September 2017 - Pharo-users

Re: [Pharo-users] Web stack practices (Glorp / QCMagritte)

by laurent

Hi Richard, > > Laurent, I realize you are asking this on the Pharo list, looking for > a > Pharo-specific answer. You should also post your requirements on the > GLASS > list (http://forum.world.st/GLASS-f1460844.html) A number of > people/businesses there use a /develop on Pharo, deploy on GemStone > approach/. They will be able to give you some good advice on using > GemStone/S for your database. My team build free (AGPL) software and we require a full open stack. I've read several testimonials about Gemstone qualities, nevertheless it could not be an option for this project. Regards, Laurent > > > > >> We need a web stack and we put Pharo & co in the comparative >> process. >> My team have strong experience in load-balanced php / mysql >> deployment >> that handles millions of records but we are ready to build on >> something else though MySQL is still a requirement. >> >> Thanks for Garage + Glorp, I can prototype things. I wonder how to >> handle database schema migrations. With our PHP projects we have >> versionned PHP scripts that are automatically run given a database >> revision number ( see >> http://git.afi-sa.fr/afi/opacce/tree/master/cosmogramme/sql/patch ). >> What are the practices with Glorp ? >> >> >> We try QCMagritte and we enjoy what we see so far. What are the best >> practices to glue Magritte and Glorp together ? Especially when you >> load-balance requests on several images. Some examples ? >> >> ( FYI, I cannot load QCMagritte in a fresh Pharo 6 image ( for >> #stable >> version, MADescriptionBuilder missing. For #development versions of >> Magritte and QCMagritte, QCConfiguration missing ). So actually I >> use >> the one built on CI. ) >> >> >> May be you have some other suggestions on a framework you love ? >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> Laurent Laffont > > > > > > -- > Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Users-f1310670.html >

Sept. 22, 2017

Rails Express Demo Using Pharo Seaside

by Peter Fisk

I have added a new blog post showing how I am using Pharo Smalltalk and Seaside to rapidly create Ruby-on-Rails applications. https://railsexpress.quora.com/Pharo-Seaside-Express <https://railsexpress.quora.com/Pharo-Seaside-Express> There is also a short video showing a simple application running under Pharo/Seaside and then being converted to Ruby-on-Rails. The application uses the Qooxdoo JavaScript framework for the UI. Seaside Express Video <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1CNJ1NR_kY> The blog outlines some of my thoughts about the development philosophy.And the video gives some idea of how this works in practice - particularly how quickly (about a minute) an entire Ruby-on-Rails application can be generated from the Smalltalk specification.I will release the Seaside-Qooxdoo classes later this year when the code is more stable.-- Peter -- Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Users-f1310670.html

