https://www.euronews.com/business/2024/06/11/raspberry-pi-shares-rise-by-more-than-a-third-on-london-market-debut

British microcomputer maker Raspberry Pi launched its initial
public offering (IPO) today on the London Stock Exchange (LSE)
after pricing its shares at 280p.

For now, only conditional trading is allowed, which means that
only some select investors will be able to trade the company’s
shares, with the majority of retail investors having to wait
until Friday 14 June, when trading opens for everyone.

Following the IPO however, Raspberry Pi’s shares soared as
high as 392p, with the company revealing that it was hoping
for a valuation of about £541.6 million (€642.48 million).

The Cambridge based group said on its website: “This is a
watershed moment for Raspberry Pi, and the start of a new
phase in our evolution: access to the public market will
enable us to build more of the products you love, faster.

.. . .

Well, we hope for the best.

However "faster", unto itself, was never what PIs were
supposed to be all about. They are a kind of halfway
point between micro-controllers and "real PCs" - a
neglected niche they filled quite well along with
a few others like BBBs.

But what are we looking at now, "Pi Desktops" ?
"Gamers PIs" ? Sorry, but THOSE niches are packed
with strong competition, no money to be made.

I'd SAY the P5 is maybe as far as they should go in
terms of "performance" now (except that Debian went
to hell with Worm). More I/O options/interfaces
might be a more productive direction. SuperMicro
sells some little 5x5 inch boards that have plugs
on them for stuff I'd never even heard of in about
50 years into computers - had to look up some of
them. Each had, and apparently still have, real-world
uses. THIS, IMHO, is where PI should be. Kiosk/
industrial/robotic/whatever-odd-use.

There are tons of micro-controllers - Ards are good
and have huge libraries now - and "real PCs" of
the x86 ilk are just prolific (look up BMax and
BeeLink if you want 'small'/affordable), but there
is still room in the middle and PI is a known name.

Oh ... one RISK of going public, aggressive
competitors can buy-out, and exterminate.

26xh.0717 wrote:

> The Cambridge based group said “access to the public market will
> enable us to build more of the products you love, faster."
>
>   However "faster", unto itself, was never what PIs were
>   supposed to be all about.
>
>   I'd SAY the P5 is maybe as far as they should go in
>   terms of "performance"

Surely they weren't talking about increased product performance, they
were talking about reduced period between product launches?

On Tue, 11 Jun 2024 22:00:08 -0400, 26xh.0717 wrote:

> British microcomputer maker Raspberry Pi launched its initial public
> offering (IPO) today on the London Stock Exchange (LSE)
> after pricing its shares at 280p.

Rather apt that a platform that built its success on Linux should debut on
the London Stock Exchange, isn’t it? Which famously switched to a Linux-
based trading system after the spectacular collapse of the previous
Microsoft-powered “TradElect” platform.

Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> writes:
> 26xh.0717 wrote:
>
>> The Cambridge based group said “access to the public market will
>> enable us to build more of the products you love, faster."
>>   However "faster", unto itself, was never what PIs were
>>   supposed to be all about.   I'd SAY the P5 is maybe as far as
>> they should go in
>>   terms of "performance"
>
> Surely they weren't talking about increased product performance, they
> were talking about reduced period between product launches?

Yes, I think so. More resources to make interesting/useful products.

--
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

On 12/06/2024 03:00, 26xh.0717 wrote:
> https://www.euronews.com/business/2024/06/11/raspberry-pi-shares-rise-by-more-than-a-third-on-london-market-debut
>
> British microcomputer maker Raspberry Pi launched its initial
> public offering (IPO) today on the London Stock Exchange (LSE)
> after pricing its shares at 280p.
>
> For now, only conditional trading is allowed, which means that
> only some select investors will be able to trade the company’s
> shares, with the majority of retail investors having to wait
> until Friday 14 June, when trading opens for everyone.
>
> Following the IPO however, Raspberry Pi’s shares soared as
> high as 392p, with the company revealing that it was hoping
> for a valuation of about £541.6 million (€642.48 million).
>
> The Cambridge based group said on its website: “This is a
> watershed moment for Raspberry Pi, and the start of a new
> phase in our evolution: access to the public market will
> enable us to build more of the products you love, faster.
>

Mighty white of them, while they pocket half a billion quid.

