I hope that's not true (or falls through). I have a good friend that works for HashiCorp. He's 42, and will undoubtedly be on the chopping block.
Do you mean he's too young for IBM, whose workforce has a median age of 48 years?
IBM nearing a buyout deal for HashiCorp, source says
31–40 of 185 posts
Re: IBM nearing a buyout deal for HashiCorp, source says
#32So... was this the cause of the whole Terraform licensing change kerfuffle?
Re: IBM nearing a buyout deal for HashiCorp, source says
#33Wasn't on my bingo card, that's for sure. Say what you will about big blue, they repeatedly seem to know who to acquire in order to buy themselves another 10 years of relevance.
Given the stock price… it had to be someone. Same for Gitlab soon I guess
Anyone want to guess who?
I'll start: Jetbrains?
Re: IBM nearing a buyout deal for HashiCorp, source says
#34I know at least one person who left Red Hat for HashiCorp. I could imagine how they feel to be back(ish)
Been there (not Red Hat) it sucks.
Re: IBM nearing a buyout deal for HashiCorp, source says
#35RIP
Re: IBM nearing a buyout deal for HashiCorp, source says
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
While I appreciate the sentiment, surely that is not the reason why we should wish acquisitions to happen or fall through? There's something to be said about solving for maximum societal welfare—which may or may not be the case here, but in any event doesn't depend on any specific individual
I think it's important to contemplate the human component of mergers. If lots of gainfully employed people get let go so that fewer people can consolidate expenses and raise shareholder value I think it should be considered as part of the decision making framework.
It is a consideration; redundancies are eliminated in acquisitions. It's capitalism; not laborism.
Re: IBM nearing a buyout deal for HashiCorp, source says
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
While I appreciate the sentiment, surely that is not the reason why we should wish acquisitions to happen or fall through? There's something to be said about solving for maximum societal welfare—which may or may not be the case here, but in any event doesn't depend on any specific individual
I think the parent comment may be a reference to IBM being caught in the past deliberately firing older workers.
Allegedly, but not proven, right?
https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/ibm-wins-another-ru...
Re: IBM nearing a buyout deal for HashiCorp, source says
#38IBM is like a juicer that takes out all the delicious flavor out of a fruit. Leaving nothing but a dried beetle husk.
Could say the same of many acquisitions. Cisco used to do the same thing.
It is sad that ctrl labs got eaten by fb/meta. It used ML to sense your arm movements (and one employee figured out how to have a virtual 3rd arm).
Collected by zuckerberg and disappeared.
(and if it does come to something, you'll need to log in to use it)
Re: IBM nearing a buyout deal for HashiCorp, source says
#39Re: IBM nearing a buyout deal for HashiCorp, source says
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
While I appreciate the sentiment, surely that is not the reason why we should wish acquisitions to happen or fall through? There's something to be said about solving for maximum societal welfare—which may or may not be the case here, but in any event doesn't depend on any specific individual
> While I appreciate the sentiment, surely that is not the reason why we should wish acquisitions to happen or fall through? I have another reason (whether or not that's "better" is arguable): because too big to fail is a thing and we've already seen what happens in other industries when big players buy out smaller ones.
I see "too big to fail" most commonly referenced when talking about the GFC of '08-'09. Nothing there happened because big players bought out smaller ones. Lehman Brothers wasn't even big, comparatively speaking