Sept. 21, 2017

NeoJSON and polymorphism

by Juraj Kubelka

Hi, By studying the NeoJSON book chapter (Pharo Enterprise), I do not understand how to modify the following example: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=- "Let us say that we have an Attachment class..." Object subclass: #Attachment instanceVariableNames: 'url fileName' classVariableNames: '' package: 'NeoJSON-Use-Case'. "...with url: and fileName: methods." Attachment compile: 'url: anObject', String cr, String tab, 'url := anObject' classified: 'accessing'. Attachment compile: 'fileName: anObject', String cr, String tab, 'fileName := anObject' classified: 'accessing'. "Let's create a collection of two instances:" collectionOne := { Attachment new url: 'http://example.com/random-name.txt' asZnUrl; fileName: 'chapter-one.txt' yourself. Attachment new url: 'http://example.com/random-name.png' asZnUrl; fileName: 'image.png'; yourself. }. "And let's map it to a JSON structure:" String streamContents: [ :aStream | (NeoJSONWriter on: aStream) for: #CollectionOfAttachments customDo: [ :mapping | mapping listOfElementSchema: Attachment ]; mapAllInstVarsFor: Attachment; for: ZnUrl customDo: [ :mapping | mapping encoder: [ :aZnUrl | aZnUrl asString ] ]; nextPut: collectionOne as: #CollectionOfAttachments. ]. "And read the JSON structure:" (NeoJSONReader on: '[{"url":"http://example.com/random-name.txt","fileName":"chapter-one.txt"},{"url":"http://example.com/random-name.png","fileName":"image.png"}]' readStream) for: #CollectionOfAttachments customDo: [ :mapping | mapping listOfElementSchema: Attachment ]; for: Attachment do: [ :mapping | mapping mapInstVar: 'fileName'. (mapping mapInstVar: 'url') valueSchema: ZnUrl ]; for: ZnUrl customDo: [ :mapping | mapping decoder: [ :string | string asZnUrl ] ]; nextAs: #CollectionOfAttachments. "=======================" âThe previous example works perfectly, including the ZnUrl mapping (notice that url variables have ZnUrl instances). Now, let's say that we want to distinguish PNG and TXT attachments. For that reason we will create two Attachment subclasses..." Attachment subclass: #PngAttachment instanceVariableNames: '' classVariableNames: '' package: 'NeoJSON-Use-Case'. Attachment subclass: #TxtAttachment instanceVariableNames: '' classVariableNames: '' package: 'NeoJSON-Use-Case'. "...with type methods that might be used in a new JSON structure:" PngAttachment compile: 'type', String cr, String tab, '^ ''png''' classified: 'accessing'. TxtAttachment compile: 'type', String cr, String tab, '^ ''txt''' classified: 'accessing'. "Let's create a collection with the PNG and TXT instances:" collectionTwo := { TxtAttachment new url: 'http://example.com/random-name.txt' asZnUrl; fileName: 'chapter-one.txt' yourself. PngAttachment new url: 'http://example.com/random-name.png' asZnUrl; fileName: 'image.png'; yourself. }. "How can I modify NeoJSONWriter and NeoJSONReader mappings? The JSON structure should (ideally) looks like this:" '[ {âtypeâ:âtxtâ,"url":"http://example.com/random-name.txt","fileName":"chapter-one.txtâ}, {âtypeâ:âpngâ,"url":"http://example.com/random-name.png","fileName":"image.pngâ} ]' -=-=-=-=-=-=-=- I would like to keep the mapping isolated (without defining neoJsonOn: methods). Thank you! Juraj

Sept. 21, 2017

PharoCloud method sources

by Esteban A. Maringolo

I recentrly noticed that the examples gently hosted at PharoCloud don't have any sources available, and since the examples for both Bootstrap[1] and Rickshaw[2] uses code reflection to display the sources used to produce each example, they don't work and you get a `self methodHasNoSourceCode` instad. Can this be fixed somehow? [1] http://pharo.pharocloud.com/bootstrap/browser/Alerts [2] http://pharo.pharocloud.com/rickshaw Esteban A. Maringolo

