So, what have we got here?
Three theses:
On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 07:13:39PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
1.
> Well, the documentation says that there is no security for testing,
2.
> but it does not say that the security of unstable is higher than the
> one of testing.
OK, so testing has "no security" and you wonder why "the security of
unstable is higher than the one of testing"? Reality check?
The only conclusion I can draw from these two theses is that you think
Debian Developers actively upload *backdoors* to unstable, in order to
get its security below even testing.
3.
> Anyway, intuitively testing is supposed to be more stable/secure/
> better/whatever than unstable,
Your intuition seems to be way off. Could you please write down your
theses #1 five times and think about your theses #3 again?
> and that is what the people expect.
s/people/morons/
Michael
--
"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making
the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."
-- General George Patton Jr