> . . .
>
>   Well, we hope for the best.
>
>   However "faster", unto itself, was never what PIs were
>   supposed to be all about. They are a kind of halfway
>   point between micro-controllers and "real PCs" - a
>   neglected niche they filled quite well along with
>   a few others like BBBs.
>
>   But what are we looking at now, "Pi Desktops" ?
>   "Gamers PIs" ? Sorry, but THOSE niches are packed
>   with strong competition, no money to be made.
>

The rPi5 is a desktop. Arm desktops is a nascent market.

>   I'd SAY the P5 is maybe as far as they should go in
>   terms of "performance" now (except that Debian went
>   to hell with Worm).

I've not benchmarked, but I think The rPi5 is under-performant compared
to things built on the RK3588 soc. There are clear benefits to something
slightly more powerful.

Continued dominance of both MS Windows and Intel x86 is looking less
certain than it has for decades. The Raspberry Pi is in a good place.

> More I/O options/interfaces
>   might be a more productive direction. SuperMicro
>   sells some little 5x5 inch boards that have plugs
>   on them for stuff I'd never even heard of in about
>   50 years into computers - had to look up some of
>   them. Each had, and apparently still have, real-world
>   uses. THIS, IMHO, is where PI should be. Kiosk/
>   industrial/robotic/whatever-odd-use.
>
>   There are tons of micro-controllers - Ards are good
>   and have huge libraries now - and "real PCs" of
>   the x86 ilk are just prolific (look up BMax and
>   BeeLink if you want 'small'/affordable), but there
>   is still room in the middle and PI is a known name.
>

BeeLink etc are good, but I suspect they only exist because Intel are
responding to Arm.

>   Oh ... one RISK of going public, aggressive
>   competitors can buy-out, and exterminate.

Hard to exterminate Arm. The Raspberry Pi Foundation is a bit like
Tesla, anyone can build a Pi like device, but Raspberry Pi have
experience of doing a good job.

On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 08:31:38 +0100, Pancho wrote:

> ... The rPi5 is under-performant compared to things built on the RK3588
> soc.

How do their prices compare?

The Raspberry Pi family built its reputation on occupying a unique sweet-
spot on the price/performance curve.

On 12/06/2024 08:51, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 08:31:38 +0100, Pancho wrote:
>
>> ... The rPi5 is under-performant compared to things built on the RK3588
>> soc.
>
> How do their prices compare?
>

I paid almost identical price for my Orange Pi 5 (RK3588S) and Raspberry
Pi 5.

> The Raspberry Pi family built its reputation on occupying a unique sweet-
> spot on the price/performance curve.

Yes, that is possibly true, but to my mind the real difference is the
quality of the software and driver support. The Raspberry Pi support is
hugely better than the Orange Pi 5. That's why I made the Tesla analogy,
The Raspberry Pi foundation has a head start on the market[1], but there
is no real reason other companies can't duplicate it when market
conditions are right.

[1] Ignoring Apple, because they are a different price bracket.

Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> writes:
> On 12/06/2024 03:00, 26xh.0717 wrote:
>> https://www.euronews.com/business/2024/06/11/raspberry-pi-shares-rise-by-more-than-a-third-on-london-market-debut
>> British microcomputer maker Raspberry Pi launched its initial
>> public offering (IPO) today on the London Stock Exchange (LSE)
>> after pricing its shares at 280p.
>> For now, only conditional trading is allowed, which means that
>> only some select investors will be able to trade the company’s
>> shares, with the majority of retail investors having to wait
>> until Friday 14 June, when trading opens for everyone.
>> Following the IPO however, Raspberry Pi’s shares soared as
>> high as 392p, with the company revealing that it was hoping
>> for a valuation of about £541.6 million (€642.48 million).
>> The Cambridge based group said on its website: “This is a
>> watershed moment for Raspberry Pi, and the start of a new
>> phase in our evolution: access to the public market will
>> enable us to build more of the products you love, faster.
>
> Mighty white of them, while they pocket half a billion quid.

