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

921–930 of 1001 posts

Re: IBM acquires Red Hat

#921

Post by jhasse »

thatcloudguy wrote: post #726
solarkraft wrote: post #645

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The early 2000s called and would like their objection back. Microsoft isn't that same company any more and haven't been for a long time. Sure, some of their technology is pretty awful but they definitely changed their tune around OSS.

So we can merge exFAT support into the Kernel now? Microsoft loves Linux, right?

Re: IBM acquires Red Hat

#922

Post by jhasse »

eecc wrote: post #421
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…

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

Debian and Ubuntu still use it.

Re: IBM acquires Red Hat

#923

Post by randiantech »

The only remaining question to know is how many layers of shit, unnecessary complexity will IBM add on top of the preexisting shit, unneccesary layers already added by Red Hat on their products.

Re: IBM acquires Red Hat

#924

Post by _emacsomancer_ »

JdeBP wrote: post #797
_emacsomancer_ wrote: post #558

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A: I'm not that fond of Ford cars. B: So you want to drive a horse-and-buggy then? That is to say, there are quite a number of modern inits that are not systemd. It's such a straw-man argument to bring up sysv init every time someone says something critical of systemd.

The false dichotomy was called out by the Uselessd Guy some years ago. * http://uselessd.darknedgy.net/ProSystemdAntiSystemd/

Yet it comes up nearly every time I express concern about any aspect of systemd. ("Like it or not, you've got to move on from sysv; systemd is the industry standard" etc. etc.)

Re: IBM acquires Red Hat

#925

Post by chasd00 »

ptero wrote: post #891
SpaceInvader wrote: post #862

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am currently working for IBM and I'm tied. I had to supress my commercial project once I joined big blue. What I have in contract is - if you want to open a company, you need IBM's permission first. And it's just frustrating as they try to block it for as long as possibe even if you're not doing IT in your private little business.

> I had to supress my commercial project once I joined big blue. I am pretty sure this is the standard practice at all large companies, at least in the US. Small companies may just not care too much, but even at a small company if your management notices you might have to choose between that and your day coding. I wish it was not like this, but to me this is at least somewhat justifiable. Much worse is the desire of…

How do enough people agree to those terms to make them plausible in the first place? That's like going to work at a restaurant and being required to stop working at a soup kitchen on the weekends.

I would never agree to those terms and strike them out. That's ridiculous.

Re: IBM acquires Red Hat

#926

Post by chasd00 »

LoSboccacc wrote: post #856
kitd wrote: post #831

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm an IBMer and the current rule is you can work on OS projects in your own time as long as it isn't to the detriment of IBM's projects.

As IBMer you should know there are a plurality of local IBM all over the world, each with local laws and regulations to abide. In Italy all work produced off hours as subordinate is intellectual property of the employer by default unless you sign off a release form for each of them. In Ireland at least they don't want you to touch third party open source code without license vetting because it could inspire you subco…

This is some of the craziest stuff i've ever read. I must be naive, i've worked a couple big firms but have never seen employment terms like these.

Re: IBM acquires Red Hat

#927

Post by pvarangot »

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.

It's the standard in many universities and many countries that consider the university your employer if you have a full time equivalent dedication, even if the university only considers you under some kind of stipend or scholarship.

And yes, it's outrageous.

Re: IBM acquires Red Hat

#928

Post by johannes1234321 »

jammygit wrote: post #919
johannes1234321 wrote: post #849

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So when you come up with a solution to a work problem in the shower in the morning or while lying awake in bed in the evening you could sell it to the employer, since you owned that time? What happens if you create something patentable in the eve information related to your employer's business, maybe even to your project. Can you patent it yourself and then collect royalties from your employer? What happens if you in…

This is a fair argument, but the solution isn't to just strip the employees right to own their own thoughts. The specific problem seems to be about patents and trade secrets. If a contract covered those two things well, would an employer have legitimate cause to push further than that?

Well, for corporate lawyers the solution is easy :-D

A good solution is hard.

Re: IBM acquires Red Hat

#929

Post by voodooranger »

randiantech wrote: post #923

The only remaining question to know is how many layers of shit, unnecessary complexity will IBM add on top of the preexisting shit, unneccesary layers already added by Red Hat on their products.

simple software that’s easy to use is anathema to companies like red hat. to the extent you can keep software simple, you won’t need red hat, pivotal, etc. these support companies have every incentive to make you dependent on them. think about that next time you reach for one of the technologies they peddle.

Re: IBM acquires Red Hat

#930

Post by TylerJewell »

basch wrote: post #646
TylerJewell wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

WSO2 - an open source integration software company - is exclusively OSS. We will do $50M in sales this year with 80% of that subscriptions for on-premises open source software. We are the 6th largest OSS company by revenues. We'll probably jump up to 5th next year because of the RedHat acquisition of IBM.

big typo on your home page "by using our our open source"

Thanks - forwarded onto marketing.
Post reply on HN