Openstack implementations from Ubuntu and RedHat are most closely aligned directly with features. They also offer commerical support models which is critical for enterprise businesses. Proxmox is pretty pale in comparison feature and usability wise but I'm seeing lots and lots of people flock to it in home labs which means it stands good chance of growing.

Hyperconverged models from Nutanix as an example have also seen prices surging to the point of absurdity. The major commercial entities all seem to be pushing enterprises into cloud computing whether it makes sense or not. Cost estimating in cloud land is quite a bit harder to do since you have to pay for every little thing you use.

Historically new technology make doing this cheaper, that is no longer the case. Openstack and the list you posted seem to be gaining in popularity as a counterweight to these changes.

Except big things have changed as a result. Just because the problem requires eating a whole elephant doesn't mean you complain when you've only eaten the leg.

Tremendous progress has been made. It is a very large problem however.

Talk about glossing over ginormous details. If you built a million dollar cluster with hundreds to thousands of VMs, migrating to Proxmox is not about skill, it will be extremely time consuming and cause lots of downtime.

Compare that with Nutanix where you can use Nutanix Move regardless of Linux or Windows and total downtime per VM is a matter of minutes. That is all assuming you've gone ahead and purchased all new hardware to hold your new VMs.

Compare that with Azure Stack since Hyper-V is now deprecated and you can use Azure migrate to again automate the process whether it is Linux or Windows.

Sure you can use products like DoubleTake but now that cost of migrating all of the VMs is even more enormous as most companies will not take outage windows.

As someone that manages several VMware clusters, we've been making plans for quite some time, but at the end of the day, there's no free ride even if the software is free. You want a supported platform and for a great many products (Unisys, I'm looking at you), the only supported platform is VMware or going back to physical servers. That is assuming you can get new hardware purchased. A million dollar investment 3 years ago is rather hard to replace.

In our case you buy enough hardware to hold half the workload. As you migrate VMs, you tear down the old infrastructure, re-image it, expand your new cluster with it. At the end if you've done it right you now have some hardware for DR which is almost always underfunded.

Deployments won't be moved to Hyper-V. Microsoft has opted to kill it. Server 2022 is the last version that will include it. They want you to use AzureStack on-Prem and Azure proper for scaling. It makes sense but it is quite a bit more expensive.

Of course even Nutanix pricing has gone crazy too. As virtualization as matured, its commercial offerings just seem to be getting more and more expensive and not really providing anything new.

Then thankfully we're not very sad because this is completely unfounded. Parent clearly doesn't know any research scientists. You both apparently mistake "woke" academia with research science which is mostly commercial these days.

It's a false choice though, its not all or nothing. The government can provide an option and Turbotax is free to still exist. It then promotes competition. If the government solution actually does a better job then fewer and fewer people will use Turbotax and H&R Block except likely for more complicated filings.

That includes atrocious EARC support. But that seems to be a problem for TV makers along with Receiver manufacturers.

You are still forcing a false dichotomy. A baby does have personality out of the gate. Natural traits get re-enforced by being nurtured. A person with violent tendencies can absolutely be nurtured to control violent outbursts. As I said, its never one vs the other, it is always both. Someone gifted in math could just as easily move into chemistry or physics or software engineering. If they don't see those as options then they will stay in core math fields where they do see options.

People only get interested in fields in which they think they can succeed. If all they see are examples of people that aren't like them succeeding they won't see it as an option and will seek out other interests. This is no different from male/female, skin color, national heritage. It takes a very long time for new options to become visible to the population at large.

I've seen first hand the opposite of your anecdote, the data suggests my experience is closer to the norm than yours in regards to you wife. My wife had to leave her job because she was passed over for promotion and constantly undermined by the male leadership of the company. I worked at the same company at the same time. After she left, her much less qualified former male assistant received the promotion she had worked almost 10 years to receive. He had been there for only 2 years.

You are forcing the issue into a false dichotomy. It's never been nature vs nature. It was always nature and nurture. They both play significant roles in everyone's development. When I grew up everyone was always talking about being the next Bill Gates. Many went on to become him and even eclipse him because they saw roles in computing can lead there. Women have not had the same examples to follow.