I think you’ve confused the implied valuation of the whole business with
the amount raised, which was £166M according to
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/06/11/tech/raspberry-pi-ipo-london-stock-exchange/index.html

--
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

On 13/06/2024 17:39, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
> Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> writes:
>> On 12/06/2024 03:00, 26xh.0717 wrote:
>>> https://www.euronews.com/business/2024/06/11/raspberry-pi-shares-rise-by-more-than-a-third-on-london-market-debut
>>> British microcomputer maker Raspberry Pi launched its initial
>>> public offering (IPO) today on the London Stock Exchange (LSE)
>>> after pricing its shares at 280p.
>>> For now, only conditional trading is allowed, which means that
>>> only some select investors will be able to trade the company’s
>>> shares, with the majority of retail investors having to wait
>>> until Friday 14 June, when trading opens for everyone.
>>> Following the IPO however, Raspberry Pi’s shares soared as
>>> high as 392p, with the company revealing that it was hoping
>>> for a valuation of about £541.6 million (€642.48 million).
>>> The Cambridge based group said on its website: “This is a
>>> watershed moment for Raspberry Pi, and the start of a new
>>> phase in our evolution: access to the public market will
>>> enable us to build more of the products you love, faster.
>>
>> Mighty white of them, while they pocket half a billion quid.
>
> I think you’ve confused the implied valuation of the whole business with
> the amount raised, which was £166M according to
> https://edition.cnn.com/2024/06/11/tech/raspberry-pi-ipo-london-stock-exchange/index.html
>

I may have confused the implied valuation pre and post the funds raised
in the offering, but I didn't confuse the valuation with the funds raised.

Are you saying the £540 market valuation includes the 166M raised from
the share offering?

My point was that The Raspberry Pi Foundation is a charity. My cynical
suspicion is that some people in controlling positions at the charity
have leveraged their relationship with the charity to become personally
very wealthy. The majority of little people who contributed to the
charity, made the Raspberry Pi a success, will not receive a
proportionate reward.

On Thu, 13 Jun 2024 20:21:25 +0100, Pancho wrote:

> My point was that The Raspberry Pi Foundation is a charity.

That’s not the company that has gone public.

On 14/06/2024 01:21, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Jun 2024 20:21:25 +0100, Pancho wrote:
>
>> My point was that The Raspberry Pi Foundation is a charity.
>
> That’s not the company that has gone public.

The Raspberry Pi Foundation and Raspberry Pi Ltd (Or whatever it is
called) are intimately linked. Raspberry Pi Ltd is a subsidiary.

So the Raspberry Pi Foundation now has a large share of an asset worth
100s of millions. Shares that are easily convertible into cash. The
people who control Raspberry Pi Foundation have control over the shares
in Raspberry Pi Ltd.

People who control charities have a number of ways to enrich themselves.
Paying themselves large salaries is one way, employee share ownership
schemes are another. Both of these methods are influenced by the
perceived value of the organisation. They will tell you they are growing
the value of the charity for the good of humanity, but they
coincidentally get rich in the process.

For the avoidance of doubt, my cynicism is general as opposed to being
based on any specific personal knowledge of the Raspberry Pi
organisation, beyond the recent articles in the press. This is similar
to the way I was suspicious of the Google company motto “Don't be
evil.”, presenting Google as altruistic rather than self-interested.

On Fri, 14 Jun 2024 08:46:20 +0100, Pancho wrote:

> People who control charities have a number of ways to enrich themselves.
> Paying themselves large salaries is one way, employee share ownership
> schemes are another.

Has any of this actually happened?

Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> writes:
> On 13/06/2024 17:39, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>> Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> writes:
>>> Mighty white of them, while they pocket half a billion quid.
>> I think you’ve confused the implied valuation of the whole business
>> with
>> the amount raised, which was £166M according to
>> https://edition.cnn.com/2024/06/11/tech/raspberry-pi-ipo-london-stock-exchange/index.html
>
> I may have confused the implied valuation pre and post the funds
> raised in the offering, but I didn't confuse the valuation with the
> funds raised.
>
> Are you saying the £540 market valuation includes the 166M raised from
> the share offering?

Nobody has “pocketed half a billion quid”. The business has only
received £166M.

The valuation quoted in the euronews article is total number of shares
multiplied by the price they were trading at at that point (which is now
even higher).

--
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> writes:
> On 14/06/2024 01:21, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Jun 2024 20:21:25 +0100, Pancho wrote:
>>> My point was that The Raspberry Pi Foundation is a charity.
>> That’s not the company that has gone public.
>
> The Raspberry Pi Foundation and Raspberry Pi Ltd (Or whatever it is
> called) are intimately linked. Raspberry Pi Ltd is a subsidiary.

Raspberry Pi Holdings plc. 49% owned by the foundation if I’m reading
the prospectus correctly.

> So the Raspberry Pi Foundation now has a large share of an asset worth
> 100s of millions. Shares that are easily convertible into cash. The
> people who control Raspberry Pi Foundation have control over the
> shares in Raspberry Pi Ltd.
>
> People who control charities have a number of ways to enrich
> themselves. Paying themselves large salaries is one way, employee
> share ownership schemes are another.

