still, then when the developers started heavily voting with their feet the distros also switched and XFree86 was dead before it even hit the floor.

There are mainly two aspects here that tells me that the above "bad future of XFree86" is more likely to happen than the "good future of
Open/Net/FreeBSD":

- Pharo may "sound" like it has a different agenda than Squeak.org but IMO the large majority of Squeak.org developers share the Pharo agenda.
Thus the differentiation is not there. Most people will just pick the one with the most momentum, and that is Pharo.

- Squeak.org is standing still. Sure, there are things being done by some people, no doubt about that. But perception is *everything* and from the outside it seems to be standing still. Even the squeak-dev list is quieting down and that is a bad sign.


So although I share your basic view of cross pollinating forks being a "Good Thing" and something we should embrace (see OLPC, Squeakland, Croquet etc etc) such forks need to have a specific goal.

IMHO Pharo is not such a fork, Pharo is still very much "generic" as is Squeak.org. Pharo is more like "Squeak.org going agile" or "Smalltalk, with less talk" :). And thus it resembles XOrg much, much more than OpenBSD.

> I cannot close without saying that "Phreak" would be a very bad name
> :-)

Again, I wasn't even advocating a name change - although a name change may be a good thing if we would merge. Also, I hate to say it, but "Pharo" sucks pretty bad too I think, and you guys STILL have attracted lots of developers :) :)

Oh, and a final note:

But what if Squeak.org is abandoned and everyone moves to Pharo, what is so bad about letting that happen? It is NOT bad. But I think we could do it in a smoother way and actually turn this into something *positive*.
The merge could be turned into a real BOOST to Squeak/Pharo.

regards, Göran



_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

Hi!

Stéphane Rollandin wrote:
> My point of view:
>
> Pharo people weren't happy with the way Squeak was developed, so they
> started their own project and now its development goes well: good for
> them. It seems like a lot of people are actually interested and working
> in Pharo; again: good for them.

"Them" is the wrong word. It is rather "a lot of us". And "good for us".

> Now I do like Squeak better, so I stayed here (beside, it would be a
> hell of a work to port my code to Pharo, with all the "cleaning up" that
> happened there).

There is always work in porting over to new versions of Squeak. If we
cross pollinate then you will end up facing the exact same issue. And
also, you can always "lag" a release or two - quite common for larger
projects.

> Why should I even consider letting Squeak die, or
> merging it into Pharo?

Because if the "trend" I am perceiving (I may be wrong) continues then
there will be very few of us left working on the Squeak 3.10 lineage
under the Squeak.org flag. And the fewer there are the more likely they
will jump over too.

 > Of course cross-pollination between the two
> project is something worth reaching for, but I can't see how Squeak
> doing harakiri is an adequate response to this challenge.

Well, if you consider a merge to be harakiri - then I agree it sounds
frightening :)

> Squeak development slowed down quite a bit. So what ? That's something
> we can discuss here in squeak-dev. No urge to surrender to Pharo IMHO.

IMHO this kind of phrasing and thinking - "urge to surrender" etc, is
the wrong way of looking at it. It is not some kind of war!

Remember that before Pharo was started all those developers were working
on Squeak. We are ALL Squeakers. We ALL want Squeak in the large sense
to move on and improve. We all want a good solid base to do our work in,
and a nice community to share. We all want fast turnaround on bug fixes
and contributions etc.

I just want us to do the *smart* thing here.

regards, Göran


_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

Hi!

Ian Trudel wrote:
Not sure what you mean there.

> The look-and-feel is designed for children. It's colourful, joyful, it
> bleeps and blink. How many professional developers are children? How
> many children are on this list? Enough with that already! Can we have
> a normal look-and-feel? A professional look-and-feel. =)

Personally I like the colors. I also don't equal "normal" with
"professional". But such is taste!

> Squeak is stuck in some time warp, where the surrounding world is on
> stand still. It should however consider that we are living in 2009 and
> have needs of 2009. We need a different usability, developer tools and
> we have different goals.

Note that talking about what we "need" and what other people "want" is
not really that fruitful. We get what we *do*, or in other words - if
someone feels it is important enough to spend time on it - it will get
done. Noone works on something because *someone else* told him to.

 > For example, Squeak hardly support the
> requirements of my distributors, which makes it overly challenging for
> me to consider Squeak as our platform of development.

Elaborate?

> Squeak doesn't need a killer app. It needs to be spruced up and put
> back on track. Honey moon is over, it's time to get real.

Hehe, I really don't agree. :)

Squeak *is* real. We already have our killer app (Seaside). We do need
to clean shit up though (and I am not talking about UI primarily) and
get the improvement process working. Currently Squeak.org is getting
smashed (again, I don't have hard numbers, but I think I am right) by
Pharo when it comes to hard, concrete, nitty gritt work getting done.

regards, Göran


_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

Göran,

"Noone works on something because *someone else* told him to."

- That is at best context-dependent, and untrue in general.  Not meaning to give you a hard time, but people often do what other people tell/ask/convince them to do.



"Personally I like the colors. I also don't equal "normal" with "professional". But such is taste!"

- as I have said for years now, it has not been the look that Squeak has had (pardon me) so horribly wrong, it has been the feel.  Meeting the expectations of one's customers is part of professionalism.  Exceeding expectations can be even better.  There is a room for leadership, but no place for active contempt for the user; IMHO, Squeak has long been held back by the latter.


You seem to be saying that Pharo is getting a lot of stuff right, so let's merge now.  Pharo is getting a lot of stuff right precisely because it has forked, giving us the freedom to change things.  That needs to go on for a while.  The result will be a lean well-factored system that can be the basis for any tools or toys anyone wants to create.

Bill



-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Göran Krampe
Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2009 10:55 AM
To: The general-purpose Squeak developers list
Cc: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] [squeak-dev] The future of Squeak & Pharo (was Re: [ANN] Pharo MIT license clean)

Hi!

Ian Trudel wrote:
Not sure what you mean there.

> The look-and-feel is designed for children. It's colourful, joyful, it
> bleeps and blink. How many professional developers are children? How
> many children are on this list? Enough with that already! Can we have
> a normal look-and-feel? A professional look-and-feel. =)

Personally I like the colors. I also don't equal "normal" with "professional". But such is taste!

> Squeak is stuck in some time warp, where the surrounding world is on
> stand still. It should however consider that we are living in 2009 and
> have needs of 2009. We need a different usability, developer tools and
> we have different goals.

Note that talking about what we "need" and what other people "want" is not really that fruitful. We get what we *do*, or in other words - if someone feels it is important enough to spend time on it - it will get done. Noone works on something because *someone else* told him to.

 > For example, Squeak hardly support the
> requirements of my distributors, which makes it overly challenging for
> me to consider Squeak as our platform of development.

Elaborate?

> Squeak doesn't need a killer app. It needs to be spruced up and put
> back on track. Honey moon is over, it's time to get real.

Hehe, I really don't agree. :)

Squeak *is* real. We already have our killer app (Seaside). We do need to clean shit up though (and I am not talking about UI primarily) and get the improvement process working. Currently Squeak.org is getting smashed (again, I don't have hard numbers, but I think I am right) by Pharo when it comes to hard, concrete, nitty gritt work getting done.

regards, Göran


_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project