Slashdot Mirror
SuSE Announces More Layoffs
jdfox writes: "SuSE announced more layoffs on Friday: 10% reductions in Germany, or about 50 (mainly non-technical) staff. This follows the February layoffs of 30 out of the 45 US staff in Oakland. Perhaps a merger with MandrakeSoft is in order? Both are RPM-based, both offer KDE-based admin tools. OTOH, as MandrakeSoft is right in the middle of an IPO, it might not be the best time to be thinking about a major acquisition. I mainly use Debian, but SuSE is an excellent distro, and I would hate to see the company go bust."
- gcc 2.96 is actually more standards compliant than any other version
of gcc released at the time Red Hat made this decision (3.0 is even more compliant, but not as stable) yet).
It may not be "standards compliant" as in "what most others
are shipping", but 2.96 is almost fully ISO C99 and ISO C++ 98
compliant, unlike any previous version of gcc.
- gcc 2.96 has more complete support for C++. Older versions of gcc could
handle only a very limited subset of C++.
Earlier versions of g++ often had problems with templates and other
valid C++ constructs.
- gcc 2.96 generates better, more optimized code.
- gcc 2.96 supports all architectures Red Hat is currently supporting,
including ia64. No other compiler can do this. Having to maintain different
compilers for every different architecture is a development (find a bug, then
fix it 4 times), QA and support nightmare.
- The binary incompatibility issues are not as bad as some people and
companies make you believe.
First of all, they affect dynamically linked C++ code only.
If you don't use C++, you aren't affected. If you use C++ and link statically,
you aren't affected.
If you don't mind depending on a current glibc, you might also want to
link statically to c++ libraries while linking dynamically to glibc and other
C libraries you're using:
g++ -o test test.cc -Wl,-Bstatic -lstdc++ -Wl,-Bdynamic
(Thanks to Pavel Roskin for pointing this
out)
Second, the same issues appear with every major release of gcc
so far. gcc 2.7.x C++ is not binary compatible with gcc 2.8.x. gcc 2.8.x C++
is not binary compatible with egcs 1.0.x. egcs 1.0.x C++ is not binary
compatible with egcs 1.1.x. egcs 1.1.x C++ is not binary compatible with
gcc 2.95. gcc 2.95 C++ is not binary compatible with gcc 3.0.
Besides, it can easily be circumvented. Either link statically, or
simply distribute libstdc++ with your program and install it if necessary.
Since it has a different soname, it can coexist with other libstdc++ versions
without causing any problems.
Red Hat Linux 7 also happens to be the first Linux distributions using
the current version of glibc, 2.2.x. This update is not binary compatible with
older distributions either (unless you update glibc - there's nothing that
prevents you from updating libstdc++ at the same time), so complaining about
gcc's new C++ ABI breaking binary compatibility is pointless. If you want
to distribute something binary-only, link it statically and it will run
everywhere.
Someone has to be the first to take a step like this. If nobody dared
to make a change because nobody else is doing it, we'd all still be using
gcc 1.0, COBOL or ALGOL. No wait, all of those were new at some point...
- Most of gcc 2.96's perceived "bugs" are actually broken code
that older gccs accepted because they were not standards compliant - or, using
an alternative term to express the same thing, buggy.
A C or C++ compiler that doesn't speak the standardized C language is
a bug, not a feature.
In the initial version of gcc 2.96, there were a couple of other bugs.
All known ones have been fixed in the version from updates - and the version
that is in the current beta version of Red Hat Linux. The bugs in the initial
version don't make the whole compiler broken, though. There has never been
a 100% bug free compiler, or any other 100% bug free non-trivial program.
The current version can be downloaded
here.
- gcc 3.0, the current "stable" release (released quite some time
after Red Hat released gcc 2.96-RH), fixes some problems, but introduces many
others - for example, gcc 3.0 can't compile KDE 2.2 beta 1 correctly.
Until the first set of 3.0 updates is released, I still claim 2.96 is
the best compiler yet.
Trolling for GCC 2.96actually right after the ipo might be a good time for acquisitions. if suse has alot of tools that can be adapted to enhance mandrake it might be a good idea. after the ipo mandrake should have alot of capital and will need something to invest in.
use LaTeX? want an online reference manager that
-- john
In this past month's Linux World (or Linux Mag... I get both) there's a great interview with Dirk Hondel, premier SuSE dude. Pretty good stuff, Dirk assures us in the article that they are going strong. They are still a privately funded company, remember, so lack of profits today != investors backing out tomorrow. Also keep in mind that SuSE WAS profitable for the first few years of its existence. It's only been recently (and a result of expansion) that they've become less-than profitable. They'll be fine. Their distribution was the first to be better than Slackware and is years ahead of RedHat or Mandrake (sorry guys).
Someone hasn't used Mandrake in a LONG time. Mandrake shifted all its admin tools (Which are far superior to any other distro's, in my opinion, especially when combined with Linuxconf) to GTK a LONG time ago, at least in 7.0.
Red Hat always takes a lot of crap for being "sell outs," but SuSE is the only distro company that has ever restricted redistribution. I don't understand why they don't take more crap for that. I, for one, will not be sad if SuSE goes under.
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
I'd like to add a few remarks on this.
First, have a look at their web site. They announce to reduce headcounts in a socially acceptable way and in close cooperation with the empolyee's council (which for all practical means can here be compared to a union).
Announcing this now means that - if they are really fast in the HR department - they get contract terminations out this month. More likely it will be next month, since every single termination (or the whole package with all details) has to be agreed by the employee's council.
Since people here have usually 3 months notice on termination in their contracts (and, especially in the tech sector, 6 is not uncommon) thus the affected people will regularily have to leave earliest end of october of november.
But that's not all - an employee's council worth its name will ususally get a substantial severance package for anybody terminated. I'd be surprised if they didn't get at least an additional 2 or 3 month's pay as compensation.
Now, what does that all mean ?
First, expect noone to fall harshly into poverty anytime soon.
Second, Suse will probably not save a single dime this year by doing this. All they do is proactively reducing next year's cost (and, maybe, impress some analysts). So this is not, IMO a sudden panic measure but an act of careful planning for times getting harsher.
f.
SuSE is the only distro that is certified for use with Oracle. I doubt that Oracle would let them die. I expect to see SuSE become part of Oracle.
Might be worth checking out, has alot of great articles on there.
:-).
But no-one seems to mention it much, which is unfortunate.
http://portal.suse.de/en/
Check it out
StarTux
Presumably this means that SuSe will now concentrate on actually making money rather than just making a distro.
Tim
This is an amazing pity -- I recently moved from redhat on my laptop to SuSE, and I've been nothing but completely satisfied. 7.2 (the new SuSE release) went on amazingly cleanly, and this on a weird box that took me a few days with redhat to make work. Their updates are seamless, the DVD install was great (I did most of it in an airplane over greenland), and I've had absolutely no problems. It's got me about ready to ditch my Ultra 10 completely :)
Too many competitors in a market will result in low product prices and nobody making any money. When it is like this, it is really good for the consumer but does nothing for the companies. Once we get fewer companies, each with enough market share to maintain itself or actually make money, fewer companies will go out of business and more will actually try to enter the market(potential profit with growth.) This is also what is happening with dot-coms. Companies just can't exist in small markets with super-competition.
----
Just because a bunch of people believe or do something stupid, doesn't make it any less stupid.