You can look up the salaries for the senior staff in the prospectus, if
you want. Personally I don’t think they’re unreasonable in context.

> Both of these methods are influenced by the perceived value of the
> organisation. They will tell you they are growing the value of the
> charity for the good of humanity, but they coincidentally get rich in
> the process.

Personally I think the people behind the Pi deserve to get rich, they’ve
made a product that’s both practically and socially useful.

--
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

On 6/12/24 7:14 AM, Pancho wrote:
> On 12/06/2024 08:51, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 08:31:38 +0100, Pancho wrote:
>>
>>> ... The rPi5 is under-performant compared to things built on the RK3588
>>> soc.
>>
>> How do their prices compare?
>>
>
> I paid almost identical price for my Orange Pi 5 (RK3588S) and Raspberry
> Pi 5.

I tried one orange and one banana ... but they
were weirder to set up and the docs kinda thin,
plus the banana did not have integral wi-fi.
The "Pi Experience" is all-around better (until
the P5 and WORM).

>> The Raspberry Pi family built its reputation on occupying a unique sweet-
>> spot on the price/performance curve.
>
> Yes, that is possibly true, but to my mind the real difference is the
> quality of the software and driver support. The Raspberry Pi support is
> hugely better than the Orange Pi 5. That's why I made the Tesla analogy,
> The Raspberry Pi foundation has a head start on the market[1], but there
> is no real reason other companies can't duplicate it when market
> conditions are right.
>
> [1] Ignoring Apple, because they are a different price bracket.

Apple is from a different planet. Won't buy 'em.

On 14/06/2024 09:34, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
> Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> writes:
>> On 13/06/2024 17:39, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>>> Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> writes:
>>>> Mighty white of them, while they pocket half a billion quid.
>>> I think you’ve confused the implied valuation of the whole business
>>> with
>>> the amount raised, which was £166M according to
>>> https://edition.cnn.com/2024/06/11/tech/raspberry-pi-ipo-london-stock-exchange/index.html
>>
>> I may have confused the implied valuation pre and post the funds
>> raised in the offering, but I didn't confuse the valuation with the
>> funds raised.
>>
>> Are you saying the £540 market valuation includes the 166M raised from
>> the share offering?
>
> Nobody has “pocketed half a billion quid”. The business has only
> received £166M.
>

You are missing the point. The people who owned Raspberry Pi Limited do
not benefit directly from the money raised. They benefit from their
share of the company becoming a fungible asset.

An IPO does at least two things, yes it raises capital for the company,
but it also makes shares in the company tradable, fungible, convertible
to money. It is the second part I was referring to.

> The valuation quoted in the euronews article is total number of shares
> multiplied by the price they were trading at at that point (which is now
> even higher).
>

The critical thing is when the valuation is taken, pre or post the IPO.
The number of shares increased by ~50% with the IPO. If 166M was raised
by the share offering, the value of the company will increase
instantaneously by 166M. However, the proportion of the company owned by
each existing share, prior to IPO, will decrease by ~2/3.

The pre IPO valuation, which set the IPO share price, was quite low,
~332M. This is lower than the implied valuation when the company raised
~33M a few years ago.

I got the pre/post IPO bit wrong, I assumed IPO valuations didn't
include the newly raised capital. However, by the time I actually posted
the share price had risen, so half a billion was about what the shares
held prior to IPO were worth.

Raspberry Pi Ltd was very profitable. I'm not sure why they needed a
cash investment. One justification I saw was that they need to design
the next chip themselves, rather than get it from Broadcom.

On 14/06/2024 09:44, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
> Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> writes:
>> On 14/06/2024 01:21, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>> On Thu, 13 Jun 2024 20:21:25 +0100, Pancho wrote:
>>>> My point was that The Raspberry Pi Foundation is a charity.
>>> That’s not the company that has gone public.
>>
>> The Raspberry Pi Foundation and Raspberry Pi Ltd (Or whatever it is
>> called) are intimately linked. Raspberry Pi Ltd is a subsidiary.
>
> Raspberry Pi Holdings plc. 49% owned by the foundation if I’m reading
> the prospectus correctly.
>

Ok, Raspberry Pi Ltd was a subsidiary until a few days ago. Up until
that point, the Raspberry Pi foundation owned ~75% and was effectively
in control.

