Two warm fuzzies, one political, one technical.
Political:Hillary and Obama have been arguing over a particular divisive point brought up by the YouTube video questioning: would they meet with leaders of foreign regimes that are hostile and/or dictatorial? I came across this by a Clinton criticism of Obama that his stance is naïve (without hearing it) -- I assumed, Clinton being more involved in politics, that she had the more mature, practical stance (that I would hope a president would have), namely that they would meet with anyone, regardless of their stances, in order to advance the interests of both the nation and humanity. Reading an article on it, I was surprised and pleased to see that Obama's the one who would actually do that, and puzzled that Clinton would call that naïve. Most politically aware people are aware of the close ties between Hussein and various past American administrations (as well as Al Qaeda and other Mujadin and past American administrations...), some of these more friendly than others. Part of responsibly steering the world is being willing to get one's hands dirty to serve the interests of civilisation/humanity - isolation based on principle limits one's ability to do that and harms whatever notion of progress one believes in. Mistakes will be made (as Musharraf and US government officials have pointed out with regards to the conflict with the Soviet Union), but that should inspire acceptance of the notion of risk and efforts to do better in the future. If we simply withdraw whenever things are not already close to our political ideal, progressives will cease to be a political force (again, no matter what notion of progress they believe in). Unless withdrawl itself is a strategic move that in the long run leads to pragmatic change (such as when Sunnis withdrew from the Iraqi parliament as a bloc to undermine its legitimacy and as part of a larger programme), it is considerably more naïve than involvement.
Technical:I found the Linux Distribution Chooser, and was amused to find that it finds Fedora to be a perfect match for me. My basic profile is:
Linux expert who prefers a text-based install, might install on any type of 64-bit system (workstation-type) who prefers RPMs, wants development packages, likes having non-KDE/GNOME desktops available, likes having good access to ready-to-run software, and has a strong preference for stable/highly tested software. There's also the preference for it to be free in there..
It also recommended SuSE (which in the past has impressed me with how awkward their system management tool is - reminds me of SCOAdmin) and Mandriva (I don't recall if I've ever tried it).
Migraines have reentered my life, for some odd reason. Seasonal?