@matteo-nunziati Novell used to be bigger than Microsoft, I was a huge fan of NetWare back in the day. But SuSE is not Novell, and they have been scrapping around for some final dregs of their former glory to capitalize on. Obviously, that cannot work for too long.
They kept the lights on in Europe because as a German company they could capitalize on a bit of customer loyalty there, but again, it's meaningless when you don't have a product to sell, and your competition does.
@FATeknollogee nothing yet, been meaning to contribute some code, but I've been extremely busy with my daytime job lately
@matteo-nunziati frankly, I'm surprised SuSE still exists 
@FATeknollogee these guys sound really bad. I mean I can understand business decisions, they might not be seeing much demand for RHV, compared to Openstack, so they shift resources away, but feeding a customer promises is not good practice.
Check out Storware instead, they are very much oriented towards oVirt and RHV
@scottalanmiller said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
Legal corruption is still corruption.
At this point it's just semantics, because there is absolutely nothing anyone can do about it (except everyone suddenly dropping their differences and voting in a majority single party government which will pass a law banning this practice - an obvious impossibility).
@coliver said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
I mean that's kind of the point... the Government should be forced to negotiate between itself. It will need to slow down and actually work through problems instead of waiting for 2-4 years for the next party to become the majority.
For a government to be able to do anything, it needs to have the power to act on decisions. If the government is composed of a dozen different groups all pulling in different directions, nothing will ever be achieved. This is the problem with any coalition based government, even before you get to the abuse possibilities
@IRJ said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@dyasny said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@coliver said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@dyasny ...the two party system makes everything you're saying worse.
No, because a two party system makes such abuse impossible. There are other problems, but I'll take those over being forced to feed a small group of people for free, just because they were well enough organized to put a party together and force it down everyone else's throats.
Two party systems only makes people choose a side. The problem is the both sides are extremely corrupt and because of collectivism people are unwilling to think for themselves. This problems is on both sides. People are defending Trump or Obama just because he his on their side or vice versa. There is already an opinion formed that I am a Democrat/Repubican therefore my party is always right and the other guys are completely wrong.
Intelligent people are able to look at things by issue not by party or politician. Unfortunately 90% of people are completely tied up in this party affliation bullshit. It's easy to sell because you can always make the other side look stupid since they both do stupid things. Then people from each party will make themselves feel better from mocking the other party. When in essence they are the ones being fooled since they never look at issues from a neutral or opposite point of view.
Collectivism is a bitch and it makes people dumber than rocks!
so you are suggesting to split all those people into even smaller chunks, and try to form a government out of a collection of those tiny chunks. If you have 10 parties instead of 2 (with the size of the US, it'll be more like 100 parties really), each pulling in it's own direction, how will a government be able to even form, not to mention actually do anything?
@coliver said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
Yeah... we have that too... in fact we have it to an extreme. We elect people not on policies but simply because they aren't part of the other tribe. Therefore anything to help or hinder your tribe or the other is more important then actually getting anything done.... At least with a parliamentary democracy you have the ability to vote for a different minority party if your does something you don't like.
Still, with a 2 party system, no group can simply force the rest of the country to give them a free ride. Even if you are part of such a group, you simply don't have the option to vote for a party which will be enforcing your freebies and nothing else.
@coliver said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@dyasny ...the two party system makes everything you're saying worse.
No, because a two party system makes such abuse impossible. There are other problems, but I'll take those over being forced to feed a small group of people for free, just because they were well enough organized to put a party together and force it down everyone else's throats.
@scottalanmiller said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
Still defining a bribe. Just because a bribe is public and direct to voters, or secret and direct to a legislature doesn't change that someone is using votes to get money to buy votes.
Still perfectly legal. This is why I keep saying that their democratic system is crap and needs to be changed, but for it to change, a government would have to pass a law, and with these groups in the government, they'll never vote for such a change.
This is also why I laugh so hard whenever I hear a kiddie in the US saying your system needs to be overhauled to the European way, with representation from multiple parties instead of just two. Please never do that
@scottalanmiller said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
Taking bribes and funneling money into your pockets instead of governing for the people with a mandate, that's corruption. It's stealing.