Sept. 21, 2017

Re: [Pharo-users] Pharo 7 license question

by Jose San Leandro

I wasn't being cynical when I asked if it makes sense to you the fact that people write free software and give it away for free. I just wanted to know if there's any obvious reason that explains that to you. It's not my intention to judge why proponents of "permissive" licenses think the way they do. My hypothesis is that they see software exclusively as a way to make money. Economists are still obsessed in simplifying human behavior as rules of incentives -> results, until it's become part of our western cultures. It follows that we only act in our own economic interest, and also that nobody would work for free. That's where some people find difficult to explain free software. The same people don't think the end-user's rights to ultimately own the software we provide are valuable. They are consumers before users. Regarding the book, you won't find any direct references to software licenses. I recommend it because it advocates we treat our users differently. Anyway, we agree we disagree. That was never an issue. I wish you a great day too! 2017-09-21 19:36 GMT+02:00 Jimmie Houchin <jlhouchin(a)gmail.com>: > We will have to agree to disagree. > > I have been a passionate user of open source software for over 20 years. > Are you really saying that proponents of permissive licenses don't > understand why people write free software and give it away for free? Really! > > I passionately disagree with the statement of "All software should be GPLd > in the first place". This is one of the biggest reasons I passionately > dislike the GPL. GPL is goodness and light. All else is evil incarnate. Ugh! > > I am not going to defend unethical business practices. But that is not a > defense of the GPL or an argument against permissive licenses. I am not a > fan Microsoft or Apple, et al. I am a fan FreeBSD and Linux. However I do > not believe all closed source or proprietary software is wrong or evil. > > I am working my way through the book you suggested. But so far I fail to > see where it makes the argument for the GPL and against permissive licenses. > > For the record. I am not a professional programmer. All software I am > working on if I were to release it (or when) will be under a permissive > license, unless it is a port of GPLd software. I am not in the business of > software. I am an empowered user. Open source software empowers me more the > proprietary software. Permissively licensed software empowers me more than > GPLd software**. That is not currently the case for everyone and every > situation. One day it we may come closer to that being true. But it takes > time. And it takes proper motivation and resources. > > **There are many situations that I cannot use GPLd source, but can use > permissively licensed source. MIT/BSD empowers where, GPL does not. Here in > this community, with this software. GPL is a no go. It is a show stopper. > MIT/BSD is welcomed and wanted. Many other communities are likewise. > > As I said, we will have to agree to disagree. I doubt that anything above > persuades you in any way. > > Regardless, I wish you well and have a great day! > > Jimmie > > > > > > On 09/21/2017 10:39 AM, Jose San Leandro wrote: > > I personally don't care about the interests of big corporations cheating > with end-users' rights. If they were my potential customers, or any > intermediary which is afraid of not being able to do business with them due > to their obsession with restricting end-users' rights, then I'd probably > have a conflict of interest. In that case, I could think of sacrificing > ethics for food temporarily. But I'm not in that business, and I don't want > to. > > I won't blame the GPL instead