On Mon, 2003-02-10 at 13:34, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-02-10 at 15:06, tarvid wrote:
> > On Thursday 06 February 2003 05:06 pm, Pixel wrote:
> > > Stefan van der Eijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > PS: Some friends have always argued that the debian way is the only
> > > > sustainable way to go. If mdk is going to do it just like debian, why not
> > > > fold and move the idea's and effort into making debian a better distro
> > > > instead of duplicating the effort?
> > >
> > > one main difference with debian, is that mandrake (tries to) takes
> > > into account the users's needs (and not only the developers's needs)
> > >
> > > another difference is the timing of stabilisation: someone told me
> > > that debian is either not uptodate (the "stable" branch), or less
> > > stable than Mandrake ("testing")
> >
> > For not entirely logical reasons, I keep one Debian "testing" box around.
> >
> > It is acceptably stable for what it does (backup) but is is not as close to
> > the edge as 9.0.
> >
> > For example:
> >
> > samnite:~# uname -a
> > Linux samnite 2.4.17-bf2.4 #1 Son Feb 24 13:00:32 CET 2002 i686 AMD Duron(tm)
> > Processor AuthenticAMD GNU/Linux
> > samnite:~# gcc -v
> > Reading specs from /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-linux/2.95.4/specs
> > gcc version 2.95.4 20011002 (Debian prerelease)
> >
> > I ran apt-get update and upgrade this morning.
>
> Is "testing" or "unstable" more up to date?
unstable
For more information, please read: "Debian testing distribution" [1]
[1] = http://www.debian.org/devel/testing
Bye,
--
Gustavo Franco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
