LeFantome

We do not have to buy it

It depends on how much time you have on your hands.

Oracle Linux is a Red Hat Enterprise Linux clone. Almost everything in an Oracle cert would apply to RHEL.

If that is useful knowledge for you, consider doing it. Then be sure to okay with RHEL to apply what you learned. Knowing RHEL is much more commercially useful than knowing Oracle Linux. RHEL is probably still the most important distro to be familiar with commercially. Oracle Linux, Rocky, Alma, and other are RHEL clones and many places use those.

If these skills are not useful for your job, or if you do not have the time to waste studying it, then do something more valuable.

The skills are useful. I will let others chime in with opinions on how valuable the certification itself is. Maybe not much.

Same boat. As a user, I greatly prefer everything to come from the repos. However, as a distributor, Flatpak makes so much more sense.

The only Flatpak I have installed is pgAdmin. I looked at the build on Flathub with the idea of porting the package myself but got scared off. It was a maze of Python dependencies running in Electron. That seems like exactly the kind of thing that may be better off in its own sandbox.

Let me try to clarify what you are saying.

You are saying that the AUR “has every FOSS and some proprietary software”. Yep. That is why I add an Arch Distrobox to every system regardless of the host distro.

But what do you mean by “except Manjaro”? Most Manjaro fans will say that Manjaro also supports the AUR. They are correct that you can certainly enable it and start installing packages from there.

I assume you are warning that, because Manjaro maintains its own base repos and has different package versions in it than Arch does, that Manjaro is incompatible with the AUR and that using the AUR with Manjaro will cause problems. If that is what you are saying, I agree with you.

Glad it is working well for you. What does that have to do with this post?

It just has to always be the first question in a big report or forum question. Have they verified their issue with the Flatpak version?

I prefer packages from the AUR myself but I do not expect the software authors to support me. Distros need to support their own packages but the AUR is not part of the Arch distro. Arch does not support the AUR. The only support I should expect would be from the package author (the AUR package) and they likely do not have the ability.

I think the right way to understand Flatpak is that it is essentially its own Linux distro without a kernel. You have to be running that version if you expect support. People think of Flatpak as a “sandbox” which it is. But it is also like running an app in a Docker container or Distrobox where you have to pick a distro to run in the container. With Flatpak, you are running on the “freedesktop” distro. It is not the same environment as the rest of your system (right down to the filesystem layout and C library).

It is really taking hold. Honestly, we are not far from it becoming social stigma to buy American. Showing up with a Starbuck’s cup will get noticed.

If Russia is winning the war of attrition, why did they bring North Korea in?

Are you sure that Ukraine is not winning?

It is a war of attrition with Russia against the amount of aid the West is willing to provide to Ukraine.

The only way Russia wins is if the US changes the balance of power by enriching Russia (dropping sanctions) or impoverishing Ukraine (dropping support).

History teaches us that Russia cease fire agreements mean that fewer die immediately but that lasts a far shorter time than you hope for. In the end, even more people die than before when Russia resumes their aggression.

This is not a prediction or an opinion. That are literally dozens of historical events to draw this information from.

Russia does not have the capacity to fight 5 or 10 more years (unless the US backstops them). Ukraine does not need the resources to go 10 years. They need the resources to outlast the Russians. That is probably more like 18 to 24 months. It could be less.

In my view, that is not only affordable but quite inexpensive given the benefits.

Europe and the US have contributed about $250 billion collectively over the last 3 years (Europe has contributed more). That is a small amount of money for either of them. Most of the $120 billion the US counts as Ukraine aid has been spent on new weapons systems for the United States for the US military. The US builds themselves new weapons, sends Ukraine old ones, and counts the value of the old weapons as Ukraine aid. The thing is, most of these weapons would have been decommissioned in a few years without being used (assuming the US does not enter any major wars). So, the “real” cost to the US is actually far less.

Both the US and Europe not only can sustain their current commitment. They could easily increase it without breaking a sweat. I lay no claim to it but Norway alone has a $1.7 trillion dollar pile of cash.

In my view, the real question is who is going to pay for the aftermath of Russia’s continued aggression if they are allowed to invade Ukraine?

Was it cheaper to have World War II or to stop Germany in Poland or Czechoslovakia? What would we have done in 1945 if given the chance to do it again?

Perhaps you are right that it is unrealistic. That is more an opinion than a demonstrable fact and my opinion is no better than yours.

I am not sure I can agree that it is brainless. While that is also an opinion, there are lots to facts to counter that argument.

Supporting Ukraine no matter what it takes seems like the clear and obvious choice. I guess that is why it is what every country that matters is doing (except the US—now).

Do you have a better argument?

As good as this comment is, neither has the range or targeting capability that the US does or that the USSR did.

The security council veto was designed to keep the US and the USSR at the negotiating table and off the battlefield.