of the "old culture" of doing business by > forcing customers to do only what you want them to do, and make them pay > for any upgrade some of them could do themselves otherwise. > > Distributing works with GPL restricts the options to other developers > using your product or library. No doubt about that. But ethically, that > "freedom" only helps the old model of doing software. All software should > be GPLd in the first place. > > There's a book that indirectly illustrates my point, and one I > enthusiastically recommend: Badass users [1]. > > Anyway, we could go on and on. It's a matter of pragmatism vs ethics of > software. > > Usually, people sharing your "classic" point of view of the business of > software don't understand why people write free software and give it for > free. > Is that your case? > > [1] http://shop.oreilly.com/product/0636920036593.do > > 2017-09-21 17:16 GMT+02:00 Jimmie Houchin <jlhouchin(a)gmail.com>: > >> On 09/21/2017 09:47 AM, Ben Coman wrote: >> >> [SNIP] >> Its horses for courses. No one viewpoint fits all circumstances. Another >> way to look at it is that permissive licenses give a developer more freedom >> to combine libraries with different licenses. >> >> I do like this radical simplification I bumped into... >> "Another way of looking at it is that youâre picking a license based on >> what you are afraid of. >> * The MIT license is if youâre afraid no one will use your code; youâre >> making the licensing as short and non-intimidating as possible. >> * The Apache License you are somewhat afraid of no one using your code, >> but you are also afraid of legal ambiguity and patent trolls. >> * With the GPL licenses, you are afraid of someone else profiting from >> your work [or profiting off end-users] (and ambiguity, and patent trolls)." >> [https://exygy.com/which-license-should-i-use-mit-vs-apache-vs-gpl] >> >> ...which aligns squarely with Pharo - our greater fear is people not >> using it. >> >> >> I think the GPL one looks right. Fear, anger, offense if someone has the >> possibility of using their software and not contributing back. To me I >> think it doesn't work as much as they think. It doesn't take into account >> the free will of people to walk away and completely not use their software. >> I personally don't even look at GPL licensed sources unless there are none >> other available which is very rare. I don't want the knowledge or >> understanding of that code tainting other code I write. >> >> MIT often means, we don't care, do what you want, just don't blame us. >> We don't care if you take it and use it in closed source proprietary >> money making big corp software. >> We don't care if you take it and use it and keep it to yourself. >> We don't care ... Just don't blame us for any problems. >> >> However, we would love your buy in on open source philosophy and >> contribute back where you are able. We understand you have software which >> is business critical, proprietary and can not be open sourced. We also know >> that you probably have software which has no business specific (your >> business) code which is releasable. And we see many, many, big and small >> businesses doing so today. Close off what you must, open what you can. >> >> I don't think most of us are afraid of no one using our code. PostgreSQL >> has no such fear. SQLite which is public domain has no such fear. And we >> could go on and on. Python, etc... >> >> I personally am very much in the camp of I want people to contribute >> because they want to contribute. Not because I have a stick called the GPL. >> But rather because I have the carrot of all of the benefits derived from >> open source software. I am carrot oriented, not stick oriented. >> >> Jimmie >> >> >> > >

