101–110 of 203 posts
From a financial viewpoint, CoreOs took in an investment of ~$50M [1] and sold for $250M. Assuming the $50M investment comprised 50% of the equity pool, a 2.5X return on investment isn't too bad. [1]: https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/coreos
From a financial viewpoint, CoreOs took in an investment of ~$50M [1] and sold for $250M. Assuming the $50M investment comprised 50% of the equity pool, a 2.5X return on investment isn't too bad. [1]: https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/coreos
That seems an unlikely assumption. $30M of series B in May 2016 would have been at around $200M valuation. Given the risks that is a disappointing return.
Great for the founders, hopefully great for the team, solid for early investors. Disappointing for latest investors, but shit happens - and the best investors understand the long-term value of graciously allowing the founders to follow their heart, even at the cost of a short-term disappointment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree that this is a good move by Red Hat to position themselves with rkt and Quay ahead of Docker going to Microsoft (who will pay a premium to try to put this genie back into the bottle) Given their self-inflicted XHR debacle that dethroned Office, I just don't see Microsoft passing up this opportunity. Google, on the other hand, doesn't need Docker to plug any holes in their go to market unless it's a blocking p…
> this is a good move by Red Hat to position themselves with rkt Red Hat does not give a damn about rkt. They care about Kubernetes, specifically establishing and consolidating a dominant position in upstream kubernetes development. CoreOS helps them do that. rkt on the other hand is a dead project and completely useless to Red Hat. > Google, on the other hand, doesn't need Docker to plug any holes in their go to mar…
I'm not sure what will be gain from that. Google probably doesn't care about the softwares these companies provides as it has its own internal alternatives/derivative and Google is not really a software vendor, so it's a bit outside of their core business.
What would make more sense in my opinion would be for Google to have a partnership with a big Enterprise player (or several in fact) and promote it loudly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you're looking for immutability, I can recommend NixOS. However what is drawing me to container Linux is mainly its update process
The draw of CoreOS Linux for me is its curated pairing of the Linux kernel, Docker, and etcd. There was a commercial entity reviewing upstream changelogs and making sure that they were pairing components appropriately. I wonder if an non-commercial district can really get this right.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That seems an unlikely assumption. $30M of series B in May 2016 would have been at around $200M valuation. Given the risks that is a disappointing return.
It's worse than that, their series B valuation was closer to $300M. Great for the founders, hopefully great for the team, solid for early investors. Disappointing for latest investors, but shit happens - and the best investors understand the long-term value of graciously allowing the founders to follow their heart, even at the cost of a short-term disappointment.
Why did CoreOS go for this deal though? also, how could the investors agree?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
tectonic, ignition, matchbox? Also CoreUpdate is based on Chrome and ChromeOS but it's the only os that integrated it nicely. Running CoreOS is way simpler to manage than most other distro's because of that fact.
Container Optimised OS (Which is just ChromiumOS stripped down) has been working pretty nicely for me on GCloud. Just reboot and you have the latest updates. https://cloud.google.com/container-optimized-os/docs/concept... It's also open source But yeh, Matchbox + Ignition for automatically bringing up configured nodes with iPXE was an extremely powerful combination. However, those ideas can be easily ported over or a…
So for bare metal use cases, I'm EOL?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> this is a good move by Red Hat to position themselves with rkt Red Hat does not give a damn about rkt. They care about Kubernetes, specifically establishing and consolidating a dominant position in upstream kubernetes development. CoreOS helps them do that. rkt on the other hand is a dead project and completely useless to Red Hat. > Google, on the other hand, doesn't need Docker to plug any holes in their go to mar…
Frankly, I'm not sure why Google would acquire RedHat, SAP or Oracle. I'm not sure what will be gain from that. Google probably doesn't care about the softwares these companies provides as it has its own internal alternatives/derivative and Google is not really a software vendor, so it's a bit outside of their core business. What would make more sense in my opinion would be for Google to have a partnership with a big…
Enterprise distribution. Without significant enterprise revenue, Google Cloud will never catch up to AWS and Azure. Nobody can beat Google on technology, but technology alone cannot solve this.
> I'm not sure what will be gain from that. Google probably doesn't care about the softwares these companies provides as it has its own internal alternatives/derivative and Google is not really a software vendor, so it's a bit outside of their core business.
Google Cloud absolutely is a software vendor. They sell cloud services which compete directly with traditional enterprise software. Their services are superior in many ways, but enterprise adoption is definitely not one of them. That is the problem they could solve by buying an enterprise-savvy competitor.
As a bonus, these traditional software vendors are all racing to deploy cloud versions of their software. Because they have massive install bases, they can drive enterprise workloads to the cloud of their choice.
What would make more sense in my opinion would be for Google to have a partnership with a big Enterprise player (or several in fact) and promote it loudly.
They are already partnering aggressively, just like their competitors. I think they announced exactly this with SAP recently.
But partnerships have their limits. Most vendors will not allow themselves to grow too dependent on their main competitors. If they did, they would lose all leverage in the deal, and slowly starve as Big Cloud grabs all the margins. And then we're back to the acquisition scenario.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's worse than that, their series B valuation was closer to $300M. Great for the founders, hopefully great for the team, solid for early investors. Disappointing for latest investors, but shit happens - and the best investors understand the long-term value of graciously allowing the founders to follow their heart, even at the cost of a short-term disappointment.
This is true. CoreOS was doing well and i am sure could grow on their own too. Why did CoreOS go for this deal though? also, how could the investors agree?
Not great news if you use container Linux: https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/faq-red-hat-acquire-coreos Container Linux and its investment in container-optimized Linux and automated “over the air” software updates are complementary to Red Hat Enterprise Linux, Red Hat Enterprise Linux Atomic Host and Red Hat’s integrated container runtime and platform management capabilities. Red Hat Enterprise Linux’s content, the foun…
Super disappointed in this part of it. Is anyone else aware/familiar with a decent immutable lightweight Linux distro like Container Linux?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think Google being able to buy Oracle is a bit of a stretch at this point. Oracle is 1/4 the market cap of Google. So, it seems unlikely they would have the capital available.
You are right. I was extrapolating future scenarios where Oracle or SAP trip up in their race to the Cloud, causing a major drop in their stock. Honestly it's a pretty realistic scenario, it's not a secret that the Dell, HPE, SAP and Oracles of the world have serious challenges ahead of them. One of them is bound to hit an attractive price, and for a bold and deep-pocketed suitor to act on it. The question is when?