Not if you turn that into a law. Lets imagine you have a large group of people, all voting for the same party. The party has a significant following, significant enough to be essential for any government to include them, if they want a lawfully large following. That party doesn't care about governing the country, they'll vote for whatever the rest of the government wants them to vote for, as long as their voters get preferable conditions. They don't put money in their own pockets, they send funds to their voter base, supporting them, exactly as they promised in every election campaign. And that money isn't sent in secret, it is passed as a law, because if that law isn't passed, this particular party will exit the governing coalition, and cause it to fall apart. Pure abuse of the system, without breaking any laws.
@IRJ said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
Human Government is always corrupt which is why I am for less government in most situations. There is no 100% right answer since government regulation is needed for certain areas, but we have seen every government fall to corruption throughout history. Sometimes it takes years, decades, centuries, or whatever but entropy always seem to exist. In some cases, government can be re-established, but at that point it dies and is recreated. Entropy seems to be true 99.9% of the time when it comes to government.
How very anarchistic of you, comrade 
Vive la revolucion?
@Dashrender said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
That's what we are saying - no that expense does not need to be maintained. Only by their corruption does it need to be maintained.
What is corrupt, and it's not even corruption, it's simple abuse, is the representative democratic system with low entry percentages. It's the purest kind of democracy, and it is the easiest to abuse, given enough time. Once the abuse works, you cannot get rid of it without changing the system, but the change needs to be legislative, and the legislative authority is part of the abuse. There is no corruption as such, no bribery, just an interessant group in the government forcing everyone else's hand.
@Dashrender said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
I don't think that's a good thing - it shows that they aren't really participating in the rest of the world.. even more corruption.
LOL what isn't corruption with you? A country doing well is corrupt. A country falling apart is corrupt. What isn't?
@IRJ said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
How is that irrelevant?
Because I never said politics are about making $$. I said the politics in a specific country are such, that there is a huge expense that needs to be constantly sustained, which prevents lowering taxes.
@Dashrender said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
Exactly - Sure, those people managing the economy aren't stupid - instead they are super corrupt! Only looking out for themselves.
Some are corrupt, some are doing a great job under shitty conditions. Simple fact - in 2008 Israel remained untouched by the crisis, the economy remained strong, unlike pretty much everywhere else. So some people there are doing a good job and certainly know what they are doing. Is the economy or the politics there generally healthy? Hell no.
@IRJ said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
Politics is more about how can I make $$$$ today. Four years from now a new guy could be elected, so I need to do what is best for TODAY. Politicians generally dont think even 4 years out, they certainly dont think 10 or 20 years out. Because in 10 or 20 years nobody will remember what kind of corrupt law they passed 10 years ago and they will never get any blame. Then you have the new politician just repeating the cycle and doing the same shit.
that's completely irrelevant
@scottalanmiller said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
High taxes don't really solve any of those problems, but can make a lot of them worse. High taxes put a bigger burden on the economy making it less competitive and makes labour more expensive.
Well, the people managing that economy aren't stupid, I'm sure they are doing what they can, in the given conditions. Still, it's nowhere near the conditions the US or any EU country is in. I'd change the political system, to eliminate the abuse first, move to a two party system, instead of the current coalition based insanity, which is so easy to abuse
@scottalanmiller said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
People just won't vote for a good government?
People cannot vote for a good government. Impossible. People vote for a party, and the party with most votes gets to assemble a government. If the winning party fails to collect more than half the mandates in the parliament, they lose the right to assemble a government to the next largest party.
Now, there are 120 seats in the parliament, so you need 61 at least. The largest party typically has 25-35 seats, so they have to build a coalition. That means giving in to demands of lesser parties to reach those 61+ seats. And there are parties who serve only the interests of a specific group. So basically they say "we'll vote for whatever you want to pass, if you exempt our group from all taxes, and pay them a stipend". Its blatant blackmail, but if you want to rule the country, you have to get those 61 seats, so you agree... And you end up with a huge spending point in your budget, basically feeding the voter base for those people. Lowering taxes? You can barely scrape by, and you have a country to run, country with no natural resources, too many demands, and neighbours on all sides trying to murder the hell out of you.
@scottalanmiller said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
This is not really true. That CAN happen, but often doesn't. As an individual you often get lower costs than group policies. Partially because you can tailor to you, but also because companies are allowed to use healthcare benefits as a "profit center" and literally charge you more than the plan itself costs.
The healthcare system in the US is one of the worst examples of government corruption ever. It's so extreme, and so anti-citizenry. I wouldn't use it as a comparison to anything else. Nothing is that bad.
Well, my health benefits in Canada were great, compared to the private offerings I got when I went freelance.