Sept. 21, 2017

Re: [Pharo-users] Pharo 7 license question

by Offray Vladimir Luna CÃ¡rdenas

Hi, I think that licensing is an important issue and despite of being a pretty political one (a way to express power and empowerment from/to users) is not discussed deeply, so I welcome a lot a friendly thread like this one. I share the views of the free software (which is not the same as open source), but I think that not all software can be released as such. Even the people at FSF provided exceptions like the LGPL as a way to balance practical concerns and liberties. In the case of Pharo, subclassing is the most common way of reusing (instead of linking), the LGPL doesn't work (a long rationality about when/where to use it is on [1] and a interesting analysis is [1a]). [1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html [1a] http://giovanni.bajo.it/post/56510184181/is-gpl-still-relevant There are long discussions about how to create cultural (and other) commons and how licensing plays a role on it. The P2P license[2], for example, favors cooperatives instead of private corps (I think that a modification to include small and medium business should be provided). The idea is that license express a world view (about liberty, sharing, reciprocity, diversity, fears, etc.) and we should not overseen that. In my case, what I try to do is to see how a particular license plays a role in creating a commons and making me part of a community that build such commons goods. If I chose a different license for Grafoscopio, instead of MIT, the tool have less probability to be part of the Pharo commons and community (and is not properly a rising star in popularity right now!), but I can express my concerns about diversity in licensing and commons building in other places, like in the Grafoscopio Manual [3]. [2] https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Peer_Production_License [3] http://mutabit.com/repos.fossil/grafoscopio/doc/tip/Docs/En/Books/Manual/ma… So I think that we should look at how the licenses have enabled or not the building of a common world and who is empowered by such licenses as a complex issue, to balance practical and idealist choices, trying to make them converge. In my case, having Grafoscopio and its documentation and related artifacts licensed as Free Cultural Works [4], has given to me leverage even in negotiations with big entities and they keep such works and derived ones with the same licenses. So, from my personal point of view and practices having such mixtures of licenses have not diminished in any way my own practices in building commons. I would like to explore (networks of) cooperatives and small/medium business as an alternative economical practice to enlarge and protect the commons, but as said, this is a complex issue that requires a lot of field work. Cheers, Offray [4] http://freedomdefined.org/ On 21/09/17 10:39, Jose San Leandro wrote: > I personally don't care about the interests of big corporations > cheating with end-users' rights. If they were my potential customers, > or any intermediary which is afraid of not being able to do business > with them due to their obsession with restricting end-users' rights, > then I'd probably have a conflict of interest. In that case, I could > think of sacrificing ethics for food temporarily. But I'm not in that > business, and I don't want to. > > I won't blame the GPL instead of the "old culture" of doing business > by forcing customers to do only what you want them to do, and make > them pay for any upgrade some of them could do themselves otherwise. > > Distributing works with GPL restricts the options to other developers > using your product or library. No doubt about that. But ethically, > that "freedom" only helps the old model of doing software. All > software should be GPLd in the first place. > > There's a book that indirectly illustrates my point, and one I > enthusiastically recommend: Badass users [1]. > > Anyway, we could go on and on. It's a matter of pragmatism vs ethics > of software. > > Usually, people sharing your "classic" point of view of the business > of software don't understand why people write free software and give > it for free. > Is that your case? > > [1]Â http://shop.oreilly.com/product/0636920036593.do > > 2017-09-21 17:16 GMT+02:00 Jimmie Houchin <jlhouchin(a)gmail.com > <mailto:jlhouchin@gmail.com>>: > > On 09/21/2017 09:47 AM, Ben Coman wrote: >> [SNIP] >> Its horses for courses.Â No one viewpoint fits all circumstances. >> Another way to look at it is that permissive licenses give a >> developer more freedom to combine libraries with different >> licenses. Â >> >> I do like this radical simplification I bumped into...Â >> "Another way of looking at it is that youâre picking a license >> based on what you are afraid of.Â >> * The MIT license is if youâre afraid no one will use your code; >> youâre making the licensing as short and non-intimidating as >> possible.Â >> * The Apache License you are somewhat afraid of no one using your >> code, but you are also afraid of legal ambiguity and patent trolls.Â >> * With the GPL licenses, you are afraid of someone else profiting >> from your work [or profiting off end-users] (and ambiguity, and >> patent trolls)." >> [https://exygy.com/which-license-should-i-use-mit-vs-apache-vs-gpl >> <https://exygy.com/which-license-should-i-use-mit-vs-apache-vs-gpl>] >> >> ...which aligns squarely with Pharo - our greater fear is people >> not using it. > > I think the GPL one looks right. Fear, anger, offense if someone > has the possibility of using their software and not contributing > back. To me I think it doesn't work as much as they think. It > doesn't take into account the free will of people to walk away and > completely not use their software. I personally don't even look at > GPL licensed sources unless there are none other available which > is very rare. I don't want the knowledge or understanding of that > code tainting other code I write. > > MIT often means, we don't care, do what you want, just don't blame us. > We don't care if you take it and use it in closed source > proprietary money making big corp software. > We don't care if you take it and use it and keep it to yourself. > We don't care ... Just don't blame us for any problems. > > However, we would love your buy in on open source philosophy and > contribute back where you are able. We understand you have > software which is business critical, proprietary and can not be > open sourced. We also know that you probably have software which > has no business specific (your business) code which is releasable. > And we see many, many, big and small businesses doing so today. > Close off what you must, open what you can. > > I don't think most of us are afraid of no one using our code. > PostgreSQL has no such fear. SQLite which is public domain has no > such fear. And we could go on and on. Python, etc... > > I personally am very much in the camp of I want people to > contribute because they want to contribute. Not because I have a > stick called the GPL. But rather because I have the carrot of all > of the benefits derived from open source software. I am carrot > oriented, not stick oriented. > > Jimmie > > >

