LeFantome
Hilarious. I am sure that, out of principle, you have stopped using all the software that Red Hat contributes to your distribution.
If it is ok with you, I am not going to define my morality in terms of corporate interest. They are not my friends but I do not believe that shutting on their contributions does much for me either.
It has “become clear”. Has it?
Red Hat contributes more to Open Source than pretty much anybody. Certainly more than SUSE. That seems self-evident. If you want to debate, bring receipts.
As per the article, SUSE gets most of its money from SAP. SAP was founded by a bunch of ex-IBM people in Germany. They make IBM seem like cowboys.
The new SUSE CEO is ex Red Hat. Again, according the the article, the hope was that he would bring some of the Red Hat “open source magic” but SUSE has proven too “corporate”. Not exactly supporting their own argument there.
I am not close enough to the situation to know, but I doubt SUSE is taking over anything from Red Hat soon. RHEL is so far ahead that they have multiple distros trying to be “alternate” suppliers of RHEL by offering compatible distros. SUSE themselves are doing that now. If the world is looking to SUSE, why isn’t anybody trying to clone SUSE Enterprise?
SUSE is making some smart moves, given that they are the underdog. But let’s not confuse that with SUSE pulling ahead of Red Hat.
You do not necessarily have to use an old distribution. In some ways, a modern one is even more efficient.
The biggest problem is the shift from 32 to 64 bit which makes the same software take 2 - 3 times more RAM.
Next is the desktop environment. KDE is surprisingly light compared to 4 but GNOME is a beast and KDE 3 lighter. KDE is still available as Trinity. GNOME 2 (still not that light ) is available still as MATE. Most of the X11 Window Managers from back in the day or still available and still as fast and light as ever.
A modern 32 distro with a decent DE is more capable than old stuff and almost as performant.
Check out Q4OS 32 bit with Trinity for example.
On a laptop that old, I highly recommend a 32 bit distro.
Q4OS with Trinity: https://q4os.org/
Antix https://antixlinux.com/
DSL https://www.damnsmalllinux.org/
You could also enable ZRAM If it is not already.
They were saying we should have taken advantage of the short-term opportunity.
The problem is that Natural Gas is not portable and the plants required to ship it overseas take time and investment to build.
So, the situation was not so “pants on head” obvious really. That said, I agree with them that we should have done it. I say that as somebody that would like the fossil fuel industry to go away.
Canada would probably be a major LNG provider to Europe at this point if we had done it. However, they are trying to transition away from it as well so the clock is ticking. And, of course, if the war ends, some will go back to buying from Russia. So it was only ever a short-term opportunity for Canada ( though longer than many believed at the time ).
Natural Gas is still a fossil fuel so your main argument is correct. However, it is a lot better than oil or coal. It makes sense to move to natural gas over coal to generate electricity and the world is doing that. It also would have made sense to move vehicles, especially larger trucks, to Natural Gas. Even if the end-goal is electric, NG would have been a great first step ( especially in paces where the electricity is coal or natural gas anyway ).
Yes and no. The article states that oil represents 120,000 jobs in Alberta. If we shut-down the industry today, would we lose that many jobs? No, far more.
What is the economy of Fort MacMurray without oil? There are probably 2 million jobs directly funded by the oil industry.
To be clear, I am not advocating for oil. I agree that we need to be moving the economy off it. Let’s not understate the problem though or we will do nothing.
Government waste is always something to be concerned. But is this really the best we can dig up to be outraged about?
Half the countries in the world have consulates in New York. For one thing, it is where the freaking United Nations is.
I am too lazy to look for a real list but this will do for a start:
So, it is not exactly an unexplainable mystery why we would want a consulate there.
$9 million for a country like Canada to have the same diplomatic heft as Nepal and St. Lucia is not exactly breaking the bank. That is not excessively extravagant or expensive real estate in Manhattan and it will certainly appreciate in value substantially over time.
Canada is going to spend $535 billion dollars this year! Let’s talk about how to reduce the $40 billion deficit. I don’t think ditching this condo is going to do it.
And the guy who has that job is not exactly unqualified. I certainly do not have his resume. I doubt he is in it for the free housing.
https://www.international.gc.ca/country-pays/us-eu/new_york-rep.aspx?lang=eng
And are we not reading the article or just ignoring it?
The article says that the purchase will save taxpayers $2 million as it is cheaper to relocate “to a new, smaller, more suitable, and more economical apartment” than it would be to renovate the existing residence.
“smaller” and “more economical apartment” do not sound like the kind of fat cat spending that the other comments here are promising.
I get that some of us cannot afford houses. Being mindlessly outraged about every article that mentions real estate is not going to solve that problem.
There is for sure real waste and corruption going on. Some of it actually matters. When I get mad about it, I would like to be taken seriously. So, I am not going to pile on to this nothing burger.