Greg Folkert wrote: > On Tue, 2007-02-13 at 09:54 +0100, Johannes Wiedersich wrote: >> Kamaraju Kusumanchi wrote: >>> Greg Folkert wrote: >>> >>>> Also, Kamaraju, I believe I sent an e-mail to your gmail account. An >>>> update to your howto. >>> For those who do not know, Greg is talking about >>> http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/kk288/debian_choosing_distribution.html >> Nice page. One small comment: The plot 'mainenance problems' appears >> twice on my iceweasel. > > Look at the two images they are different.
Agreed. > That what the two graphs showed is qualitative. I understand. But still with all measures the curves give the impression that there is practically little difference between testing and unstable and that stable has about 10 to 20% (qualitative!!!) of the problems of those. My personal experience with 15 boxes of stable and a few boxes of testing/sid is: - there are more problems with sid than with testing - once debian is installed, there are next to zero problems with stable - on a quantitative plot, the differences are even bigger. On average, there is about one (security) update per week on my stable systems. There are about 100 times as many bug fixes in testing and even more in sid. Just look at http://bugs.debian.org/release-critical/ to get an impression of how many more release critical bugs there are in sid (approximately the red curve) compared to testing (approximately the green curve). Unfortunately, I don't know how find out how many RC bugs there are in stable. A quick scan shows that most of those are about non-free documentation or other issues that don't directly affect the usability of the system. On a qualitative plot, I would simply put testing a bit below unstable and stable much closer to the lower axis. My .02 Johannes -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
