Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

IBM acquires Red Hat

redhat.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 1001 posts

Re: IBM acquires Red Hat

#381

Post by nineteen999 »

rubin55 wrote: post #230
whoisjuan wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Try to use something made by IBM and then tell us if you like it.

1. DB2 is a damn good database imho. 2. And J9 was the fastest JVM when I benchmarked it about a year ago using jmh. 3. And I think Websphere Liberty is a damn fine app server also. 4. I really like Power based CPUs. 5. Talos is made possible because of the open approach that IBM had in creating the power platform. 6. I think loopback is pretty cool also.

Agreed about DB2, although I don't believe the innovation there is as strong as at once was. We run it on Redhat so this might actually bode well for us. Until it comes time to renew our Redhat licenses at least...

Re: IBM acquires Red Hat

#382

Post by djsumdog »

jlg23 wrote: post #330
ethbro wrote: post #234

IBM the company is like an iceberg. The R&D and open source contributions are the tip. And the other 90% is services revenue. And most people's experience with IBM services isn't positive.

> most people's experience with IBM isn't positive. That does not reflect my or my friends experience. Once one gets beyond the local representatives, service for me always was exceptional.

Maybe for hardware. There are pretty good about hardware support. At two companies I worked at we got people sent to us for on-site repair.

Their software support is something else. I haven't had to use IBM tooling in a while, but back when I did, everything they sold was absolutely fucking terrible (DB2, RAD, WebSphere, Clear Case, Tivoli) compared to many open source equivalents.

The only reason people buy this rubbish is because they're in an old company (bank, insurance, etc.) that has relied on it for ages and don't care about the inefficiency or cost.

Re: IBM acquires Red Hat

#383

Post by [deleted] »

KaiserPro wrote: post #250
pinewurst wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's worse, IMHO. IBM treats their customers as prey just like Oracle plus they treat their own people worse. I know people who've had the IBM licensing ninja squad show up at their door for surprise validation with a big bill as a result.

I have extensive dealings with both. Oracle are actually malicious. IBM are just incompetent. If you can find a good account manager inside IBM for your needs, then there is a chance that you'll be able to get on well. Otherwise you'll have to do what I did which is say publicly shame the head of department on a public platform, with their superiors listening in. Oracle however, have no shame.

[deleted]

Re: IBM acquires Red Hat

#384

Post by tilt_error »

At a former employer, we were heavily invested in Purify, Quantify et al. When taken over by IBM, the license management cost at our side increased an order of magnitude -- not for the products per se but by the administration of the licenses.

Even though we loved the products, we found it was increasingly not worth it. 'Killed by license management', has a nice ring to it :)

Re: IBM acquires Red Hat

#385

Post by gnufreex »

ISL wrote: post #93
abrowne wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.redhat.com/en/about/press-releases/ibm-acquire-r... "- IBM to maintain Red Hat’s open source innovation legacy, scaling its vast technology portfolio and empowering its widespread developer community - Red Hat to operate as a distinct unit within IBM’s Hybrid Cloud team"

Do truth-in-advertising laws apply if IBM were to change course from a stated goal?

Well no, but no law needed here. You see, this is part of the deal with Jim Whitehurst and rest of Red Hat management, otherwise, Jim would not pitch this to shareholders as a good deal. It would be a hostile takeover, which can fail, or lead at the end of IBM buying just a shell of the company.

So to back up their intentions, IBM probably had to give golden parachutes to Jim, Paul, and rest of Red Hat top execs, and probably huge golden parachutes ones at that. Jim is becoming part of IBM uper management and keeps leading the Red Hat business unit. If Gini starts some crazy moves to endanger Red Hat's well being as an entity inside IBM (as in IBM-fying the company), she will get at odds with Jim and RH upper management. So she can fire them all and pay up bilions in golden parachutes, at which point they will probably found a Green Hat company and hire away all Red Hat employees... or Gini can keep her word in the deal and leave Red Hat a separate business unit within IBM, one that grows revenues and profits, unlike most IBM business units. And IBM is a meritocracy, if Red Hat continues good performance, expect Red Hat execs taking top position, including next CEO role. In other words, I expect IBM to be Redhatized, and not other way around.

Re: IBM acquires Red Hat

#387

Post by jordigh »

I grieve the most that this will really weaken the argument for commercial free software. We could always say, look at Red Hat, they don't sell a drop of non-free software. It's possible to be free and commercial!

I doubt Red Hat will continue to operate this way, especially if they are receiving money from IBM's other ventures. I hope there's room for another Red Hat in this world.

Re: IBM acquires Red Hat

#388

Post by janc_ »

ISL wrote: post #93
abrowne wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.redhat.com/en/about/press-releases/ibm-acquire-r... "- IBM to maintain Red Hat’s open source innovation legacy, scaling its vast technology portfolio and empowering its widespread developer community - Red Hat to operate as a distinct unit within IBM’s Hybrid Cloud team"

Do truth-in-advertising laws apply if IBM were to change course from a stated goal?

Only if you bought something from from them based on those promises.

Be sure to collect & notarize proof.

Re: IBM acquires Red Hat

#389

Post by severino »

pritambaral wrote: post #195
severino wrote: post #161

Well, I don't know anybody in the FOSS community which would be worried it systemd became endangered ;)

1. Every distro that already uses systemd (which is close to 100%) 2. (Close to 100% of) packagers and maintainers of system services 3. System administrators using distros from #1 (which is, again, practically everyone)

Now talking seriously, even if IBM stopped funding the project, it wouldn't be such a disaster. First of all, it's open source. A new mantainer could take over the project (for free) so the distributions can keep using it. But even if a replacement had to be found, the process wouldn't be traumatic... just like when Debian, the base of many other distributions, adopted systemd some years ago.

Re: IBM acquires Red Hat

#390

Post by bigbugbag »

eliaspro wrote: post #210
severino wrote: post #161

Well, I don't know anybody in the FOSS community which would be worried it systemd became endangered ;)

So you'd rather go back to Upstart or SysV? Really?

I would stay away from upstart because canonical. SysV, yes in the blink of an eye.

But you are mistaken if you think systemd is about init, it has gobbled so much stuff that this thing is a monstrous kitchen sink on its way to engulfing the whole bathroom.

then again maybe there are other init systems options than those two, devuan which arose from keeping systemd out of debian offert no less than 6 alternatives that address SysV flaws: openrc, sinit, runit, s6 and shepherd.

Post reply on HN