211–220 of 303 posts
IBM basically has control of all of Linux now. They've gotta love that sweet, sweet strategic leverage over the entire Web and cloud ecosystem.
Is this really true? It seems to me that a lot of the people who control the direction of Linux might work at RedHat and IBM, but that can change. It has in the past and it will in the future, billion$ acquisitions don't make them immune.
IBM basically has control of all of Linux now. They've gotta love that sweet, sweet strategic leverage over the entire Web and cloud ecosystem.
There is a lot of truth to this. Since Fedora is the upstream for Red Hat, and IBM historically kill off anything not making a profit, how long before this happens? I wonder if they'll split the two? Red Hat does "control" a disproportionate amount of Linux development. Everything is also now basically dependent on systemd. I'm seeing more and more IT guys I know move over to Free/OpenBSD because they don't like the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's all in what people are willing to tolerate or change. Obviously, the gentlemen over at Haiku feel they have something to offer, as small as it may be. I always though that BeOS was somewhat revolutionary in its approach. I'm still somewhat bothered that Apple let their server offering go. And yes, FreeBSD replaces Linux easily. Not everyone runs their stuff in the cloud. It's not the be-all and end-all. Serious…
> And yes, FreeBSD replaces Linux easily. No, it doesn’t. Take any non trivial system running Linux and try to run it in FreeBSD. You may get it running in little time, however the number of issues you would have would be big. Remember that the modern stack have multiple layers of complexity, Linux, your app, SomethingSQL, AnotherThingDb, Kubernetes, AWS/GCE/Azure, etc. Since FreeBSD is not the common choice to run t…
For glue like kubernetes, yes, you're going to find differences or even lack of support for that specific tool. Ansible works pretty well, in my experience. But this is the more superficial stuff. If you're going to migrate for whatever reason, then updating the automation tooling around the systems you're managing is not that difficult.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I usually put it this way: "Name one company that was better after a merger." I've yet to find any affirmative answer. It's good to have hope, but it's not good to be unrealistic.
Pixar / Disney Marvel / Disney Facebook / Instagram EBay/PayPal Exxon/Mobil Massive numbers of banking / pharma/ industrial mergers. I will agree though that I can't think of a tech sector merger at this scale that worked out really well. They seem to work best at the sub $2B level. Although LinkedIn/Microsoft is looking OK.
I think it may have been RHAT's plan all along to get bought by IBM.
RHAT has always been seen as an anomalous case of an open source company that has done well on the stock market on a sustained basis.
All along they were working on things that IBM lacked, waiting for the day that IBM would be floundering and would need a big acquisition to boost confidence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you referring to systemd-journal-remote ? * https://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/systemd-jou... I am referring to something syslog -based: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syslog#Internet_standard_docum... which can be used by other tools to process. Can you point me to documentation on how journald can be configured to send to a remote syslog server?
https://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/journald.co... Seriously, it's in the man page.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Probably Ubuntu will be bought by Microsoft. With the cloud, especially containers, there is little future in a business that involves paying for operating systems licenses. Most interesting is probably supporting legacy versions of operating systems for customers who value compatibility to be able to continue to run existing applications with the minimum changes.
I sort of agree with this. Either Microsoft will purchase Ubuntu outright from Shuttleworth or they will just create Microsoft Linux, in whatever form that is, probably something more container focused than a general purpose OS.
I'm pretty sure since like 2 years they're working on at least the second, but the purchase of Ubuntu too doesn't sound that absurd to me. What really concerns me is their power as a big corporation, which could play a role in attracting a growing Linux user base to their distro. This could lead to disasters should Microsoft pollute their OS with proprietary extensions: developers writing software for Linux on a MS branded Linux would create software that "runs better" there or wouldn't run at all on others.
No conspiracies here, this happens every day in all offices when printers refuse to work with non same brand ink cartridges; so let's say tomorrow Microsoft ports a significant part of their windowing object model to Linux - to their Linux - as a closed linkable blob, then update their development systems so that one can develop full desktop linux applications with the same graphics interface model of the Windows ones. Technical issues aside, how many developers would resist the temptation? And how many of them would keep dual booting when they could build a career by working exclusively on Microsoft Linux?
This is pure speculation of course, but I have this feeling that Microsoft becoming a top Platinum Member of the Linux Foundation was the corporate way of slowly getting to the captains chair.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Youtube/Google?
Profitable, maybe, but better than before? No. YouTube's culture and ux have slowly been killed by Google over the years, and the platform is becoming more bland and homogenized as we speak.
YouTube has existed for 14 years. It's been Google nearly the entire time it has existed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I sort of agree with this. Either Microsoft will purchase Ubuntu outright from Shuttleworth or they will just create Microsoft Linux, in whatever form that is, probably something more container focused than a general purpose OS.
I've sometimes found myself wondering what kernel is actually running Microsoft's new "Modern OS", and if the userspace has any Ubuntu input.
IBM now has control over systemd, and as other users here point out, also pulseaudio, dbus, gnome, wayland, and a significant share of kernel. IMHO this is a good time for the Debian project to reconsider the decision to rely on systemd. If you also think so, consider letting them know.
In any case, IBM is very respectful of the health of the open source projects on which it depends. While the vestiges of Red Hat may become less and less attractive as a place for a maintainer to work over time, I do not expect IBM to exert any control over any of these projects in any meaningful way any more than it has over the areas that its current employees maintain. Look at SCSI in the kernel, or even RCU, both maintained by IBMers (two examples among many).
(I worked at IBM in its Linux Technology Center for over a decade)