Quake 1 (was [Preston] Are we ubergeeks?)

[Andrew King]

Richard said:

> IME emerge is considerably better than apt, but I really shouldn't keep on 
> starting holy wars. When they get around to concurrent hosting of binaries as 
> well as source files (which should happen at the same time as 1.4-final) even 
> those people too lazy to wait for a compile or who don't want to/cant cross 
> compile packages on a fast machine won't have an excuse ;o)

Not trying to disagree here - I've never used emerge - but can you say
what it is about it that makes it better than apt?

I moved to Debian from Red Hat, so obviously it seems a huge step
forward.  Apt's very reliable for me - it always seems to deal with
complex/obscure cases that most software would screw up on (and that rpm
did screw up on).  What makes emerge even better?  (How can it be?!?)

The only thing that's slightly annoying about Debian, as ppl have
previously said, I think, is that stable could do to be renamed
outofdate, but I've stuck with it (KDE 2.something, GNOME 1.something,
etc) just to be able to use apt-get.  Trying out FreeBSD, but I'm still
figuring out the basics...

Andrew