Microsoft will buy Docker.
They can have docker desktop. That thing is absolute trash
IBM nearing a buyout deal for HashiCorp, source says
61–70 of 185 posts
Re: IBM nearing a buyout deal for HashiCorp, source says
#62Re: IBM nearing a buyout deal for HashiCorp, source says
#63Mitchell, one of the co founders, left HashiCorp in December 2023 [1] It’s either terrible timing (missed on more money?) or he knew about it and decided months in advance that it’s not worth the trouble of staying on (ie, look at the aftermath of the RedHat and IBM acquisition). [1] https://www.hashicorp.com/blog/mitchell-reflects-as-he-depar...
Or possibly it’s completely unrelated and it’s just our brains looking for meaning where there’s none.
Re: IBM nearing a buyout deal for HashiCorp, source says
#64Re: IBM nearing a buyout deal for HashiCorp, source says
#65Wasn'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.
Aren’t they always fighting the last war?
IBM is good at selling to large organizations. Large organizations are risk-averse, and prefer not to buy bleeding edge. IBM is pretty much institutionally specialized to sell what was hot last year (or last decade).
People might make fun of this, but I'd like to note that there is a lot of very stable revenue in their business.
Re: IBM nearing a buyout deal for HashiCorp, source says
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
Aren’t they always fighting the last war?
IBM is good at selling to large organizations. Large organizations are risk-averse, and prefer not to buy bleeding edge. IBM is pretty much institutionally specialized to sell what was hot last year (or last decade). People might make fun of this, but I'd like to note that there is a lot of very stable revenue in their business.
Makes sense when you put it like this. In which case HCP may even be too new for them.
Re: IBM nearing a buyout deal for HashiCorp, source says
#67Beyond a certain size corporations shouldn't be allowed to acquire companies.
Why? There's nothing inherently bad about acquisitions In fact, strong (~free) capital markets in which acquisitions happen frequently allow for more efficient (~optimal) allocation of resources over the long run, even if any single acquisition may not be locally optimal
> In fact, strong (~free) capital markets in which acquisitions happen frequently allow for more efficient (~optimal) allocation of resources
I argue that's an opinion.
I also argue that allowing for does not mean ensures.
I also argue that, in practice, acquisitions happening freely typically result in "more efficient" allocation of humans to the detriment of those humans. Also, "more efficient" allocation of resources often increases the cost of those resources to other humans consuming those resources.
So yes, it's a valid opinion but in practice the stated results are infrequently achieved and come with significant costs that aren't accounted for in a purely free market situation.
Re: IBM nearing a buyout deal for HashiCorp, source says
#68This seemed like an inevitability given the reliance on enterprise customers and the move to maximise the revenue from Terraform with the recent license change. They have made a round of layoffs, so at least some cost saving has already been done to make it more appealing for a sale. The main challenge from an acquisition like this will be maintaining the community around terraform providers, if that drops off, i'm n…
The Terraform providers, and the underlying library for building them, are still open source. This is why OpenTofu didn't have to fork them. Considering they're also used by Pulumi I don't see the provider community going away any time soon, but I definitely see them detaching themselves from Hashicorp.
Or - IBM mends the rift with OpenTofu for their own good.
Re: IBM nearing a buyout deal for HashiCorp, source says
#69Re: IBM nearing a buyout deal for HashiCorp, source says
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
With what reasoning?
What's the value to society of having large companies get larger? IBM is clearly running on fumes by now. Extending its life by pulling down more small companies with them only makes things worse for everyone.
What's the value to society of large companies not getting larger? What is even the relevance? Does everything have to be judged in terms of its value to society, and if so, why? Should we talk about your value to society?
You're arguing for a draconian regulatory response (it sounds like) to what should be a market issue.