If you ignore societal pressures, you will never solve any problems with society. Stoning people is no longer a regular occurrence for reason, public hangings are not a thing anymore. Societies can change when they choose to. It requires force of will however. If affirmative action had not given many people of color an opportunity then they would have taken hundreds of years longer to get to where they are even now.

You are arguing that STEM is unattractive to women because it's not as social as other jobs. I can tell you from my experience, that many women like that. They won't want to be social and hate the spotlight. That is hardly unique to women and is more of a human trait rather than anything gender specific.

The goal of equality legislation isn't to make representation of any specific occupation 50/50 whatever gender. It is to increase the participation to something that is more natural. As you see brick layers are often male, women are free to participate and often do. We will never see 50/50 representation, but if you change it from no participation to more participation you will start to see what the natural attitudes take over. While mysogony is indeed quite rampant and that is especially true in IT, you can expect a lower than natural participation rate of women.

Another example for you is that math scores in men have fallen because they aren't forced into it anymore. So naturally less men are going into math fields while more women are filling in the gap. They have equality in math fields, so you are now seeing what the natural participation rate will be for math fields.

Do yourself a favor, look into the women of NASA. He is very much describing their story which was quite well documented. Not just women, but women of color. Hidden Figures makes it easy to see what they endured.

The reality, simply, is that some of our best modern examples of women as engineers went on to become actresses and host game shows.

Eventually a few will grow up in STEM and become billionaires. When that happens momentum will significantly change. Most of the women that are billionaires now got their money elsewhere, so they do not serve and examples for other women.

While your correct, you do ignore the reality that natural forests contain all sorts of plants, not just trees. That is really allow he's saying about planting trees not being the complete solution. Adding trees is a great idea and should continue, but we need to look into what makes a forest healthy, we are already aware of a lot of additional vegetation and insects required to have a health forest. When we plant a trillion trees we are not doing this. When you don't have vegetation with a much shorter lifecycle dying and feeding the soil you end up with desert as you describe.

Frankly, in the immediate term I'd rather us focus on the relatively small effort stuff like capping leaking methane all over the place. We don't like to regulate the oil industry however and as a result, something we can do with current technology that would provide immediate relief is not being done on a scale that will result in any noticeable improvement.

By all means, keep planting trees, use goats to cut grass and fertilize lands while reducing the threat of wild fire. We have lots of solutions that could all be used but no central push as climate agendas in government are merely side quests for the vast majority.

It's a problem that solves itself, much like censorship on the Internet in the first place. There will always be another service that will broadcast whatever tripe you want. It is a self correcting problem, perhaps, more importantly, it was entirely overblown. Twitter was not forced to censor anything prior to Musk's having taken ownership. As a non-government entity they are permitted to censor whatever they want.

If the censorship was as pervasive as he claimed then Trust Social would have blown up overnight as all these people gain an outlet as they are no longer silenced. This didn't happen for several reasons.

I'm no fan of Bezos but having someone that could almost literally move mountains in your corner only helps the cause. He's not Trump, he's not saying he alone can fix it. When your engineers are stuck for a variety of reasons, a non-technical manager can do a lot to get them the resources they need to move forward.

Bezos has demonstrated that he can absolutely bulldoze his way through most things. (At great cost to society at large at times)

Trying to be like Musk is pointless, comparisons should stop at just hiring good people to do the needful.

You mean stop collusion by killing a single entity at a cost of over 40 billion dollars. So the effect is absolutely nothing and it cost him dearly.

Unfortunately a lot of people can be swayed by speaking patterns regardless of the content. Musk clearly knows how to hire good people and also clearly seems to be able to motivate them to work hard. That is where it all ends, if he speaks on any topic it isn't in depth and rarely shows any nuance.

He also seems to be suffering from his own success these days as he is clearly only surrounded by sycophants. His purchase of Twitter and then inexplicable brand change to X of all things combined with rapid loss of revenue demonstrate that he is not making good decisions these days. We can all see he wants to make a monolithic app but you can't do that while you are cratering a company.