IBM acquires Red Hat • Hacker News Board

Re: IBM acquires Red Hat

#741

Post by phs318u » Mon, Oct 29, 2018, 4:34 AM UTC

scooter_de wrote: post #736

meditate wrote: post #704

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven't used Windows in quite some time, but I believe they are quite different. WSL is more like a very basic version of Wine in that it implements Linux system calls and can execute ELF binaries, and as such requires you to install a host OS for libc and any other libraries you want. Cygwin is more like Winelib in that it provides a custom libc implementation and toolchain that are natively compiled, and as such…

My understanding of WSL is that Linux software runs natively on Windows by virtue of a compatibility layer. Eg. if there is a fork() in my code it will be translated into CreateProcess() or something like that.

Correct. It's an interesting architecture, if you're interested in reading more:

https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/wsl/2016/04/22/windows-subs...

Re: IBM acquires Red Hat

#742

Post by phs318u » Mon, Oct 29, 2018, 4:39 AM UTC

jarym wrote: post #54

mrkstu wrote: post #42

If IBM has one brain cell left, they'll pull a NeXT/Apple merger and let Red Hat executives start running the combined company. That is the one path to a real future for IBM instead of its slow decline into complete irrelevance.

RH are good at a LOT of things but sales remains a bit of a weak point compared to Oracle and to a lesser degree IBM. Hopefully the RH guys can bring back a focus on technology to IBM while IBM figure out how to sell it to customers. PS: so will it be called Blue Hat?

Given that IBM are after the tech and will probably reject the culture (as also happened when Oracle ate Sun), I suggest an appropriate name would be...

Old Hat (tm)

;)

Re: IBM acquires Red Hat

#743

Post by phs318u » Mon, Oct 29, 2018, 4:41 AM UTC

janc_ wrote: post #316

jarym wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

RH are good at a LOT of things but sales remains a bit of a weak point compared to Oracle and to a lesser degree IBM. Hopefully the RH guys can bring back a focus on technology to IBM while IBM figure out how to sell it to customers. PS: so will it be called Blue Hat?

Oracle sales means promising everything and delivering half of that at best. Are you sure you want to use that as an example?

You got half? That's pretty good! ;)

Re: IBM acquires Red Hat

#744

Post by _emacsomancer_ » Mon, Oct 29, 2018, 4:41 AM UTC

qwerty456127 wrote: post #691

_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…

What if you would just publish your code on GitHub, would they seek to punish you?

I doubt it, but that's not the issue. The issue is that the FSF wants a signed "ok" from the University that I can assign copyright to the FSF, and the University's Center for Technology & Venture Commercialization won't issue that. I'll wait a year or two until I'm (hopefully) tenured and then press the issue again.

Re: IBM acquires Red Hat

#745

Post by SEJeff » Mon, Oct 29, 2018, 4:45 AM UTC

pinewurst wrote: post #62

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…

IBM would rather push Spectrum Scale/GPFS over Ceph or Gluster

Spectrum Scale Support is one of the most horrific things I've encountered in my entire professional career.

Re: IBM acquires Red Hat

#746

Post by Aeolun » Mon, Oct 29, 2018, 4:45 AM UTC

solarkraft wrote: post #633

gautamdivgi wrote: post #625

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also with RH's recent acquisition of CoreOS, that suite will also be in IBM's arena. I work for "a corporate". We used to be big IBM shops (AIX, IBM Java, websphere, etc, etc...). But AIX is now hardly used and neither is websphere. It's mostly off the shelf k8s, wildfly and other open source projects deployed on RHEL (not my personal favorite since its kernel is way behind the times). I think this is IBMs way of pla…

They _did_ pay a lot of money to acquire them, so there's a reason to believe they're committed to fully integrating RH technology. Considering Jim, who certainly has an interest in the survival of open source software, signed this off also gives some hope.

Just because the people in charge sign off doesn’t mean they won’t later be fucked over anyway. E.g. Instagram & Whatsapp.

Re: IBM acquires Red Hat

#747

Post by _emacsomancer_ » Mon, Oct 29, 2018, 4:47 AM UTC

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.

My contract requires that anything I develop using University resources, which in practice means potentially anything in my areas of specialisation, the University has some claim on.

It's not entirely unreasonable - imagine someone in Biochemistry developing some drug using University labs etc. and then turning around and selling the formula to a private lab.

But it's the petty bureaucratisation which is infuriating. (And usually the people making the decisions aren't practically qualified.)

Re: IBM acquires Red Hat

#748

Post by Aeolun » Mon, Oct 29, 2018, 4:47 AM UTC

snorrah wrote: post #607

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…

Super pessimistic point of view. Why do you think these are all in danger? These are things that people and more importantly enterprises use. Why would IBM ruin that?

Because IBM ruins everything it touches?

It’s possible they don’t want to. But they will.

Re: IBM acquires Red Hat

#749

Post by _emacsomancer_ » Mon, Oct 29, 2018, 4:51 AM UTC

scooter_de wrote: post #736

meditate wrote: post #704

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven't used Windows in quite some time, but I believe they are quite different. WSL is more like a very basic version of Wine in that it implements Linux system calls and can execute ELF binaries, and as such requires you to install a host OS for libc and any other libraries you want. Cygwin is more like Winelib in that it provides a custom libc implementation and toolchain that are natively compiled, and as such…

My understanding of WSL is that Linux software runs natively on Windows by virtue of a compatibility layer. Eg. if there is a fork() in my code it will be translated into CreateProcess() or something like that.

Right, so like what Wine does. (Remember: Wine Is Not an Emulator.)

Re: IBM acquires Red Hat

#750

Post by manquer » Mon, Oct 29, 2018, 4:56 AM UTC

bunderbunder wrote: post #656

threeseed wrote: post #531

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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 this situation, I don't think it makes sense to think of an organization as a single, monolithic entity. In this context, the only sane way to think about Red Hat is as over 12,000 employees, plus I-don't-know-how-many shareholders. Only a very small number of those "agreed to be acquired by IBM…

management and the board agreed to the deal. Companies are not democracies , while it is nice to have grassroots approval , it is a top down process. the very nature of these transactions make it impossible to disclose until it is done.

Ultimately in a decision like this the board has only one entity to consider -shareholders , if they believe the deal will create more value to shareholders they should consider it

Value maybe subjective Of course shareholders could be against for ideological reasons and prefer not take the money, that doesn't seem to be the case here.