>> So the Raspberry Pi Foundation now has a large share of an asset worth
>> 100s of millions. Shares that are easily convertible into cash. The
>> people who control Raspberry Pi Foundation have control over the
>> shares in Raspberry Pi Ltd.
>>
>> People who control charities have a number of ways to enrich
>> themselves. Paying themselves large salaries is one way, employee
>> share ownership schemes are another.
>
> You can look up the salaries for the senior staff in the prospectus, if
> you want. Personally I don’t think they’re unreasonable in context.
>

We will see what happens to the salaries now.

But, as I said, there are a number of ways to enrich themselves. Prior
to the IPO ~15% of Raspberry Pi Limited was held by an employee trust.

>> Both of these methods are influenced by the perceived value of the
>> organisation. They will tell you they are growing the value of the
>> charity for the good of humanity, but they coincidentally get rich in
>> the process.
>
> Personally I think the people behind the Pi deserve to get rich, they’ve
> made a product that’s both practically and socially useful.
>

Yes, someone has done a good job, I'm not sure who that is exactly.
However, I don't think charities are appropriate vehicles for self
enrichment. If that was their goal, they should have formed a normal
company.

In my experience, it is often the case that the people responsible for
the success of a company are not the ones who control the business side,
but the business side take more than a lions share of the profit.

Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> writes:
> On 14/06/2024 09:44, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>> Personally I think the people behind the Pi deserve to get rich,
>> they’ve made a product that’s both practically and socially useful.
>
> Yes, someone has done a good job, I'm not sure who that is
> exactly. However, I don't think charities are appropriate vehicles for
> self enrichment. If that was their goal, they should have formed a
> normal company.

I didn’t say that was their goal, I said that they deserved reward. The
only person who seems to think this is some kind of mugging is you.

Nevertheless: They _have_ formed a company, namely Raspberry Pi Holdings
plc. The people losing out, in the hypothetical where someone uses that
company to enrich themselves beyond fair reward for the RPi achievement,
would be the shareholders (presently including me, on a small scale).

--
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> writes:
>> On 14/06/2024 09:44, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>>> Personally I think the people behind the Pi deserve to get rich,
>>> they've made a product that's both practically and socially useful.
>>
>> Yes, someone has done a good job, I'm not sure who that is
>> exactly. However, I don't think charities are appropriate vehicles for
>> self enrichment. If that was their goal, they should have formed a
>> normal company.
>
> I didn't say that was their goal, I said that they deserved reward. The
> only person who seems to think this is some kind of mugging is you.

From the side of software development, I can see how their original
charity status might have motivated programmers to contribute to
improving open-source software support for the first Pis more than
for competitors that were always for-profit organisations. Since
people commonly quote good software support as the brand's key
advantage over other SBC manufacturers, it might be a bit insincere
to build a commercial company on top of that. But then it shouldn't
really be a surprise since Linux itself followed a similar path
with the commercial distros.

On that note it's interesting that they're still seemingly
leaving it to others to try and support their hardware in the
mainline Linux kernel (not just their fork of it), and for the RPi
5 it's actually a SUSE programmer who is doing the work on this:
https://www.phoronix.com/news/SUSE-Upstream-Linux-RPi-5
https://www.phoronix.com/news/Raspberry-Pi-5-RP1-Linux-RFC

--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#

On 15/06/2024 10:14, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
> Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> writes:
>> On 14/06/2024 09:44, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>>> Personally I think the people behind the Pi deserve to get rich,
>>> they’ve made a product that’s both practically and socially useful.
>>
>> Yes, someone has done a good job, I'm not sure who that is
>> exactly. However, I don't think charities are appropriate vehicles for
>> self enrichment. If that was their goal, they should have formed a
>> normal company.
>
> I didn’t say that was their goal, I said that they deserved reward.

OK, if it wasn't their goal, they have no reason to expect it.
Incentivisation doesn't apply. Lots of people deserve reward.

> The
> only person who seems to think this is some kind of mugging is you.
>

I very much doubt I'm the only person. A quick search reveals other
people making exactly the same “don't be evil” comparison.

I didn't say it was a mugging. I merely made a snide remark, suggesting
they were not being transparent about motivations. I do presume that
what they are doing is legal.

Possibly a history of working in finance gives me a different
perspective, a cynical perspective. However, a finance background
doesn't mean I understand what went on in the IPO, because there are a
number of aspects of it that do confuse me. e.g. why the Employee Trust
share holding went from 14% to 5% just before the IPO. But it is boring
to work these things out, so I won't try.

