This is just as well, as I'm moving quite a bit to Net and OpenBSD. I'm tired of the Linux drama (systemd, CoC, balkanised standards, etc.) the broken stuff between distros. The slower changes for BSD development typically means more stable software. And ZFS. Plus, I actually prefer the ICS/BSD license for software in general, as it's maximally free. I've found over the years, that my BSD boxes are far and away more stable than their Linux counterparts. I do devops mostly, so stability and long-term availability are key factors. ext4 is getting long in the tooth and btrfs is nowhere near ZFS in stability or ability or I/O. I've never had a BSD system crash unexpectedly other than bad HW. I cannot say the same for Linux, even RHEL. I feel like a kid again in many ways, because I get to explore all the cool things the BSDs can do again. I'm even moving my Raspberry Pi over to NetBSD in the coming days as a prototype platform to explore BSD embedded possibilities.
IBM acquires Red Hat
191–200 of 1001 posts
Re: IBM acquires Red Hat
#192Interesting to see no comments praising this at all. I wonder what happened to RedHat for them to make this decision.
Re: IBM acquires Red Hat
#193Guys, this is not just, or mainly not RH Linux. :( - kernel development - Ansible - JBoss (I know HN hates Java, especially Java EE, but it was and is an important factor in enterprise OSS adoption) - OpenShift - Ceph, Gluster All these are in danger, not just RHEL. I don't know about any other company that is large, successful, focuses on the enterprise and absolutely behind OSS. Canonical is way behind Red Hat in t…
- etcd
Re: IBM acquires Red Hat
#194It's like Vader asked Luke to join him in defeating the Emperor (Microsoft) and ruling the galaxy as father and son - and instead of the audience hearing "I'll never join you!!", we hear "sure, let's team up." The cognitive dissonance is so strong here. WTF just happened? If you asked me a month ago to put down serious money in Vegas on this never happening, I'd have happily done so. What on Earth were they thinking?…
> Red Hat shareholders just sold out.
The Red Hat board were offered a massive premium on an already generously-priced stock. If they hadn't sold there probably would've been lawsuits left and right.
Re: IBM acquires Red Hat
#195Well, I don't know anybody in the FOSS community which would be worried it systemd became endangered ;)
1. Every distro that already uses systemd (which is close to 100%)
2. (Close to 100% of) packagers and maintainers of system services
3. System administrators using distros from #1 (which is, again, practically everyone)
Re: IBM acquires Red Hat
#196What will happen to the parts of IBM and Red Hat which overlap? If there is competing tech which adds to IBM's bottom line then chances are that is what IBM will keep. It will be interesting to know what those areas are.
Re: IBM acquires Red Hat
#197My main worry is that this will end up like the Novell acquisition of SUSE. 10 years on and there is still scar tissue running through SUSE and openSUSE. Lots of bad blood was stirred up (and in many ways this is what cause the drop in interest in SUSE). IBM has hardly had the best history when it comes to treating its acquisitions (or its employees for that matter).
On the other hand, I know quite a few folks who work for IBM and do great free software work. I want to think that RedHat would be treated like OzLabs -- a fairly isolated group that gets to continue working on all of the free software work they have always done.
Here's hoping it works out. The survival of RedHat (or any large free software company) is very important to the longevity of the projects that we all depend on.
[I work at SUSE, though I wasn't around during the Novell years I have heard plenty of horror stories. And I've used GroupWise.]
Re: IBM acquires Red Hat
#198Re: IBM acquires Red Hat
#199Well, I don't know anybody in the FOSS community which would be worried it systemd became endangered ;)
redhat had a lot of love in the world. any other vendor that shoved systemd down everyones throat would have been villified. redhat was given a pass. (karma, anyone?)
Re: IBM acquires Red Hat
#200Here's my take since we're all weighing in and are all in different levels of shock: IBM needs Redhat to stay relevant. The way I think about it is in a few ways. 1) IBM's stock price has been tanking because I think they're not investing in new products but just cutting expenditures to meet stupid Wall-Street targets. But with the introduction of RedHat they get new "blood" as it were. Who knows, what if they make the CEO of RedHat the CEO of IBM a la Satya Nadella and Microsoft?
They have said that RedHat would remain an independent part of IBM as part of their cloud push. Let's take them at their word unless they prove us wrong. Also, if nothing else, this could give RedHat even more money to make ambitious bets -- perhaps we might see Power9 systems running Fedora soon?
In the end I think this is, on the whole, a good thing. Now, does MS buy Canonical?