31–40 of 192 posts
IBM missed a great marketing opportunity. They should have told the public that the decision to acquire Red Hat was made by Watson
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You do realize that those containers eventually need to be hosted somewhere , right? That somewhere is a server running an operating system. Containers are more a threat to virtual machine OSes than ones that host containers.
Right. All I need from a node is the CPU / Memory and a docker daemon. The less I know about an OS or any other services / patches, etc the better. I.e. I want my nodes to be cattles.
And that's why people DO pay for red-hat. Peace of mind, whether supported by evidence or not.
The big risk is that IBM drags Redhat down to their level. This wouldn't be unusual, most takeovers fail to deliver shareholder value.
There is nothing to drag. A single server distro is becoming irrelevant as the unit of computation resources is the kubernetes cluster. I.e. all the app see is a set of kubernetes nodes, it does not really care what server disto you are running on.
Can someone explain why Red Hat is so valuable? Why would IBM put such a big bet?
The general strategy seems to be: IBM's customers have been slowly transitioning from proprietary IBM OSs (AIX, z/OS) to Linux for a lot of their workloads, and IBM has accommodated this out of necessity, but wants to retain licensing revenue and some degree of branding/control in that situation by having such customers on an Enterprise IBM Linux. RHEL more or less already owned the Enterprise Linux space, so IBM jus…
Can someone explain why Red Hat is so valuable? Why would IBM put such a big bet?
The general strategy seems to be: IBM's customers have been slowly transitioning from proprietary IBM OSs (AIX, z/OS) to Linux for a lot of their workloads, and IBM has accommodated this out of necessity, but wants to retain licensing revenue and some degree of branding/control in that situation by having such customers on an Enterprise IBM Linux. RHEL more or less already owned the Enterprise Linux space, so IBM jus…
Yes, but that’s only a coincidence. What they have really been doing is transitioning from proprietary to commodity hardware. Which IBM no longer makes. Where does IBM make money? Mainframe sales. There can be only one winner here... IBM will need to kill off their mainframe business to justify this purchase, something they have proved very reluctant to do.
The big risk is that IBM drags Redhat down to their level. This wouldn't be unusual, most takeovers fail to deliver shareholder value.
There is nothing to drag. A single server distro is becoming irrelevant as the unit of computation resources is the kubernetes cluster. I.e. all the app see is a set of kubernetes nodes, it does not really care what server disto you are running on.
In the HN/cloud echo chamber, that might be worth pointing out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You do realize that those containers eventually need to be hosted somewhere , right? That somewhere is a server running an operating system. Containers are more a threat to virtual machine OSes than ones that host containers.
So why run a full os for container runtime? Wouldn’t a hypervisor be more efficient? What is the point of red hat at that point
IBM missed a great marketing opportunity. They should have told the public that the decision to acquire Red Hat was made by Watson
Lying like that is a great way to have to deal with lawsuits from every investor who isn’t convinced that the deal is a good idea.
Can someone explain why Red Hat is so valuable? Why would IBM put such a big bet?