Hello,
Why is it bad to install everything, and then disable what you don't need, and firewall it to be sure? If you have the space to do it, why not install it and then keep them all upgraded as time goes on?
If you don't, there is a risk of needing to install it later, and running into dependancy problems. I'll admit that I have been RedHat-ized, in that I have fought various dependancy hell wars, and won them after lots of grief. So other distros may have a better upgrade procedure; that is for me to discover and find out. RedHat does not.
Now, I would strongly agree that Microsoft has a broken installation methodology. Installs it all, and enables it all (although Win 2003 Server does come with things installed, but disabled, or not installed.... it is a step in the right direction). The Problem with M$ though is the multiple places to define a group policy, and the order that those policies are defined... one says yes, another says no, another says yes, and the forth says yes, but the one that says no "wins" due to some OS design found in Chapter 17 of "the Hidden Microsoft Mess". Linux does not have that armada of policy decisions... so you have a much better management of the daemons (services for you Windoze folks) and can control them.
As for me, I am going to go and study SUSE now. Granted, Fedora is out there, but I think I need to break from that distro. I am still angered by what RedHat decided to do, and well, don't want to do that again.
Christian