[IAEP] squeak/etoys accepted as free software... (was Re: Sugar on Ubuntu - Summary

[Alan Kay]

Sure, I completely agree. And now is a chance to apply the idea that via the Internet "the whole world" is the pool of resources for making and taking care of open and free software. 

Seems as though no simple group can handle the scaling implied by having the whole world supply software, even if only one approach is used. 

As Jecel pointed out, it is highly unlikely that any distribution group is really looking at any appreciable fraction of the lines of code they are distributing, nor could any such group really handle most bugs (whether dealing with security issues or not). This is in part because most software systems have real problems even being written and debugged (even understood) by their inventors and programmers. Distributors of such software are going to have even more problems understanding and fixing, if they try.

Part of the honest worry about these issues comes from very good reasons not to just trust everyone. But it also seems that e.g. Debian needs to widen its circle of trust to include experts in wider varieties of programming. There are plenty of trustworthy Smalltalkers and Squeakers, and there is absolutely no reason that some should not be on call to deal with perceived problems.

Very best wishes,

Alan




________________________________
From: Jonas Smedegaard <dr at jones.dk>
To: iaep at lists.sugarlabs.org
Sent: Friday, November 7, 2008 2:41:48 PM
Subject: Re: [IAEP] squeak/etoys accepted as free software... (was Re: Sugar on Ubuntu - Summary

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Fri, Nov 07, 2008 at 01:47:16PM -0800, Alan Kay wrote:
>So the only misconception I saw in the last few exchanges was part of a 
>lot of correct conclusions by Holger. The misconception was: "it's 
>because the impossibility to bootstrap etoys."
>
>Etoys can be easily bootstrapped over and over (and Squeak can be 
>bootstrapped over and over) but it is done using the tools and UIs and 
>sources supplied in Squeak

I understand from above that the term "bootstrapping" has a broader 
meaning.

I believe that Debian ftpmasters mean that it is not possible to 
bootstrap using classic Linux/Unix/Posix tools.

(I do not intend to be exact above - I am only a modest hacker, not 
educated in the exact terms here!)


>some people think their way is the only way and that any other way just 
>has to be wrong and inferior.

I believe Debian ftpmasters do not consider the Squeak approach to 
source and bootstrapping wrong or inferior. On the contrary, Debian can 
be seen as "inferior" in the sense that it can only properly deal with 
one approach to handling source and bootstrapping.

For Debian to dare take responsibility for maintaining stuff like Squeak 
in "main", I believe it is not enough to convince the ftpmasters that 
the world is not flat. Debian need people skilled in dealing with "a 
round world", so that if issues occur - like security flaws reveiled 
which might need quick action and perhaps even discretely from a small 
group - those people in charge are _able_ to deal with the issues, and 
understand if their fixes are reliable.


Kind regards,

  - Jonas


- -- 
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist og Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

  [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkkUxCwACgkQn7DbMsAkQLgp4wCfanEQZz1AYMy1sp9hI935xy/A
cAYAnjnSLdKFuBzzLzYvC21LR0+0T0Y9
=Lck7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP at lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep



      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/attachments/20081107/e6ed104f/attachment.htm