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

411–420 of 1001 posts

Re: IBM acquires Red Hat

#411

Post by barbecue_sauce »

Hopeful outcome of this, provided IBM realizes it is the student in this situation:

IBM's historical reputation coupled with Red Hat's proven success and products creates a serious competitor to Microsoft at the small-to-medium enterprise level. As Red Hat gains share, other corporate Linux flavors ride the rising tide, and Linux finally captures the long tail.

Further out, Microsoft transitions to being a device company a-la Apple. Bill Gates comes back to save the floundering company but insists that each device offer mechanized vaccinations, leading to skyrocketing prices and general shunning from the populace, which has gradually devolved into rabid anti-vaccination fervor. Microsoft fails, and is ultimately embraced, extended, and extinguished by IBM/Red Hat.

Re: IBM acquires Red Hat

#412

Post by ethbro »

tw04 wrote: post #374
jlg23 wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

He's talking about IBM global services. If you had an exceptional experience with an IT department outsourced to IGS you'd be the first.

To be fair, there are AAA teams even in global services. I believe I worked with some guys from the Hong Kong team that were !@#$ing amazing? But they were supporting a major bank.

IBM in general seems fairly aware of who their best teams are, and you're probably not going to get one of those teams. (Unless you're a huge account and/or the project is in dire straits)

Re: IBM acquires Red Hat

#413

Post by bigbugbag »

dijit wrote: post #367
eliaspro wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

False dichotomy. There are more options than those. SystemD won because it had been adopted already and was supported by a major company in FOSS

I would disagree that systemd got adopted because it had been already adopted, this is a circular reasoning.

From a distance it looks like politics and influence pushed for adoption of systemd, motivation behind this uncanny move and spread has been questioned making some wonder if this could be intended with a nefarious purpose in mind.

Re: IBM acquires Red Hat

#414

Post by jacques_chester »

bb88 wrote: post #243

Having been a linux user for 20 years now, I'm not worried. Mostly because in the OS market there is enough competition that didn't exist back in the 1990's when RedHat was founded around the Linux kernel. And we continue to have valid choices in the Linux market. And as we move forward into Kubernetes, we're looking at lightweight OS's to host a single purpose microservice. Most companies don't really need the full…

> Mostly because in the OS market there is enough competition that didn't exist back in the 1990's when RedHat was founded around the Linux kernel.

I'd disagree; the 90s had a lot more OS diversity in the for-profit sector than we see today.

Re: IBM acquires Red Hat

#415

Post by btown »

andrewstuart2 wrote: post #97
AdmiralAsshat wrote: post #31

There cannot be a single Red Hat employee outside of RH's board of directors that thinks this would be a good move for Red Hat.

As a Red Hat employee (opinions my own, not Red Hat's, etc) and though not involved in any discussions like this, I can see some potential for it being a good move. There's a lot of work being done to a) move things from mainframe to distributed and b) help people squeeze the last bits of utility out of their mainframes. That requires knowledge on both sides of the house. The world is going to open-source distributed…

This is the most positive comment I've seen in this thread. To the extent that the ensuing development effort finds bugs in container orchestration systems, creates new features, creates new abilities to manage services on "hybrid" private-cloud-plus-mainframe systems, helps to modernize old-school businesses that run infrastructure the global economy relies upon... this could actually be a very good thing for open source and future investment therein. Skepticism is healthy and warranted, but this could be a good match.

Re: IBM acquires Red Hat

#417

Post by vadym909 »

djsumdog wrote: post #382
jlg23 wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 rub…

yup- Onsite repair technicians are no problem when you company is paying $500K a year to support it.

Re: IBM acquires Red Hat

#418

Post by AndyNemmity »

arendtio wrote: post #360
chrisseaton wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All major tech companies file patents - shouldn't be surprising that it's going to be part of the job.

How about SAP? Aren't they a European company where software patents have no legal force? Do they fill patents for the US too?

SAP files patents in the US.
Post reply on HN