Opps, sorry - I thought the Deb progression was stable -> unstable -> testing. >From your message I take it progression is stable -> testing -> unstable, in which >case I would expect the comparison to be fairer.
Apologies. Brad > -----Original Message----- > From: Matthew Gregan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, 10 June 2003 4:37 p.m. > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Gentoo (was Re: OpenBSD) > > > On Tue, Jun 10, 2003 at 01:55:24PM +1200, Brad Beveridge wrote: > > Sorry - that's not apples and apples. You're comparing > Gentoo stable > > vs Debian testing. However I can't see how to get the website to > > Yes, I repeatedly mentioned it was Debian testing. I chose > Debian testing because most Debian users who want a stable > system with fairly recent packages are likely to be running > testing. Sure, it is not _called_ 'stable', but you'll find > it is (simplistically speaking) as stable as another > distribution running the same versions of each package. > > > display it's unstable packages :) Maybe Debian unstable might be a > > closer comparison (I won't suggest trying Deb stable - that's just > > unfair!) > > Did you look at the list? Debian testing was already fairly > competitive. Debian unstable is not appropriate to compare > because it really is unstable, and is likely to contain > broken packages at any time. > > Cheers, > -mjg > -- > Matthew Gregan |/ > /| > [EMAIL PROTECTED] >