> Nevertheless: They _have_ formed a company, namely Raspberry Pi Holdings
> plc. The people losing out, in the hypothetical where someone uses that
> company to enrich themselves beyond fair reward for the RPi achievement,
> would be the shareholders (presently including me, on a small scale).
>

They have formed lots of companies. I'm not going to check again to see
which role each one plays, even if there was enough public information
to know.

No, the loss is from the beneficial treatment they received when they
presented themselves as a charity. Presented themselves as building a
product altruistically, for the public good. The losers are the people
who helped them, and the people who would have expected to benefit from
the charitable work, who will get less than they otherwise would have.
Computer Nerd Kev touches on some of this.

You are not a victim, you knew you were buying shares in a commercial
organization.

There are a lot of good reasons to support and protect not for profit
organizations delivering free/cheap technology. I would have thought I
would have been preaching to the converted in a Linux group.

not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) writes:
> From the side of software development, I can see how their original
> charity status might have motivated programmers to contribute to
> improving open-source software support for the first Pis more than
> for competitors that were always for-profit organisations.

Not impossible, but remember that the early history of Linux and the GNU
project is of volunteers building software for computers that were very
much manufactured for profit.

--
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

On 6/17/24 2:36 AM, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
> not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) writes:
>> From the side of software development, I can see how their original
>> charity status might have motivated programmers to contribute to
>> improving open-source software support for the first Pis more than
>> for competitors that were always for-profit organisations.
>
> Not impossible, but remember that the early history of Linux and the GNU
> project is of volunteers building software for computers that were very
> much manufactured for profit.

Yea, but the PSYCHOLOGY intrudes here. The BOX is
considered just the "underlying engine". One main
idea behind Linux was a free/open *OS*, not "free
computers".

But, yea, SOME will still be put off by rPI going
public, at least shorter term. SOME of the software
for the PIs is "customized" to best suit the boards,
and thus major profiteering from the boards IS a
bit of a downer.

My big gripe though isn't the PI per-se, but the Pi5
reliance on the not/never-ready-for-prime-time
Deb WORM. Four of the five main things I do with
PIs would NOT work with WORM. Went to BeeLink boxes
and Manjaro instead.

Deb, PLEASE, FIRE the Canonical REJECTS you hired !!!

On Fri, 28 Jun 2024 00:18:29 -0400, 26xh.0712 wrote:

> My big gripe though isn't the PI per-se, but the Pi5 reliance on the
> not/never-ready-for-prime-time Deb WORM. Four of the five main things
> I do with PIs would NOT work with WORM. Went to BeeLink boxes and
> Manjaro instead.

I can't address Bookworm since I've studiously avoided moving my Debian
box from Bullseye. I am running Ubuntu on a BeeLink SER 4 and am happy
with it but that model is a AMD Ryzen 7 and not comparable to a Pi.

I probably will pick up a Pi 5 at some point primarily to work with the
Pico W. I'm currently using MicroPython on the Pico and would install the
C/C++ tool chain on the Pi.

On 6/28/24 10:32, rbowman wrote:

A lot of text invisibly in white on white

> On Fri, 28 Jun 2024 00:18:29 -0400, 26xh.0712 wrote:
>
>> My big gripe though isn't the PI per-se, but the Pi5 reliance on the
>> not/never-ready-for-prime-time Deb WORM. Four of the five main things
>> I do with PIs would NOT work with WORM. Went to BeeLink boxes and
>> Manjaro instead.
>
> I can't address Bookworm since I've studiously avoided moving my Debian
> box from Bullseye. I am running Ubuntu on a BeeLink SER 4 and am happy
> with it but that model is a AMD Ryzen 7 and not comparable to a Pi.
>
> I probably will pick up a Pi 5 at some point primarily to work with the
> Pico W. I'm currently using MicroPython on the Pico and would install the
> C/C++ tool chain on the Pi.
>

Pick contrasting colors for Text and background.
Please so I can read what is being said without having
to followup to the topic.

bliss who deals with things and this month is having no
problems with connecting to Eternal-September.

--
b l i s s - S F 4 e v e r at D S L E x t r e m e dot com

On Fri, 28 Jun 2024 10:48:07 -0700, Bobbie Sellers wrote:

> Pick contrasting colors for Text and background. Please so I can
read
> what is being said without having
> to followup to the topic.

I am using Pan and post to several newsgroups. You're the only person that
has ever complained about white on white text.

Personally I used Thunderbird for years for mail and news. I still use it
for mail but the newsgroup handling became very flakey. I don't know if
Betterbird is better.