I’d have agreed with your sentiment if Carney didn’t promise increased funding during the election campaign. A promise that was important to me. Now this is some bullshit. It can’t be shrugged off with the rest of the “operational efficiencies” which were suggested during the campaign, because there was explicit statement to the opposite.

This is some bullshit!

I’m just trying to look on the bright side and glad the cbc still exists, albeit with less funding. I’ve grown numb to politicians, liberals included, not following through with promises. We never got electoral reform and how many times have liberals ran on that promise?

1. Marc Carney promised to increase CBC funding. Not slash it. This kind of bullshit combined with a flawed voting system, is exactly why people are losing trust in democracy.

2. You want Crown Corporations to save money? I’ll give you savings.

• Stop paying millions of dollars to use Microsoft Office. Instead, use LibreOffice.

• Stop paying millions of dollars to use Microsoft Windows. Instead, use Linux.

I’m just trying to look on the bright side and glad the cbc still exists, albeit with less funding

That’s why things always get worse.

This is why we have to scream at them every time we catch them.

If you’ve grown numb to it, then why are you in these comments actively defending it?

I’m not defending the cuts, i said i wasn’t thrilled about it. If cuts are happening, at least the cbc decides what is cut.

You’re defending the promise being broken by saying it’s no big deal/could be worse.

This is a 15% cut to the CBC. Do you think that what normally happens is that Mark Carney goes in and starts randomly firing people? Of course not. The budget gets cut and the CBC has to figure out what to do next.

The only reason this is being said ahead of time, IMO: the Liberals don’t want to unveil all their devastating cuts in a single budget bill, because the outrage would be incandescent, so they’re dropping a new bombshell every week to keep Canadians on their back foot.

None of these cuts are necessary!

Yes, let’s take away all the good productivity tools from our public broadcaster. That will surely help them.

let’s take away all the good productivity tools from our public broadcaster

I think you misread. They suggested giving them better tools.

Electoral reform when

People are all about the knee jerk reactions these days.

Sure, OK, I think that’s a valid argument for the OS itself and Microsoft Office. But I’m sure there’s a lot of Windows-only software that they use and won’t be easy to switch. There’s a huge price just to making a change like that, including training staff on new software. You can’t just say “let’s switch to Linux” and hand waive that away.

You also need to consider that organizations need commercially supported software. Nobody in their right mind would run some community-supported distro. They would want a commercially supported distro like Redhat, and that’s going to cost money. I’m sorry, but talk to anyone who’s run IT at a company. You need great tooling and support to administer a fleet of PCs, and I just don’t think that exists on Linux.

What PCs and laptops are they going to procure? There’s only like 2 vendors that ship hardware with Linux. That doesn’t give them much choice. I’m sure they have other organizational requirements that will need to be met too.

This whole “Linux is the best and should/will rule the world” is just Lemmy populism. It seems awesome when you’re a teenager but once you have experience working at companies and start to understand what they need in order to run IT, you see why Microsoft dominates the world. There’s just simply no other competitive option. (On the server side, it’s a completely different story.)

Some governments have been starting this transition already.

He’s asking them to propose ways of cutting spending. Spending is different from funding. They can cut operational funding and still get earmarked funding for certain projects that wouldn’t have otherwise got off the ground.

Government loves to make funding announcements that turn out to have ‘small print’.

Nobody in their right mind would run some community-supported distro

Unless you’re an enterprise customer that pays for enterprise support, Windows is as much of a community-supportered “distro” as Arch.

They would want a commercially supported distro like Redhat, and that’s going to cost money.

No, only if you pay for support.

talk to anyone who’s run IT at a company

Hi, you’re talking to one.

You need great tooling and support to administer a fleet of PCs, and I just don’t think that exists on Linux.

You think wrong. Very wrong.

What PCs and laptops are they going to procure? There’s only like 2 vendors that ship hardware with Linux.

• Lenovo
• Dell
• HP
• Entroware
• System76
• Tuxedo Computers
• Framework
• Purism

And there’s more …

It seems awesome when you’re a teenager but once you have experience working at companies and start to understand what they need in order to run IT

Windows is the last thing I’d ever want to run in an IT department. And believe me, I have plenty of experience. But don’t take my word for it, just look at the European places that are ditching Microsoft completely.

you see why Microsoft dominates the world.

The reasons why are not what you’re implying.

There’s just simply no other competitive option

Even a Mac is competitive against Windows. Linux doubly so. It’s also the reason that all these benchmarks are coming out showing how Windows games run on Linux performance better than on Windows. Don’t even get me started on security. I personally don’t have any Windows computers in my house, and the only Windows VM on my network can’t reach the internet. Only a madman or someone who didn’t know better would let it.

Edit: formatting

Yes, and we’ll see if this turns out any better than Munich’s failed attempt to do that in 2003, which specifically cited high costs as part of the reason they gave up on it after 15 years (lol).

You like half agreed with me (businesses need commercial support) and then half disagreed with me, lol. Thanks for the list of hardware vendors that ship Linux. I didn’t realize Lenovo and HP had that option on desktops and laptops, as I was only aware of Dell and the smaller vendors.

Windows is the last thing I’d ever want to run in an IT department. And believe me, I have plenty of experience. But don’t take my word for it, just look at the European places that are ditching Microsoft completely.

I do need some citations, because when you say this, I’m reminded of Hamburg’s attempt in 2003 to switch to Linux, which they gave up on after more than a decade because of high costs and user frustration. Citing one or two news headlines doesn’t make it a movement.

We can all hate Windows, but accept the reality that every large organization voluntarily chooses Windows for good reasons. You’re basically implying that every head of IT department is a moron except for you for choosing Windows over Linux for their fleet, which is some cognitive dissonance. This isn’t the year 2000, with Linux being some newfangled thing. Everybody knows about Linux.

Let’s look at running Adobe Photoshop on Windows vs. Linux. On Windows, Adobe fully supports the operation of the software on Windows, and Microsoft is committed to compatibility and ensure software applications work. This is what you get for your money - something that you can depend on working at the start of every workday. On Linux, you’ll need WINE, which introduces a third party required to make Photoshop run. However, you’re not paying for WINE, which means you’re getting zero support. So if some Ubuntu security update comes out, and breaks WINE with Photoshop, you’re up shit creek until some random community member fixes it or it happens to get prioritized. That’s lost productivity ($$$). Or, perhaps you decide to run a commercially supported WINE distribution like CrossOver then, which gives you better guarantees about software compatibility on an ongoing basis. That costs money, which is against the initial argument here of Linux being cheaper, and it still doesn’t give you as good of a guarantee as just running Windows would have. Even this Crossover vs. Windows comparison chart on the CrossOver website makes Windows look like a bargain, because the loss of productivity of a user even hitting one issue is going to dwarf the difference in price.

Munich’s failed attempt to do that in 2003

It wasn’t a failed attempt. Microsoft did a handshake deal to get them to switch back (the news reported it as a “failed” switch to Linux). Then a new administration was voted in and they quickly resumed the rollout to Linux and FOSS software. That second part was never reported by the mainstream media.