Serious Squeak (other "survey")

> I would replace look by feel. I don't mind the graphical look of the
> app on mac, or windows, or linux. To take mac for example, you have
> various types of GUIs. Look at iTunes, Mail, Safari (the same is
> happening with the new microsoft office look and classic windows
> look...) they all have 3 different looks, some are intented to be
> one-window-only, others multi-windows ... The common factor to all OSX
> apps is the feel, the behavior. command+Q quits my app, command+W
> closes the current window. Take command+C, command+V , they work the
> same in squeak and my other apps, so squeak integrates (feels) with
> the other apps.
> The windowing of Squeak can be weird, especially since most window
> managers handle windows separately. But I just need to launch Eclipse
> to see that problem again in a more "mainstream" technology...
>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email] [mailto:squeak-dev-
> [hidden email]] On Behalf Of Bill Schwab
> Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2006 10:43 AM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: Serious Squeak (other "survey")
>
> Andreas,
>
> ==============================
> ... the "mainstream" cannot necessarily cater to every subgroup. In
> Jim's case it was pretty clear that this is work that will be
> interesting for a particular subgroup of the community - people who need
> 100% Windows looking apps. Jim did a *great* job at this but the simple
> fact of the matter is that Squeak community is roughly 30/30/30 between
> Windows, Mac, Unix and only a subset of the 30% windows users really
> wants Windows looking apps. Meaning that Zurgle might be interesting for
> (probably less than) 10% of the overall users of Squeak. Personally, I
> don't see how Jim could have been treated "less horribly" other than the
> people who care about the native looking stuff to pick it up and help
> him. That he didn't get much support -to me- is a clear sign that the
> percentage of people who want Windows look is a lot less than 10%.
> ==============================
>
> An alternate approach would be to ask for a streamlined Zurgle that
> didn't need the external files, was better than the base image, and
> could be turned into the full Zurgle for those who wanted it.  I said
> more about this in my response to Edgar.
>
>
>
> ==============================
> BTW, I totally understand that this is a circular argument. Squeak is
> cross-platform which means that a Windows look will never become
> "standard" which means Squeak will not attract Windows programmers etc.
> But that's just what Squeak is, we made it that way. And of course we
> could change it, but then I wouldn't use it.
> ==============================
>
> With respect, you are taking an overly narrow view.  Squeak can provide
> multiple policies to serve a wide range of masters.  I must also
> disagree tha the Windows look is crucial to snaring Windows users.  Feel
> is another matter, and Squeak's feel leaves a lot to be desired.  It can
> also be fixed.  You  might take a look at my MouseOverMadness change set
> on Mantis as a small down payment.
>
>
>
> ==============================
> > Please note that I am very comfortable with folks like Andreas having
> > far more influence than newcomers. I also do not believe there is a
> > conscious effort to exclude new ideas. However, there appears to be no
> > need to review and close submissions, so they get ignored vs. rejected
> > with an explanation. I suspect that many things that have been ignored
> > would be much harder to actively reject with a reason.
>
> I don't think so. I think you're getting confused by the absence of any
> visible policy for inclusion into the image. It is hard to guess from
> the grab-bags of stuff that get included why exactly those things ended
> up in the image and why not others. Personally, I feel that about the
> *only* thing that had a right to get into the image in the last three
> Squeak versions was the m17n support. Everything else should have been
> loadable via SqueakMap. And (again personally speaking) I would have had
> no problem to actively reject all these other things merely based on the
> fact that they're not critical and that they should prove their weight
> in package form after which someone might bring forward an argument why
> the inclusion is critical.
> ==============================
>
> I stand by the glass ceiling and the harm it does by discouraging
> would-be contributors.  Otherwise, I see what you are saying, **IF**
> there is ultimately a way for the packages to get included.  Absent
> that, SqueakMap will turn into a junk yard of conflicting packages and
> lost opporunities.  Squeak needs some configuration management, and
> inclusion critieria must be wider than "non-critical need not apply."
> Put another way, who decides what is critical?  Critical to what end?
> As an example, past tense is arguably appropriate for Zurgle, which is a
> shame.  I agree that it is/was too much, but fault the configuration
> management process (or lack thereof) for failing to negotiate a mutually
> agreeable solution that could have been with us for years now, not in
> the way of the hard core Squeaker, and serving the needs of those
> burdened with demanding customers or other constraints.
>
> Bill
>
>
>
>
>
> Wilhelm K. Schwab, Ph.D.
> University of Florida
> Department of Anesthesiology
> PO Box 100254
> Gainesville, FL 32610-0254
>
> Email: [hidden email]
> Tel: (352) 846-1285
> FAX: (352) 392-7029
>
>

>
> >> Doing all through internet, with an explorer, is an error IMHO.
>
>
> Don't agree, I think that using the internet browser to get
> rich applications interfaces is just the better way to do it.
>
> Such alternative is more and more popular, really I think (as software
> developer) that at this moment have no sense to develop a
> (business) traditional app "a la desktop".
>
> Think in the common user, that is using/operating web 2.0
> apps daily (Google services and a lot of anothers new and
> cool web applicatins), going back to use
> gray-squared-windows....In my opinion is a sort of case as
> when Windows started being common and the users were forced
> to use they old DOS style apps.
>
> Cheers.
> gsa.

