Jason Johnson wrote:
> On 10/31/07, David T. Lewis <lewis at mail.msen.com> wrote:
>> Yes, you are confused. SqueakMap is a catalogue of available stuff
>> that may or may not be appropriate for the image you are running.
>> Universes define collections of stuff from SqueakMap (and elsewhere)
>> that will probably work with the image you are running. These are
>> completely different goals, and the two are complementary.
> 
> Well, that may be, but I'm pretty sure that most people use it as a
> way of loading packages into their system.  And that functionality is
> clearly less functional then universes.

For me, Universes are useless. Since I don't run the latest Squeak 
versions I always go to SM when I need to find a particular package. 
Since it has a web interface I (or Google) can find things there. Since 
it lists the versions for which a package is available I can choose one 
that is closest to what I need for porting. Universes are no replacement 
for this.

> Do people in other fields get so emotionally attached to their tools?
> It's hard to imagine someone holding a hammer getting offended if I
> say that it's easier to cut boards in half with a saw.

You must be new here ;-) If people were less attached to their tools, 
then Universes would have been built *on top of* SM so that it actually 
increases the value of SM as a global repository of "all things squeak" 
instead of having isolated, inaccessible repositories that decrease the 
value of SM. SM and Universes are complementary; one serves the role of 
a global repository for all Squeak code ever written and one serves the 
purpose of defining versions of packages that work together. They could 
easily enhance each other if people were less attached to their tools.

Cheers,
   - Andreas