141–150 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.
So IBM buys Red Hat for $34B, of which $20B are borrowed monies. The debt is priced at 1.05 percentage points above Treasury yield rate [1] which would be somewhere around 3.5% which puts interest on bond debt at ~$700m every year. Now consider that Red Hat had a net income of $433m. Even if they reach $500 this year, Big Blue will still be $200m short, every year. At the moment, IBM is trading down at -0.5% on an ot…
Just by pushing on it's customer base, IBM will make alot of money on Red Hat, both with new business and blowing up legacy junk at IBM.
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.
Sarcasm? If not, I’d say Debian and Ubuntu still have a large market share and most Linux is still open source. Perhaps you mean Enterprise Linux?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I certainly don't want to argue or appear confrontational, but wanted to ask you this: Have there ever been any situations where the acquisition of a smaller company by a larger one has resulted in the smaller company remaining independent? Or has there been any positives for companies like Red Hat when they get bought? Usually I hear or read the positive-yet-bland press release talking about how wonderful this is, a…
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.
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.
Sarcasm? If not, I’d say Debian and Ubuntu still have a large market share and most Linux is still open source. Perhaps you mean Enterprise Linux?
I don't think he was being sarcastic. systemd came from Red Hat employees. It's now effectively everywhere, even in Debian and derivatives. This is not meant to be a systemd sucks rant, but if a distro is using systemd, and most do, they are using Red Hat-developed software, and a most critical piece at that. Gnome, the usual DE for enterprise Linux installs is heavily tied into systemd now. It goes on and on.
I don't doubt the committment of RH to Open source, but looking at IBMs rather chequered history with regards to how they look to minimize costs, there must be some concern that next time there's a bad set of results, executive management will be looking for cost savings. There are plenty of examples https://www.thelayoff.com/international-business-machines specific example related to RH https://www.thelayoff.com/t/Z…
As the very good comment above points out, IBM will need to cut costs very significantly regardless, as they've paid so much the interest on the debt is more than Red Hat makes.
Cost cutting isn’t the only business strategy. Although one that modern (public shareholder driven) businesses became obsessed with since the 1980s.
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…
People have been claiming this for the past 20+ years that I've been working with Linux.
I'd take it with a grain of salt.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
The userland is absolutely not dependent on systemd _at all_. Have a look at Devuan, and you'll see that almost all of the userland remains exactly the same. See: https://unix.stackexchange.com/q/433159/34868
And yes, systemd is a dependency for quite a few userland programs. Here is one of the best articles I've read on why systemd is really bad.
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2016/05/18/systemd-it-keeps-ge...