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

531–540 of 1001 posts

Re: IBM acquires Red Hat

#531

Post by threeseed »

ethbro wrote: post #423
SwellJoe wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 meet…

I really don't understand the point of this anecdote.

This is standard practice for almost every acquisition. If the startup didn't want to be part of the IBM way of doing things they shouldn't have agreed to be acquired by IBM.

In fact the rare situation was the Facebook "acquire but treat more like an independent subsidiary" model. And even that didn't last all that long.

Re: IBM acquires Red Hat

#532

Post by gcb0 »

kartan wrote: post #222
gcb0 wrote: post #157

The articles (and Stalman interviews) happening recently pointed to this situation. Open Source, as adopted currently, is a flawed model that valors corporate protection more than end-user freedom. github is now sourceforge. redhat is now suse Linux. etc. all the little benefits you got having an apache or bsd license over gpl will start to bite you now. Case in point: every major company has a opensource executive w…

> Open Source, as adopted currently, is a flawed model that valors corporate protection more than end-user freedom. I see your point, and I mostly agree. I would like to differentiate between Open Source organizations - like Linux Foundation, Apache Foundation or Mozilla Foundation - and mixed organizations like Oracle (owns MySQL), RedHat (owns too many to list), etc. The first ones represent the pure Open Source ap…

most projects on those incubators are there to die a slow death after being abandoned by the group you call "open source corporations"

Re: IBM acquires Red Hat

#533

Post by emmelaich »

bigbugbag wrote: post #413
dijit wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You just cannot call it "politics and influence" when systemd was discussed thoroughly and adopted by Debian.

Re: IBM acquires Red Hat

#535

Post by honestlyidk »

That blog post from cormier scares me. Its so cheerleading and the use of "we" like any one besides the employees at RedHat get a piece of that buyout. "Opensource is here to stay." ... Im not holding my breath. But I am bullish on the possibilities. If IBM doesnt F this up I hope they realize that people dont have negative feelings about them like Amazon and Google. People want a tech company that is more tech and less politics. IBM dont do anything special just have a simple payment structure with a product that works.

Re: IBM acquires Red Hat

#536

Post by RandomTisk »

Kind of surreal news honestly, my interest in this is about like I would imagine if I was going to a Monster Truck show and found out several drivers would be absolutely plastered the whole time: I'm pretty sure something very bad is going to happen.

Re: IBM acquires Red Hat

#537

Post by threeseed »

kache_ wrote: 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.

Maybe you are new to the software industry but at every company I've seen e.g. Apple, Google, Microsoft they strongly encourage you to be filing patents.

And calling it farming is a bit strange considering you're paid by the company to generate the IP in the first place. Plus they typically compensate you extra for it.

Re: IBM acquires Red Hat

#538

Post by emmelaich »

bloopernova wrote: post #187
solatic wrote: post #153

It's like Vader asked Luke to join him in defeating the Emperor (Microsoft) and ruling the galaxy as father and son - and instead of the audience hearing "I'll never join you!!", we hear "sure, let's team up." The cognitive dissonance is so strong here. WTF just happened? If you asked me a month ago to put down serious money in Vegas on this never happening, I'd have happily done so. What on Earth were they thinking?…

I share the sentiment. Gawd. Freaking. Dammit. I've been using RHEL-derived systems for like almost 20 years. This actually feels like a betrayal of the Open Source community. Any bets on whether Fedora and CentOS will exist in November 2019?

Fedora and CentOS will both survive -- but maybe under a different name.

This is possible because everything in Redhat/Fedora/Centos is open source.

I'd be willing to bet numerous people are working on a non IBM/Redhat version of Centos.

Re: IBM acquires Red Hat

#539

Post by threeseed »

steinnes wrote: post #445
skybrian wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is rather normal, not pathological. Most companies like to file patents, definitely including startups. Where do you think their patents come from, if not from work their employees do? It's work that's worth paying for. Having some proprietary code doesn't prevent companies from also making substantial contributions to open source in other areas.

Having some proprietary code doesn't prevent companies from also making substantial contributions to open source in other areas. ... yes, but patents are not "proprietary code", in which case granting copyright is enough. If a private company contributes code I think it could even grant the copyright to an open organization, but still decide later to sue if the method/feature/function/etc is patented by them. Not tha…

Many companies will license patents to an open organisation as well as indemnify them against patent threats from other companies.

Patents are by and large warfare between large companies. They almost never used against open source contributors or small companies unless by patent trolls.

Post reply on HN