In classifier combination, it is believed that diverse ensembles have a better potential for improvement on the accuracy than nondiverse ensembles. We put this hypothesis to a test for two methods for building the ensembles: Bagging and Boosting, with two linear classifier models: the nearest mean classifier and the pseudo-Fisher linear discriminant classifier. To estimate diversity, we apply nine measures proposed in the recent literature on combining classifiers. Eight combination methods were used: minimum, maximum, product, average, simple majority, weighted majority, Naive Bayes and decision templates. We carried out experiments on seven data sets for different sample sizes, different number of classifiers in the ensembles, and the two linear classifiers. Altogether, we created 1364 ensembles by the Bagging method and the same number by the Boosting method. On each of these, we calculated the nine measures of diversity and the accuracy of the eight different combination methods, averaged over 50 runs. The results confirmed in a quantitative way the intuitive explanation behind the success of Boosting for linear classifiers for increasing training sizes, and the poor performance of Bagging in this case. Diversity measures indicated that Boosting succeeds in inducing diversity even for stable classifiers whereas Bagging does not.