packages that depend on themselves, packages that depend on packages that
     don't exist, (2) lots of fixer releases to get the minutae of the policies
     correct, (3) months or years between releases, and (4) several-month
     periods where you can't install two favorite packages simultaneously
     because one uses a newer version of a library than the other. Debian was
     my primary OS for nine years, so I've had lots of experience with this.
     When a package is broken, you have to decide whether it's worth spending
     several hours fixing the package, or spending the same several hours
     building the upstream software locally and waiting for Debian to catch up.
     The latter is fine for really standalone programs, but it's a pain if it's
     a library or program that lots of other packages depend on.

   3. When Sarge goes maninstream, gonna set cron to update automatically any
   packages that get security fixes. 

     [Raj] Again yum can be made to run from cron too.

     Do not want to start a distro-flamewar, but yes most distros do provide a
     very decent method of upgrading/installing packages now. And some utils do
     provide means to manage source installs too. (checkinstall is one from the
     top of my head). Linux is out of the dark ages now :-)

     Not that I recommend letting cron change how production systems work - or
     don't - every night. brrrrrr... I have enough cares when upgrading while a
     sysadmin is present. -- Heather

     [Mike] That may be safe with Debian Stable, but you definitely don't want
     to do that with Unstable or you may wake up to a hosed computer. I would
     never let any distro automatically upgrade packages without me being on
     hand to monitor for problems, not unless I'd had success with that same
     package version on other computers, but if you really want to, you can put
     "emerge sync" and "emerge world" in Gentoo's cron too.

   can the others boast these wonderful qualities? Not sure I care, but it
   would be good to know. I installed Suse, and about went to the bathroom to
   retch when I realized I had installed a proprietary system. It is still
   there on my hd, but I haven't used it. 

     [Mike] Some of us are like Linus: we care less if our computer is 100%
     politically correct than if it has the software we need. I strongly prefer
     free software, but the BSD license is good enough for me; I don't need GPL
     (or Lignux). And I'm not against installing RealAudio or Wing IDE/Komodo
     or a semi-commercial office suite if there's no adequate free alternative.

   [Jason] I don't understand this. The BSD license has less restrictions on
   use than the GPL. Could you please elaborate? 

     [Mike] Bad wording on my part. The GPL fanatics think the BSD license has
     holes big enough to drive a proprietary truck through. Users can make
     closed-source derivatives of BSD-licensed products, and that really gets
     the free software purists' goat.

     As   an   example,   last   week   in   LWN  there  as  an  article
     ([33]http://lwn.net/Articles/106353) about Jeff Merkey's (ex-Novell) offer
     to buy a BSD-style license for a certain version of Linux (assuming all
     the kernel copyright holders were locatable and agreed, which is about as
     likely as Ben Okopnik selling you a bridge in Brooklyn). That would allow
     Microsoft to incorporate portions of Linux into Windows if it desired.
     There are rumors MS already did this with BSD code, in Windows 95's TCP
     stack and telnet/FTP utilities. Does that bother me? No, I'm just glad
     they borrowed quality code rather than using whatever homemade crap they
     might have come up with otherwise. Actually, what I care more about is
     compatibility and interoperability, and borrowed code at MS has a better
     track record in that regard than homemade stuff.

     I've made some contributions to Cheetah ([34]http://cheetatemplate.org), a
     template system for Python, which has a BSD-style license. So nothing is
     keeping MS from using Cheetah in MS Office or making a commercial Cheetah
     derivative.  Does that bother me? No, I thought about that before I
     released the code. Their making money off it doesn't hinder me from using
     it for free, and I'm glad if it gets wider use, that's why I wrote it.

     Back to answering our reader... -- Heather

     [Mike] Why didn't you realize SuSE was "proprietary" before you installed
     it? It's hardly a secret that its closed-source install/upgrade tools are
     what make SuSE SuSE. (Or does SuSE provide the source somewhere? RH
     provides  the source to all its tools.) Or are you referring to the
     third-party software SuSE bundles with a one-user license, software which
     completely optional and in no way required for a functional SuSE system?

     [Jason] nods What works, works. I'm don't use free softcare because it's
     free ("free" in the "free speech" sense of the word), I use it because it
     isn't broken.

   Thanks for the great articles!! 

   Ed 

     Thanks, Ed. It's always good to hear from our readers.

     I was really tempted not to pub this. It's lively, but our Gang aren't
     really argumentative with each other about our choices, we just know how
     to enjoy a juicy debate. We know there are fans out there for every
     distro. Each one's got its good points, some of those are even much the
     same. And for others, "good" is in the mind of the beholder. For users who
     crave the lumbar support that sitting in the driver's seat of a commercial
     distro brings, we seem to have more of those every year. A few of us will
     continue to enjoy our hot rods and race around in the desert of really new
     software, trusting our experience to be our roll bars, and expecting -