Sept. 21, 2017

Re: [Pharo-users] Pharo 7 license question

by Jimmie Houchin

We will have to agree to disagree. I have been a passionate user of open source software for over 20 years. Are you really saying that proponents of permissive licenses don't understand why people write free software and give it away for free? Really! I passionately disagree with the statement of "All software should be GPLd in the first place". This is one of the biggest reasons I passionately dislike the GPL. GPL is goodness and light. All else is evil incarnate. Ugh! I am not going to defend unethical business practices. But that is not a defense of the GPL or an argument against permissive licenses. I am not a fan Microsoft or Apple, et al. I am a fan FreeBSD and Linux. However I do not believe all closed source or proprietary software is wrong or evil. I am working my way through the book you suggested. But so far I fail to see where it makes the argument for the GPL and against permissive licenses. For the record. I am not a professional programmer. All software I am working on if I were to release it (or when) will be under a permissive license, unless it is a port of GPLd software. I am not in the business of software. I am an empowered user. Open source software empowers me more the proprietary software. Permissively licensed software empowers me more than GPLd software**. That is not currently the case for everyone and every situation. One day it we may come closer to that being true. But it takes time. And it takes proper motivation and resources. **There are many situations that I cannot use GPLd source, but can use permissively licensed source. MIT/BSD empowers where, GPL does not. Here in this community, with this software. GPL is a no go. It is a show stopper. MIT/BSD is welcomed and wanted. Many other communities are likewise. As I said, we will have to agree to disagree. I doubt that anything above persuades you in any way. Regardless, I wish you well and have a great day! Jimmie On 09/21/2017 10:39 AM, Jose San Leandro wrote: > I personally don't care about the interests of big corporations > cheating with end-users' rights. If they were my potential customers, > or any intermediary which is afraid of not being able to do business > with them due to their obsession with restricting end-users' rights, > then I'd probably have a conflict of interest. In that case, I could > think of sacrificing ethics for food temporarily. But I'm not in that > business, and I don't want to. > > I won't blame the GPL instead of the "old culture" of doing business > by forcing customers to do only what you want them to do, and make > them pay for any upgrade some of them could do themselves otherwise. > > Distributing works with GPL restricts the options to other developers > using your product or library. No doubt about that. But ethically, > that "freedom" only helps the old model of doing software. All > software should be GPLd in the first place. > > There's a book that indirectly illustrates my point, and one I > enthusiastically recommend: Badass users [1]. > > Anyway, we could go on and on. It's a matter of pragmatism vs ethics > of software. > > Usually, people sharing your "classic" point of view of the business > of software don't understand why people write free software and give > it for free. > Is that your case? > > [1] http://shop.oreilly.com/product/0636920036593.do > > 2017-09-21 17:16 GMT+02:00 Jimmie Houchin <jlhouchin(a)gmail.com > <mailto:jlhouchin@gmail.com>>: > > On 09/21/2017 09:47 AM, Ben Coman wrote: >> [SNIP] >> Its horses for courses.Â No one viewpoint fits all circumstances. >> Another way to look at it is that permissive licenses give a >> developer more freedom to combine libraries with different licenses. >> >> I do like this radical simplification I bumped into... >> "Another way of looking at it is that youâre picking a license >> based on what you are afraid of. >> * The MIT license is if youâre afraid no one will use your code; >> youâre making the licensing as short and non-intimidating as >> possible. >> * The Apache License you are somewhat afraid of no one using your >> code, but you are also afraid of legal ambiguity and patent trolls. >> * With the GPL licenses, you are afraid of someone else profiting >> from your work [or profiting off end-users] (and ambiguity, and >> patent trolls)." >> [https://exygy.com/which-license-should-i-use-mit-vs-apache-vs-gpl >> <https://exygy.com/which-license-should-i-use-mit-vs-apache-vs-gpl>] >> >> ...which aligns squarely with Pharo - our greater fear is people >> not using it. > > I think the GPL one looks right. Fear, anger, offense if someone > has the possibility of using their software and not contributing > back. To me I think it doesn't work as much as they think. It > doesn't take into account the free will of people to walk away and > completely not use their software. I personally don't even look at > GPL licensed sources unless there are none other available which > is very rare. I don't want the knowledge or understanding of that > code tainting other code I write. > > MIT often means, we don't care, do what you want, just don't blame us. > We don't care if you take it and use it in closed source > proprietary money making big corp software. > We don't care if you take it and use it and keep it to yourself. > We don't care ... Just don't blame us for any problems. > > However, we would love your buy in on open source philosophy and > contribute back where you are able. We understand you have > software which is business critical, proprietary and can not be > open sourced. We also know that you probably have software which > has no business specific (your business) code which is releasable. > And we see many, many, big and small businesses doing so today. > Close off what you must, open what you can. > > I don't think most of us are afraid of no one using our code. > PostgreSQL has no such fear. SQLite which is public domain has no > such fear. And we could go on and on. Python, etc... > > I personally am very much in the camp of I want people to > contribute because they want to contribute. Not because I have a > stick called the GPL. But rather because I have the carrot of all > of the benefits derived from open source software. I am carrot > oriented, not stick oriented. > > Jimmie > > >

Sept. 21, 2017

Re: [Pharo-users] (no subject)

