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

711–720 of 1001 posts

Re: IBM acquires Red Hat

#711

Post by rincebrain »

solarkraft wrote: post #645
Stratoscope wrote: post #603

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't know about any other company that is large, successful, focuses on the enterprise and absolutely behind OSS. Doesnt Microsoft tick all those boxes? Even if they aren't exclusively an open source company, they are "absolutely behind OSS" if you go by how much open source code they have contributed.

Meh. They have a bad reputation due to calling open word source software cancer the new windows business model. Also, while their engineers are certainly smart, their software seems very crusty (the down side of infinite backwards compatibility) and usually doesn't play well at all with existing open source software. Thus: Mostly useless.

Amusingly, they're damned both ways at this point, since many of the Windows 10 complaints have, in fact, been breaks in backward compatibility.

Re: IBM acquires Red Hat

#712

Post by chongli »

_emacsomancer_ wrote: post #686
jhallenworld wrote: post #614

When I worked for IBM (via acquisition), I wanted to fix bugs in Cygwin (owned by Red Hat). Red Hat does not accept patches unless you get permission from your current employer. I could not get anybody in IBM to sign Red Hat's permission slip. Nobody would sign because it's all risk, no reward from IBM's point of view.

I have the same problem in academia, being in a non-CS department, I'm required to notify the University's Center for Technology & Venture Commercialization about assigning my copyright over software to another entity (like the FSF), but so far I have been unsuccessful at getting them to sign the letter the FSF wants, despite the code I would be contributing being completely outside of my work at the University and s…

Wait, so your university owns copyright on all your work by default?! That's a bummer if true. Outrageous, actually.

Re: IBM acquires Red Hat

#713

Post by [deleted] »

trimbo wrote: post #606
cenal wrote: 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 and helping lead the company even from the sidelines It'd be super awkward if TJ Watson was still leading IBM from the sidelines.

[deleted]

Re: IBM acquires Red Hat

#714

Post by ksec »

chongli wrote: post #712
_emacsomancer_ wrote: post #686

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have the same problem in academia, being in a non-CS department, I'm required to notify the University's Center for Technology & Venture Commercialization about assigning my copyright over software to another entity (like the FSF), but so far I have been unsuccessful at getting them to sign the letter the FSF wants, despite the code I would be contributing being completely outside of my work at the University and s…

Wait, so your university owns copyright on all your work by default?! That's a bummer if true. Outrageous, actually.

I think this is US specific.

Re: IBM acquires Red Hat

#715

Post by parasubvert »

sz4kerto wrote: post #52

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…

Pivotal is probably next in line for size for independent enterprise OSS but still a fraction the size of Red Hat, at under $1b in revenue. And some proprietary bits.

Re: IBM acquires Red Hat

#716

Post by parasubvert »

kazen44 wrote: post #308
KaiserPro wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I seriously wonder who is still left at oracle who actually cares about technology and pushing it forward, instead of using it as a tool to squeeze money. Most competent Sun people have left oracle and are onto greener pastures.

Core database engineering is still strong at Oracle.

Re: IBM acquires Red Hat

#718

Post by giis »

I went to IBM(India) interview sometime in 2011, after leaving GlusterFS (Red Hat). Interview went well, during final call with management. I was asked to stop working on Open Source during weekends or off-hours even though the IBM project and my Open Source work has nothing in common.

I said, "I thought, IBM support Open Source right?" his response, "Yes, but that's another team"

I decided to call-off the interview after that.

Re: IBM acquires Red Hat

#719

Post by jmalicki »

qwerty456127 wrote: post #693
p1necone wrote: post #649

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This actually seems like fair policy to me, think of the mess Red Hat would be in if IBM decided that they had copyright on your contributions to Cygwin. Or is my understanding of copyright law off base?

> if IBM decided that they had copyright on your contributions to Cygwin. How could they decide this if you'd have written the code on a weekend?

The FSF doesn't want to get caught up in a dispute, and thus requires explicit disclaimers of work-for-hire interest from employers https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.en.html

Re: IBM acquires Red Hat

#720

Post by amjadcsu »

IBM had power and if anyone remembers it was also part of cell architecture team along with sony and Toshiba. I worked with yellow dog linux the official linux distro for sony ps3 . IBM at that point was still pushing for Red hat instead of investing in yellow dog which was powerpc centric. Red hat fedora later dropped support for powerpc. So in all IBM hardware failed and now it is trying to go is way?
Post reply on HN