IBM acquires Red Hat • Hacker News Board

Re: IBM acquires Red Hat

#981

Post by KaiserPro » Mon, Oct 29, 2018, 8:53 PM UTC

davidmr wrote: post #936

rootbear wrote: post #913

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the risk of topic drift, I'm curious where the problems are with being parallel and POSIX-compliant. I'm at a point where I think I need to consider a parallel file system and I don't have much experience with them, so I'm not aware of the issues.

Here’s something I wrote in this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15222470 At least on the real big systems, most of our work was with a small number of research groups basically doing the same workflow: start your job, read in some data, crunch, every 15 minutes or something slam the entire contents of system memory (100s of TB) out to spinning disk, crunch, slam, your job gets killed when your time slic…

This is a lovely wedge of experience.

You are of course very correct that if you have a massive number of processes using files for IPC, things will fail in very strange ways.

One of the very positive things that AWS/GCE provide is simple scalable primitives, with obvious metrics to measure limits. For example SQS is a brilliant primitive for many-many message based processing. It avoids the horror of running a HA kafka queue(or worse).

Re: IBM acquires Red Hat

#982

Post by ironfootnz » Mon, Oct 29, 2018, 8:57 PM UTC

They failed at PC. They failed at Cloud They failed with Watson They failed with Bluemix They ...... with Redhat.

In game theory, there are two types of players: Finite and Infinite. They are in the long run for sure and definitely they don't have pure strategy just a mixed one that doesn't go anywhere but stay where is it, until there's no one else playing the game anymore. IBM stands for ( I Bullshit Millions)

Re: IBM acquires Red Hat

#983

Post by zeropoint46 » Mon, Oct 29, 2018, 9:36 PM UTC

Conan_Kudo wrote: post #578

shaklee3 wrote: post #568

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is openshift really open source? I was under the impression that nobody really runs origin on its own since it's far too hard. It seemed more like they just wanted to point out but it's open source, but you need support and a lot of know-how to actually use it.

I run Origin for my employer. It's pretty easy these days since you can do all of it with openshift-ansible and other related tools. I know there are plenty of others like that, as well.

we run okd as well...

Re: IBM acquires Red Hat

#984

Post by cmurf » Mon, Oct 29, 2018, 10:02 PM UTC

grey-area wrote: post #786

cmurf wrote: post #514

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I doubt it. When you read the IBM and Core OS acquisition press releases side by side you get a lot of the same "hybrid cloud" language. Update: Near as I can tell the acquisition completed in March/April.

We'll see. Often talk like that is just buzzword soup. What matters to large companies like IBM is money from services, not owning the coolest tech stack. If it is clearly contributing lots of money or it has a champion in IBM they'll keep it. In progress greenfield projects with no obvious monetisation are just the sort of thing that gets cut in this sort of merger, after the assurances that redhat will be run as a…

Well over in Fedora, it is full steam ahead. CoreOS is going to be merged with "atomic" (in particular rpm-ostree style updates and layering), and then base Silverblue on that, which will become Workstation. Could all of that work just stall out? shrug Yeah sure, and Red Hat could suddenly decide they want to support Btrfs.

Re: IBM acquires Red Hat

#985

Post by cpitman » Mon, Oct 29, 2018, 10:16 PM UTC

oso2k wrote: post #976

ndru wrote: post #838

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funnily enough, one of the most praised points in Red Hat's code of conduct is the fact that it specifically says that you can work on open source projects _even if it is to the detriment to Red Hat_. Guess that's going to change now. Disclaimer: Red Hat employee (at the moment)

(Also a Red Hatter) So...not completely true. There was that one memo-list thread last year where someone complained loudly that they were not allowed to work on an intentionally competing solution and repo, even if it was on their own time.

He was certainly allowed to work on it on his own time. He just was no longer being paid by Red Hat to work on it, or to travel to conferences/conventions to work on it.

Re: IBM acquires Red Hat

#986

Post by emmelaich » Tue, Oct 30, 2018, 12:55 AM UTC

mcv wrote: post #823

emmelaich wrote: post #538

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's the thing with an acquisition like this: what did IBM buy exactly? The code is open source, the people can leave and form a new company. The thing IBM really owns are Red Hat's contracts. But when those expire, the other party could sign their new contract with a company of former Red Hatters, if they want. Buying an open source company only makes sense if you give the employees of that company exactly what th…

It takes a lot more than a few to provide support. It would take years to get near the support that Red Hat provide now.

Re: IBM acquires Red Hat

#987

Post by ironfootnz » Tue, Oct 30, 2018, 1:37 AM UTC

They failed with watson, They failed with Bluemix They .... with Redhat.

I don't think that's a good move from Redhat perspective.

Re: IBM acquires Red Hat

#988

Post by basch » Tue, Oct 30, 2018, 2:19 AM UTC

7ewis wrote: post #442

bloopernova wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

What is the relationship between RHEL and CentOS? Never actually used RHEL, but I've heard that they're basically the same - one comes with the support, the other obviously doesn't. Is CentOS supported by Red Hat, so IBM in theory could shut them down?

redhat owns the centos trademark and employs most of its developers.

Re: IBM acquires Red Hat

#989

Post by xtracto » Tue, Oct 30, 2018, 2:54 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.

I have always been curious on how WSL differs to coLinux or andLinux ( http://www.andlinux.org/ )

About 10/15 years ago I used andLinux to have a Linux shell and other apps inside Windows. It was really good and it seems ahead of its time, as it was not virtualized.

Re: IBM acquires Red Hat

#990

Post by grey-area » Tue, Oct 30, 2018, 7:34 AM UTC

cmurf wrote: post #984

grey-area wrote: post #786

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We'll see. Often talk like that is just buzzword soup. What matters to large companies like IBM is money from services, not owning the coolest tech stack. If it is clearly contributing lots of money or it has a champion in IBM they'll keep it. In progress greenfield projects with no obvious monetisation are just the sort of thing that gets cut in this sort of merger, after the assurances that redhat will be run as a…

Well over in Fedora, it is full steam ahead. CoreOS is going to be merged with "atomic" (in particular rpm-ostree style updates and layering), and then base Silverblue on that, which will become Workstation. Could all of that work just stall out? shrug Yeah sure, and Red Hat could suddenly decide they want to support Btrfs.

CoreOS is going to be merged with "atomic"

I’ve been following that work with interest.

Red Hat could suddenly decide they want to support Btrfs

Red Hat won’t be deciding much about anything after the merger goes through. I sincerely hope you’re right though and it survives and makes money somehow.