by Ben Coman

Could you clarify where to download from? I tried PharoLauncher-user-bleedingEdge-2017.09.20.zip from... https://ci.inria.fr/pharo/view/Launcher/job/Launcher/149/PHARO=61,VERSION=b… with the Pharo-linux-0.2.13.zip I previously downloaded (limited time before bed) cheers -ben On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 9:45 PM, Christophe Demarey < christophe.demarey(a)inria.fr> wrote: > Hi Ben, > > Could you test it with the bleedingEdge version of the launcher to see if > the problem is solved? > > Thanks, > Christophe. > > Le 20 sept. 2017 Ã 08:26, Ben Coman <btc(a)openinworld.com> a Ã©crit : > > > > On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 1:12 PM, Ben Coman <btc(a)openinworld.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 8:25 PM, Christophe Demarey < >> christophe.demarey(a)inria.fr> wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > I published an update of the Launcher yesterday fixing some issues to >> run >> > Pharo images from Linux. You can find latest-versions (0.2.13) here: >> > http://files.pharo.org/platform/launcher/ >> > It already propose to download Pharo 70 images. The VM is now downloaded >> > automatically if the adequate one is not available. >> > Let us know if everything is fine. >> >> Thanks Christophe for updating PharoLauncher. I'm trying it with Pharo 7 >> images for the first time. >> I hit a problem using Iceberg in downloaded images. >> >> $ unzip Pharo-linux-0.2.13.zip >> $ cd pharo >> $ unzip ../PharoLauncher-user-stable-2017.09.14.zip >> $ ./pharo >> + PharoLauncher > Settings > Enable development environment >> + World > Tools > Iceberg >> ==> iceberg opens okay >> + PharoLauncher > Templates > Pharo 7.0(beta) > latest-32 <Create Image> >> '7latest32' >> + '7latest32' <Launch> >> + World > Tools > Iceberg >> ==> "Error: EXternal module not found" >> >> $ uname -a >> ==> Linux 3.16.0-4-686-pae #1 SMP Debian 3.16.7-ckt25-2 (2016-04-08) i686 >> GNU/Linux >> >> > but this works okay... > $ curl get.pharo.org/70+vm | bash > $ ./pharo-ui > + World > Tools > Iceberg > ==> iceberg opens okay > > > while this PharoLauncher alternative fails... > $ curl get.pharo.org | bash > $ ./pharo-ui > + World > Tools > Catalog > PharoLauncher <Install stable configuration> > + World > PharoLauncher > ==> Doesn't show Pharo 7 templates > + World > Monticello > ...PharoLauncher/main <Open Repository> > + ConfigurationOfPharoLauncher-ChristopheDemarey.56 <Load> > + World > Playground > "ConfigurationOfPharoLauncher load" <DoIt> > + World > PharoLauncher > Settings > Hard reset persistant state > ==> Pharo 7 templates showing > + '7latest32' <Launch> "i.e. the previously downloaded image" > + World > Tools > Iceberg > ==> "Error: External module not found" > > + World > Monticello... load latest mczs... > * PharoLauncher-Core-ChristopheDemarey.123 > * PharoLauncher-Spec-ChristopheDemarey.51 > + '7latest32' <Launch> "i.e. the previously downloaded image" > ==> "Fetching VM to run Pharo 70 images" > + World > Tools > Iceberg > ==> "Error: External module not found" > > > Version comparison... > > direct get.pharo.org/70+vm > /home/ben/Pharo/adhoc/Pharo7/Pharo.image > Pharo7.0alpha.build.132.sha.4ea2f39a9f43185d31b844be5ad33b677f43bf17 > /home/ben/Pharo/adhoc/Pharo7/pharo-vm/lib/pharo/5.0-201708271955/pharo > CoInterpreter VMMaker.oscog-eem.2265 uuid: 76b62109-629a-4c39-9641-67b53321df9a > Aug 27 2017 > > via PharoLauncher... > /home/ben/Pharo/images/7latest32/7latest32.image > Pharo7.0alpha.build.132.sha.4ea2f39a9f43185d31b844be5ad33b677f43bf17 > /home/ben/Pharo/vms/70-x86/lib/pharo/5.0-201708271955/pharo > CoInterpreter VMMaker.oscog-eem.2265 uuid: 76b62109-629a-4c39-9641-67b53321df9a > Aug 27 2017 > > Must be something environmental in lookup paths. Can you reproduce or > suggest further investigation I can do? > > cheers -ben > > > > > > >