>>>>Doing all through internet, with an explorer, is an error IMHO.
>>
>>
>>Don't agree, I think that using the internet browser to get
>>rich applications interfaces is just the better way to do it.
>>
>>Such alternative is more and more popular, really I think (as software
>>developer) that at this moment have no sense to develop a
>>(business) traditional app "a la desktop".
>>
>>Think in the common user, that is using/operating web 2.0
>>apps daily (Google services and a lot of anothers new and
>>cool web applicatins), going back to use
>>gray-squared-windows....In my opinion is a sort of case as
>>when Windows started being common and the users were forced
>>to use they old DOS style apps.
>>
>>Cheers.
>>gsa.
>
>
> I'm a web developer, I love web apps, but I wouldn't want to program in one.
> Programmers aren't common users, and the web, even web 2.0, is not a capable
> development environment, it's slow, clunky, and still faces browser
> compatibility problems and serious security restrictions when run in a
> browser.

>
> Web 2.0 is a fad, a new name given to techniques that have existed for
> years, and have been used for years, let's not get all caught up and think
> it's anywhere near ready to replace the desktop, it isn't.  
>
> There are alternatives, that do appear ready, XUL for example.  The FireFox
> browser is a fine example of a cross platform development platform that
> doesn't use native widgets, is based on XHTML and Javascript, and yet fits
> right in, feels nice, and works well on Mac, Windows, and Linux.  
>
> But this is a massive undertaking, you can't just say let's replace Squeak's
> UI as if it were an easy task.  You can't just pull out Morphic and be done
> with it.  These are all revolutionary ideas.  From what I can tell, things
> like Squeak tend to grow by evolution, not revolution.

> Lord ZealoN wrote:
> > Giuseppe Luigi Punzi is my real name, you can to make fun about it too.
> >
> > But I think my nick/name is not important in this discussion.
>
> If Bert hadn't suggested your nickname refers to a
> scifi overload (i.e. a character from a science fiction
> novel), then I'd have guessed it was a character from
> a children's video game.
>
> I think this is the first time I've seen a "real" name
> attached to the Lord_ZealoN nickname. Didn't you find it
> odd that responses to your postings had addressed you
> as "Lord". Anyways, I don't think Bert was poking fun,
> rather he was pointing out the irony that you were arguing
> for Squeak to be taken seriously, yet the only name we
> knew you by was Lord_ZealoN, which doesn't leave an
> impression of seriousness.
>
> Anyways, welcome to the Squeak community. I'm happy
> to see your reports about running Squeak on PDAs.
>

>> Lord ZealoN wrote:
>> > Giuseppe Luigi Punzi is my real name, you can to make fun about  
>> it too.
>> >
>> > But I think my nick/name is not important in this discussion.
>>
>> If Bert hadn't suggested your nickname refers to a
>> scifi overload (i.e. a character from a science fiction
>> novel), then I'd have guessed it was a character from
>> a children's video game.
>>
>> I think this is the first time I've seen a "real" name
>> attached to the Lord_ZealoN nickname. Didn't you find it
>> odd that responses to your postings had addressed you
>> as "Lord". Anyways, I don't think Bert was poking fun,
>> rather he was pointing out the irony that you were arguing
>> for Squeak to be taken seriously, yet the only name we
>> knew you by was Lord_ZealoN, which doesn't leave an
>> impression of seriousness.
>>
>> Anyways, welcome to the Squeak community. I'm happy
>> to see your reports about running Squeak on PDAs.
>>
>
> Then I will use this mail for the list.

> Am 16.10.2006 um 22:03 schrieb Matthew Fulmer:
>
>> On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 09:19:25PM +0200, Bert Freudenberg wrote:
>>> Now if I could convince the  folks in IRC to at least use
>>> nicks resembling real names ... but I  guess that's futile.
>>
>> You can usually summon someone's real name by doing a /whois on
>> them.
>
> I know, and I do, and some even have their real name set, but I still
> can't remember the nicks, and I still am too lazy to do this for every
> nick I don't recognize. Perhaps it's because I only drop by now and then.
>
> Sure, I can understand people choosing funny nicks when role-playing in
> MUDs (used to do that, too, as a student, with too much time), but in
> IRC I assume they're not role-playing most of the time, at least on
> #squeak.
>
> - Bert -
>
>
>

>From: "Ron Teitelbaum" <[hidden email]>
>Reply-To: [hidden email], The general-purpose Squeak developers
>list<[hidden email]>
>To: "'The general-purpose Squeak developers
>list'"<[hidden email]>
>Subject: RE: Serious Squeak (other "survey")
>Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 11:00:04 -0400
>
>All,
>
>If anyone says that the UI is fine for business development I disagree.
>Although it is very cool for games, research, and toys!
>
>I would agree that business development (not windows development but
>business development) may only be 10% of the community but I suggest that
>we
>should consider if that is a limiting factor instead of a virtue.
>

>From: "Ramon Leon" <[hidden email]>
>Reply-To: The general-purpose Squeak developers
>list<[hidden email]>
>To: "'The general-purpose Squeak developers
>list'"<[hidden email]>
>Subject: RE: Serious Squeak (other "survey")
>Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 09:52:01 -0700
>
> > Then, my point is that really don't feel that nothing must be
> > changed, because Squeakers can develop any sort of app, from
> > web to desktop (from wxWindows to Morphic).
> >
>
>Personally, I don't think morphic is that bad, skinned right, it can be
>fairly nice looking and pretty usable, the real problem is the single host
>window isolating it from the rest of the OS windows.  I haven't tried
>wxWindows because I don't build desktop apps, I may give it a try soon.
>