Well. What do I expect from a distribution? And why do I use Debian in particular - and have for years? Probably it's different expectations that's why I'm so satisfied with Debian.
A distribution must realize the base system for me - this must be stable (which is why I almost always use Debian Stable), but should be easily expandable (which is why I use backports from Unstable or Testing at selected points).
The distribution must make updating the base system simple - a base system consists of a bunch of components, all of which can have some vulnerabilities. I have no desire to deal with these potential holes - that's the job of the distribution. Debian makes this almost trivial through apt. I want to be able to see what an upgrade means - so I can decide whether to do it or not. Debian provides the tools for this (e.g., automatic display of changelogs and critical bugs before installing a package). The distribution must allow me at defined points and with simple means to break out of the normal distribution. Every binary distribution has the same problem: package maintainers decide how programs should be configured. This often works well - occasionally it goes extremely wrong. Therefore, a binary distribution must allow me to compile the packages myself if necessary. With Debian, the build structure for packages is very simple. Adapting packages, backporting packages from Unstable or Testing (to get newer versions than in Stable), and creating your own packages is easy. I'm not forced into the Stable corset - but I can still stay in Stable for the base system to take advantage of Debian's good security infrastructure. The fact that it's additionally trivial to distribute your own packages to many machines by setting up your own package repository and including it alongside the standard repositories is not just nice to have - it's essential with a sufficiently large number of machines. A distribution must have functioning package dependencies and actually use them. Consistently. I have no desire to start a program and then get strange messages just because some libraries or other tools are missing. Sure, other distributions also have dependencies - but sometimes they're optional or only used very shallowly. Debian is consistent and goes very deep - everything is built on dependencies. This means you can be relatively sure that dependencies are met when you install a package normally. If not, that's a clear bug and can be reported via bug reporting - and will be fixed. Dependencies are not nice to have, they're essential. Period. Of course, a distribution must also allow breaking out of the corset with dependencies. Debian has several nice utilities for this that let you resolve dependencies - e.g., pseudo-packages that simply say a particular package is installed. This package can certainly be installed manually. A distribution must know what config files are. That means it must under no circumstances trample on my config files. If a distribution overwrites my configs on update and I get comments like make backups of them first, the distribution is out. Sorry, but I have absolutely no tolerance for that. A distribution may only change a configuration under clearly defined circumstances. And no, I have little sympathy for Debian's debconf either - if a package upgrade shreds my configs, it rains bug reports. Config files belong to me, not the distribution. Period. A distribution should damn well not try to solve all the world's problems. And especially should not try to be smarter than the original programmers of a package. If a program has a structure of config files, then it should at least optionally be usable without problems with the distribution. And that also means the distribution doesn't trample on it just because it thinks it has a better tool for it. Besides, all configuration tools stink to high heaven.
What I'm not particularly keen on: always having the very latest packages. Sorry folks, but that's the stupid update-itis that spreads in the Windows world. Always having to have the latest. Such nonsense. Apache 1.3 does its job well, you don't even need the latest 1.3 - as long as security patches have been backported. And that's what Debian does. Security patches for Stable don't simply update silently to a new version with new, unknown problems. Instead, the patch is - if possible - backported to the old version and made available via that. Security updates should only under absolute exceptional circumstances require configuration changes from the admin or alter system components, which leads to potential problems. I want a smoothly running system before and after the update!
I'm also not particularly keen on nice graphical or text-based configuration or administration tools. Sorry, but the ideal tool for these purposes is called vim and the perfect data format is text files. And yes, I can't particularly stand debconf - fortunately you can simply work around it where it's annoying - and Debian keeps its hands off the existing standard configurations, even if a package normally uses debconf. If not, that's a bug.
But I do expect a certain transparency from a distribution in what it does. I don't like one-man shows that you can't see into - where someone autocratically decides what's good or right. Or perhaps a few. I want to be able to look into everything - because the process of distribution creation can also have bugs that are essential for me. Therefore, I'm also not keen on a company building a distribution. Sorry, but sooner or later come the nice profit-maximization strategies à la RedHat Enterprise or comparable Suse approaches. If a distribution changes the standard mailer, I want to see the discussion about why it was changed - with the pro and con arguments. I want to be able to understand why something develops the way it does. I want to be warned in advance. Of course, I'm not interested in this for every package - but for the essential ones that interest me, I want this information. Transparency is important - it starts with transparent bug tracking and ends with a transparent project structure. If I had no interest in transparency, I could just as well install Solaris. Or Windows. I have no problem with: a learning curve in using the system. System administration is a job. A job requires learning. Anyone not willing to learn should stay away from the job. Arguments like I first have to understand how the system works don't count. There are plenty of documentation and good books on Debian as a starting point. Read. Learn. That's just part of it. No colorful tools and no grandiose promises from manufacturers about the easiest-to-install Linux distribution help either - it's all bullshit. When push comes to shove, you have to master the system from the kernel to the dotfile. And you have to learn that anyway, no matter what the system is called. Learning a distribution and how it works is an investment for years. Therefore, I also don't want to see my investment go down the drain just because the system was suddenly rebuilt because it appeals to the manufacturer or because it's cooler or because it sells better or because another buzzword is fulfilled. Distributions need evolution, not revolution.
Debian is not the perfect Linux distribution - no such thing exists. But Debian is damn close.
At Die wunderbare Welt von Isotopp you can find the original article.