On 11/1/07, Andreas Raab <andreas.raab at gmx.de> wrote:
>
> I figured it was a typo ;-) So the basic difference between SM and
> Universes is that the latter uses a community policy (you "ought" not to
> put bad things there) right?

Yep.

> This sounds reasonable but can we then
> please drop the silly nonsense about "guaranteed to work together"?

Fine with me.  Anything in software "guaranteed" sounds like
propaganda anyway. :)

>If
> you need a catchy marketing phrase, how about "community tested"? (in
> the best of all worlds this is just what it would be)
>
> Also, this only seems to emphasize the complementary nature of Universes
> and SM. If, say, Universes would use SM as their "backend-storage" you
> could have your cake and eat it too: Sets of community-tested packages
> that are available for one-click install, and "all code ever written for
> Squeak" available on SM for historical or porting purposes.

With the newer versions of Universes it can do this in fact.  SM is
one of the sources for a package.

I'm personally looking forward to what Göran has to propose with SM3.