Sept. 21, 2017

Re: [Pharo-users] Pharo 7 license question

by Jose San Leandro

I personally don't care about the interests of big corporations cheating with end-users' rights. If they were my potential customers, or any intermediary which is afraid of not being able to do business with them due to their obsession with restricting end-users' rights, then I'd probably have a conflict of interest. In that case, I could think of sacrificing ethics for food temporarily. But I'm not in that business, and I don't want to. I won't blame the GPL instead of the "old culture" of doing business by forcing customers to do only what you want them to do, and make them pay for any upgrade some of them could do themselves otherwise. Distributing works with GPL restricts the options to other developers using your product or library. No doubt about that. But ethically, that "freedom" only helps the old model of doing software. All software should be GPLd in the first place. There's a book that indirectly illustrates my point, and one I enthusiastically recommend: Badass users [1]. Anyway, we could go on and on. It's a matter of pragmatism vs ethics of software. Usually, people sharing your "classic" point of view of the business of software don't understand why people write free software and give it for free. Is that your case? [1] http://shop.oreilly.com/product/0636920036593.do 2017-09-21 17:16 GMT+02:00 Jimmie Houchin <jlhouchin(a)gmail.com>: > On 09/21/2017 09:47 AM, Ben Coman wrote: > > [SNIP] > Its horses for courses. No one viewpoint fits all circumstances. Another > way to look at it is that permissive licenses give a developer more freedom > to combine libraries with different licenses. > > I do like this radical simplification I bumped into... > "Another way of looking at it is that youâre picking a license based on > what you are afraid of. > * The MIT license is if youâre afraid no one will use your code; youâre > making the licensing as short and non-intimidating as possible. > * The Apache License you are somewhat afraid of no one using your code, > but you are also afraid of legal ambiguity and patent trolls. > * With the GPL licenses, you are afraid of someone else profiting from > your work [or profiting off end-users] (and ambiguity, and patent trolls)." > [https://exygy.com/which-license-should-i-use-mit-vs-apache-vs-gpl] > > ...which aligns squarely with Pharo - our greater fear is people not using > it. > > > I think the GPL one looks right. Fear, anger, offense if someone has the > possibility of using their software and not contributing back. To me I > think it doesn't work as much as they think. It doesn't take into account > the free will of people to walk away and completely not use their software. > I personally don't even look at GPL licensed sources unless there are none > other available which is very rare. I don't want the knowledge or > understanding of that code tainting other code I write. > > MIT often means, we don't care, do what you want, just don't blame us. > We don't care if you take it and use it in closed source proprietary money > making big corp software. > We don't care if you take it and use it and keep it to yourself. > We don't care ... Just don't blame us for any problems. > > However, we would love your buy in on open source philosophy and > contribute back where you are able. We understand you have software which > is business critical, proprietary and can not be open sourced. We also know > that you probably have software which has no business specific (your > business) code which is releasable. And we see many, many, big and small > businesses doing so today. Close off what you must, open what you can. > > I don't think most of us are afraid of no one using our code. PostgreSQL > has no such fear. SQLite which is public domain has no such fear. And we > could go on and on. Python, etc... > > I personally am very much in the camp of I want people to contribute > because they want to contribute. Not because I have a stick called the GPL. > But rather because I have the carrot of all of the benefits derived from > open source software. I am carrot oriented, not stick oriented. > > Jimmie > > >

Sept. 21, 2017

Re: [Pharo-users] Pharo 7 license question

by Herby VojÄÃk

Jimmie Houchin wrote: > You say it defends rights. It just removed my right to license my > software how I wish. The only way to preserve that option is to not use > GPL software. > > Now, should I choose to not use GPL software. How has that benefited > anybody in the GPL ecosystem? Not at all. > > We like to talk about the bad big corporation stealing our hard work and > our software and making millions of dollars. Yes big corp. prefers > MIT/BSD. They also prefer to release their own hard work and dollars as > MIT/BSD licensed software. It isn't as if it is all take on big > corporation's side. They prefer the permissive license both as author > and user. > > MIT/BSD simply says you the user may do anything you want. Just don't > blame me (author) for anything. And give author(s) credit for what they > have created. > > I would rather have people, businesses believe in open source software > and use and release open source software because they are believers and > not because some license forced them to do so. That is how MIT/BSD > software is. And in reality it is how all authors of open source > software are regardless of license. They do it because the believe in > it. It is wrong to think that MIT authors don't believe in the freedoms > of open source software. We do. We want the user to reciprocate because > they believe, not because we forced them. You can't force anybody. They > always have the choice of choosing something different, or writing it > themselves. +1 > Jimmie Herby

Sept. 21, 2017