Live data from Hacker News

IBM acquires Red Hat

redhat.com

421–430 of 1001 posts

Re: IBM acquires Red Hat

#421

Guys, this is not just, or mainly not RH Linux. :( - kernel development - Ansible - JBoss (I know HN hates Java, especially Java EE, but it was and is an important factor in enterprise OSS adoption) - OpenShift - Ceph, Gluster All these are in danger, not just RHEL. I don't know about any other company that is large, successful, focuses on the enterprise and absolutely behind OSS. Canonical is way behind Red Hat in t…

On the other hand it might mean the end for SystemD!

zing!

Re: IBM acquires Red Hat

#422
I really don't understand this. Redhat has been very profitable lately, what do they stand to gain from this? Why do they need cash so badly, what are they investing in?

Their success is so dependent on having management that understands how unique their business model is, I just can't understand why they'd be so desperate for cash that they'd risk screwing that up. Even if you have confidence that it's going to be fine for the next 5 years, what about 15 years from now? They've signed their soul away.

Re: IBM acquires Red Hat

#423
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.

IBM is, as far a I can tell, the best example of a "mixed bag" in tech. I have heard both great and terrible things about IBM from customers, employees, developers on Open Source projects, etc. They are a huge organization, and one that seems more divided than many. It may be more useful to view IBM as a collection of fiefdoms rather than a single, focused, entity. Yes, the money all goes into one pot at the end of t…

On acquisitions, I can offer the anecdote of a friend working at a startup IBM purchased.

Things started with "IBM loves you, and pledges to stay hands off and help you do what you're already doing", continued to "We're going to replace a few management positions with folks from IBM" and "We're changing some benefits, titles, and procedures to better align with The IBM Way", and finally ended up with "You aren't meeting your sales targets, so we're going to overhaul your leadership."

Admittedly, this was a much smaller company than Red Hat. But they were profitable before being bought and had a respected product and growth.

Re: IBM acquires Red Hat

#424
post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Microsoft has been doing a lot to rebuild itself as a cloud provider. IBM has been doing a lot to go out of business. Microsoft's first CEO is still chairman and helping lead the company even from the sidelines. IBM is a floating raft of failed leadership. Microsoft isn't trusted fully by the community but they are making inroads under their new CEO. IBM has been firing its most senior people in an effort to slow its…

> Microsoft's first CEO is still chairman Bill Gates is no longer the chairman of Microsoft. He stepped down in 2014 to concentrate on the Gates Foundation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft (see "Key people" in the sidebar)

He does still have a regular (i.e. not the chairmanship) board seat though, "non-independent" like Nadella.

Re: IBM acquires Red Hat

#425

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.

Red Hat used to sell non-free software using the freemium model with Redhat Enterprise. Is that no longer the case?

No, RHEL isn't freemium. They sold you access to the source code. You also have the right to redistribute RHEL, which is how CentOS happened.

I understand they did threaten to terminate support if you redistributed, but they couldn't stop you from doing so if you so chose.

Re: IBM acquires Red Hat

#426
post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The boilerplate and vague statement of Red Hat remaining a distinct unit doesn't really tell us anything. More relevant is what the CentOS and Fedora communities think of this acquisition, because no matter what they are community driven projects. There are two coins to toss: whether IBM reaches into Red Hat in a way that kills off either project; and whether enough of the community steps out. I'm curious what openSU…

Conversely, I wonder what this does to the Linux ecosystem. It looks like at this point, Debian and Arch are the only major self-sufficient distros (i.e. not built on top of another distro) that are still community-owned and community-driven; and of the two, Debian is clearly more broadly popular. So, will this result in Debian becoming the de facto standard of "open Linux"? This could make things interesting when it…

There are others, puppy Linux, Alpine, and slackware to name a few.

Re: IBM acquires Red Hat

#427
post #146

Guys, this is not just, or mainly not RH Linux. :( - kernel development - Ansible - JBoss (I know HN hates Java, especially Java EE, but it was and is an important factor in enterprise OSS adoption) - OpenShift - Ceph, Gluster All these are in danger, not just RHEL. I don't know about any other company that is large, successful, focuses on the enterprise and absolutely behind OSS. Canonical is way behind Red Hat in t…

Add Fedora to the list - while technically a community project, Red Hat is the main contributor.

It seems to me that Red Hat is based on Fedora. Fedora being the fast release gratis community version and Red Hat the slow release commercial corporate version.

Then CentOS would the community gratis version of Red Hat.

Re: IBM acquires Red Hat

#428
post #183

New IBM hire, software developer. So far; I've taken part of 3 separate events where I was essentially sat through a presentation on why I should file patents (so they could farm IP off of me and my peers). IBM is a pathological company, and definitely not good news for open source.

Unfortunately, that's going to be the situation at virtually every large tech company these days. To their credit, IBM has been a longtime contributor to Linux so if Red Hat was going to be acquired, IBM is far from a worst-case scenario. It just would have been nice if they could have remained a stand-alone company (I know, wishful thinking)

Re: IBM acquires Red Hat

#429

I'm surprised at the amount of backlash here. IBM's had the Linux Technology Center (LTC) for a long time and has been contributing to the community. All the platforms Z, POWER etc... support Linux as a first class citizen and plenty of other ecosystems are also supported (i.e GCC, OpenJDK, etc...) Maybe its time to re-evaluate the old biases? The old incumbents like Microsoft have warmed up to OSS, not sure why Big-…

I've followed POWER for a while now, and it seems to be mostly marketing hype. The POWER8 was not much better than the Xeons out, and had almost no availability. POWER9 excels at a lot of IO-bound tasks, but again, it's nearly impossible to find. It doesn't help that there are very few systems you can buy out there. On paper, the POWER9 looks awesome. Then you look closer at the actual architecture and realize that a…

My impression is that POWER is more suitable for certain types of scientific computation that require high degrees of precision rather than for general purpose enterprise use. POWER9 is the only CPU architecture out there that has support for quad-precision floats. Alas, no CPU exists with support for octuple floats, since only astrophysicists need that level of precision.

Re: IBM acquires Red Hat

#430

Guys, this is not just, or mainly not RH Linux. :( - kernel development - Ansible - JBoss (I know HN hates Java, especially Java EE, but it was and is an important factor in enterprise OSS adoption) - OpenShift - Ceph, Gluster All these are in danger, not just RHEL. I don't know about any other company that is large, successful, focuses on the enterprise and absolutely behind OSS. Canonical is way behind Red Hat in t…

- kernel development

- OpenShift

I very much doubt these 2 are in any danger. In fact, I'd say these are the golden eggs IBM wants.

Post reply on HN