Related: when UT Austin computer science dropped Haskell for Java for it's first course in 2001.
Dijkstra on Haskell and Java
https://chrisdone.com/posts/dijkstra-haskell-java/
"A fundamental reason for the preference is that functional programs are much more readily appreciated as mathematical objects than imperative ones, so that you can teach what rigorous reasoning about programs amounts to."
Any views or experiences evaluating OpenStack instead of one of the big ones AWS/Azure/GCP? OpenStack has a bad rep due to added complexity and limited developer tools that may lead to ultimately higher TCO but I wonder if this similar to what Linux was like roughly pre-2005 before becoming commercially robust and refined enough to replace many corporate-level server operating systems.
Linux was a corporate-level operating system as far back as the mid-90s. It was the late 90s when it started getting enterprise software for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_Database released Oracle 8 was released for Linux in 1997.
Enterprise Linux was getting going for real in the late 1990s but in my view it was more 2005-ish that it became "mainstream" in these sphere. Sun Computer for example started to support Linux in 2006 and was a Hail Mary to try to save itself as SunOS was being eaten away by Linux.
Redhat Inc became part of the Nasdaq-100 in 2005.
I make this comparison as the question is whether OpenStack still has the potential to become a full go-to alternative in the way that clients consider closed cloud systems from AWS/GCP/Azure as substantial equivalents.
I see your point but disagree. Sun was the last holdout of the propriety Unix vendors to support Linux because they had underpriced the other Unix vendors like Linux was underpricing them. Sun's whole idea was to create cheap Unix workstations by using commodity parts and having a low-cost Operating System in SunOS and then Solaris.
Becoming a Nasdaq-100 company is a trailing indicator of going mainstream. By 2005 RedHat and Enterprise Linux had won, and Sun had about 5 years before Oracle purchased them.
OpenStack is great if you want to manage your own data center and some companies should do that. It is a cost/benefit analysis that some will make on the side of doing their own thing.
The biggest problem with housing the USA is largely local zoning that artificially limits what can be built. Cities that have minimal zoning such as Houston, Texas have rents that have closely followed inflation only. In Houston there is literally no zoning. While this has some bad side effects in terms of ugliness it is highly affordable.
Some progressive US cities, such as Minneapolis and Austin, are now liberalizing zoning to allow much more dense housing to be built in central areas long mass transit.
While in many ways not comparable to what's happened with Redhat, with Suse turning to the dark side one wonders how much longer Canonical will last before doing something similar.
Make no doubt about it, private equity is all about short term shareholder returns. That's not a bad things in principle but if you don't want to wake up yet again with your distro having the rug pulled out from under it, switch to Debian.
Debian is great indeed (I am a a Debian developer myself although rather inactive) - but today’s news isn’t much of a change in whether SUSE is or isn’t on any definition of the dark side.
Why do I say that? Simply, as per the linked announcement itself, this takeover offer is by the current majority shareholder who already owns 79% of the company. They can already win any shareholder vote they want to win. They already control SUSE.
Most of what this will do is two things: one, pay the current minority shareholders of SUSE 67% more than their shares are worth on the open market, and remove the quarterly earnings pressures of the German equivalent of Wall Street from SUSE management, at least unless and until any future IPO or a sale to another public company. Not obvious that this transaction makes anything worse than it already was.
There could be a less obvious difference: SUSE currently has a German corporate structure with very strong worker rights including participating alongside management on the supervisory board. If they get rid of the German entity and keep only a Luxembourg entity, that may no longer apply, though German labour law certainly still would for employers based in Germany. I’m not an expert on any differences between German and Luxembourg worker governance participation rights, and in this paragraph I’m more raising a question than asserting anything.
> pay the current minority shareholders of SUSE 67% more than their shares are worth on the open market
For anyone who paid the IPO price of 30 EUR (and it went up to 40 in the months after the IPO), it would mean a realization of their losses. You'd be forced out of your position, down 46% compared to the IPO price. The PE firm probably gave a large chunk to banks at discount prices to facilitate the IPO, but still, this was a really good deal for them.
Even if they won't end up delisting, the jump of the stock price caused by their announcement will have done really good things to their balance sheets, and given that they will pay for the buy-out with a dividend, all it took was to move some money around from daughter company to parent company.
Their ultimate goal is to sell at a profit. IPO is staggered not to sink prices. But apparently there was not enough appetite for more than 20%. So, so far a failure for the PE.
Usually fund strategy calls for an exit in 5y. If after 5 years they don’t see a good enough return, they need to change strategies. Delisting helps do major surgery in the shadows (labour), and broker a deal that either makes them money or allows them to save face…
My guess is as someone said, reduce costs, implement some income boosting measure, touch up the numbers and sell it privately. Expect a lot of this for half-IPOed PE tech acquisitions made the past 4 years as they realize they will be holding the candle forever, since they bought at peak prices.
> If they get rid of the German entity and keep only a Luxembourg entity, that may no longer apply
If that was the case, I’d bet 10$ that the german government would intervene and block that. Germany is all for free market until its their stuff in sale.
SUSE S.A. has been owned by this very same private equity company since 2018. In 2021 one fifth of the outstanding shares were offered to investors at the Frankfurt Stock exchange.Now that fifth is being acquired by the same private equity company.
If there was any turn "to the dark side", surely it must have happened 5 years ago, not today, right?
Edit: Apparently time flies faster when you're bad at math.
I presume their definition is “owned by some huge and/or evil parent corp”, together with viewing IBM and private equity firms as each having one or both of those attributes.
I’ve seen many valid criticisms of Canonical, but huge doesn’t seem applicable to them and evil seems to go beyond what’s fair for their flaws. As for their owner, again, few would place Mark Shuttleworth in the same category as either IBM or private equity firms, other than probably having had a peak (though not current) net worth of over $1 billion.
They (1-3) do not exist but they are psychically real- they are genuine illusions, as instantiated in the dynamic, split-second successive whiffs emerging from the processing of neurons. To think that they (1-3) "exist" in a classical sense is a reification error.
The first three self-constrain impulses to the contrary on morality behaviors.
I guess this comes down to how you define exist and illusion. I don't think I'd agree on your definition of illusion at least.
I'm not sure what you mean that it doesn't exist in a classical sense. That qualia, subjective experience and consciousness are not concrete entities? That something doesn't exist if its an emergent property or that something doesn't exist if its a process?
Dijkstra on Haskell and Java https://chrisdone.com/posts/dijkstra-haskell-java/ "A fundamental reason for the preference is that functional programs are much more readily appreciated as mathematical objects than imperative ones, so that you can teach what rigorous reasoning about programs amounts to."