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

771–780 of 1001 posts

Re: IBM acquires Red Hat

#771

Post by eksemplar »

emilsedgh wrote: post #758
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.

How on earth is Microsoft "absolutely" behind OSS? Which of their main products is Open Source? Windows? Office? SQL Server? Azure? Exchange? What exactly makes Microsoft a company "absolutely behind OSS?" Their stupid boot loader still ignores any other operating system for god's sake. Kudos to people at Microsoft's Marketing and "developer relations" department who won the hearts of developers by allowing TypeScrip…

I work in the public sector in Denmark, and we’ve delt a lot with both IBM and Microsoft over the past 25 years.

Microsoft has been one of our best partners, including for the open source software we run, especially since Azure became their mission.

IBM has been one of the worst, so bad that I’d dread making any deals with them ever again.

I wouldn’t say MS is fully behind OSS though, they contribute a lot these years, but their main goal is still to sell you Azure. I think they won the hearts and minds with .Net core though, I mean VSC is the best ide and typescript is typescript, but the future of a lot of web programming lies within .Net core.

Re: IBM acquires Red Hat

#772

Post by dingaling »

bunderbunder wrote: post #662
jtl999 wrote: post #655

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do understand your point, but I wouldn't spin it that way or bring it up with them, just start committing using a "new" identity, assuming they have no knowledge of your "main" identity. Easier said then done.

That dishonesty is exactly what makes it fraudulent. They're asking you to sign some legal documentation. If you forge a signature rather than getting it signed by your employer, that's fraud. If you create a false identity in order to hide the fact that you have an employer, that's also fraud. You have exactly two legal (and, just as importantly, honest) options in this situation: Get permission from your employer b…

> that's also fraud.

No, it's not fraud because there's no intention to gain illegal or unlawful gain. It's just deceit.

Re: IBM acquires Red Hat

#773

Post by MertsA »

pinewurst wrote: post #707
rodgerd wrote: post #667

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the interwebs? No idea. Mine would be: GPFS is excellent as a clustered filesystem backing a number of servers that need high-throughput, low latency, coherent storage. It's block-oriented. Ceph is a SAN replacement: can saturate 100 GBps switches with massive parallel throughput. Object based, can also serve up block and (recently, with limits) cooked filesystem. Gluster is a distributed filesystem - easy to set…

GPFS is very much file oriented - there's iSCSI target support but I'd be surprised if anyone really used it. Ceph can provide block (mostly used for VMs), object and file targets, in that order of maturity. Gluster is sort of a metafilesystem, aggregating some number of underlying filesystems - file being the operative word.

>Ceph can provide block (mostly used for VMs), object and file targets, in that order of maturity.

That's a little bit backwards. Ceph's block storage is actually built upon objects internally.

Re: IBM acquires Red Hat

#774

Post by anilakar »

_emacsomancer_ wrote: post #747
chongli wrote: post #712

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

While I was working as an assistant researcher three years ago, my contract also considered all research-derived knowledge uni property. In this case, pretty much anything tangentially related to HTTP performance enhancements would have been claimable by them.

Re: IBM acquires Red Hat

#775

Post by rz2k »

emilsedgh wrote: post #758
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.

How on earth is Microsoft "absolutely" behind OSS? Which of their main products is Open Source? Windows? Office? SQL Server? Azure? Exchange? What exactly makes Microsoft a company "absolutely behind OSS?" Their stupid boot loader still ignores any other operating system for god's sake. Kudos to people at Microsoft's Marketing and "developer relations" department who won the hearts of developers by allowing TypeScrip…

If you are including the boot loader, don't leave out the file systems.

Re: IBM acquires Red Hat

#776

Post by tilt_error »

_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…

Come to Sweden then :) As a researcher you explicitly own the rights to any foreground, i.e. results, as stated by law — the so called teacher’s excemption.

Re: IBM acquires Red Hat

#777

Post by bonzini »

hardwaresofton wrote: post #757

Thanks to CoreOS and all the other teams under RedHat who have done amazing work up until now. To be fair I've used (and enjoyed/been impressed by) your software for free so obviously I'm not owed anything but I'm gonna be looking for alternatives. I'm suuuuuuuuuper glad I jumped off of CoreOS Container Linux earlier after the acquisition by RedHat and subsequent bundling into Project Atomic. I avoided OpenShift all…

Red Hat does not have CLAs, not does it own all the copyright, on either Ansible or Ceph. It cannot change their licenses unilaterally, that can only happen with permissive (non-copyleft) terms.

Re: IBM acquires Red Hat

#778

Post by ganomi »

lovelle wrote: post #761
MyNameIsFred wrote: post #740

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What wouldn't be the 5th time I've heard such stories, but I don't think it's in any way specific to IBM. Employers like that want any OT you do to be dedicated to THEIR endeavor, not somebody else's...even your own. If you're able and willing to code in your off-time, you should be doing it for the good of the Company. /s

Yeah sure, and if you like I can also clean the bathrooms because I know how to do it... Off-time is for your own not for your company regardless off what you do with it.

The /s stands for sarcasm

Re: IBM acquires Red Hat

#779

Post by chx »

voltagex_ wrote: post #702
mohammedbin wrote: post #695

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why wouldn't you use WSL?

Windows Ironically, Cygwin might be closer to "native" than WSL is in some cases.

> need for something WSL doesn't support.

Like what...?

> Ironically, Cygwin might be closer to "native" than WSL is in some cases.

Which cases...?

Re: IBM acquires Red Hat

#780

Post by chris_wot »

mishac wrote: post #618
geofft wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also in practice glibc, systemd, GNOME, etc. have a ton of maintainers from Red Hat, even if they're not Red Hat-owned the way Ansible or Ceph is.

Yeah the whole freedesktop.org stack is to a large extent RedHat folks.

Not to mention LibreOffice.
Post reply on HN