Many companies are OSS friendly, but I think being OSS friendly is different than building your whole organization on OSS. RH does the latter, many-many companies are the former.
"IBM further says, "Upon closing of the acquisition, Red Hat will join IBM's Hybrid Cloud team as a distinct unit, preserving the independence and neutrality of Red Hat's open source development heritage and commitment, current product portfolio and go-to-market strategy, and unique development culture. Red Hat will continue to be led by Jim Whitehurst and Red Hat's current management team. Jim Whitehurst also will join IBM's senior management team and report to Ginni Rometty. IBM intends to maintain Red Hat's headquarters, facilities, brands and practices.""
In other words, RH is too big to merge quickly. When it's all said and done (in at most 3 years), expect a new post talking about "increased synergy" where RH will go through major a reorg to be merged into the borg.
To some degree they have opened the Power9, which is hardware. For hardware it's like leaps and bounds more open than anything else out there that can compete with it.
RISC-V is more open, but the hardware isn't necessarily open, and it's not yet really competing at the same scale as Power9 does... yet. There is hope :)
Their open power initiative is really no more "open source" than say Intel's processors, with the possible exception of Management Engine shenanigans from Intel.
The motivation behind Eclipse/JWT was similar to the French supporting American rebels in the late 18th century. It had nothing to do with what they stood for and everything to do with being able to poke a stick in the eye of their most hated enemy (Sun and Great Britain, respectively). Hell, the name and logo even tells you what they're trying to do.
OpenBMC is worked on by the OzLabs group (which is the core of some of their mainframe BMCs), as well as lots of work around POWER9 and s390. Don't get me wrong, they are a proprietary shop at the end of the day, but they do an incredible amount of free software work.
And they also do several contributions, e.g. openstack, linux kernel
I would agree that IBM is not pop enough and that their motivation is usually not based on ideals or a social contract.
EDIT: I forgot IBM Blockchain, which you might think it is not "core" just because the company is still divided between areas like services, consulting and hardware...
Many companies are OSS friendly, but I think being OSS friendly is different than building your whole organization on OSS. RH does the latter, many-many companies are the former.
The problem (as an ex-IBMer) is that that friendlyness is only in parts of the company; much of IBM is open-source hostile.
As a result of this news, though, wouldn't you be inclined to suspect that the hostile faction just took a massive blow?
"IBM further says, "Upon closing of the acquisition, Red Hat will join IBM's Hybrid Cloud team as a distinct unit, preserving the independence and neutrality of Red Hat's open source development heritage and commitment, current product portfolio and go-to-market strategy, and unique development culture. Red Hat will continue to be led by Jim Whitehurst and Red Hat's current management team. Jim Whitehurst also will join IBM's senior management team and report to Ginni Rometty. IBM intends to maintain Red Hat's headquarters, facilities, brands and practices.""
Give it a year or two..
In other words, RH is too big to merge quickly. When it's all said and done (in at most 3 years), expect a new post talking about "increased synergy" where RH will go through major a reorg to be merged into the borg.
This is all very sad.
Show me a single core product IBM have open sourced.
To some degree they have opened the Power9, which is hardware. For hardware it's like leaps and bounds more open than anything else out there that can compete with it.
RISC-V is more open, but the hardware isn't necessarily open, and it's not yet really competing at the same scale as Power9 does... yet. There is hope :)
Their open power initiative is really no more "open source" than say Intel's processors, with the possible exception of Management Engine shenanigans from Intel.
1 reply →
Where's the source to Power 9 then?
3 replies →
I'm sure that you can draw a line where it does not count as "core product", but Eclipse has to count as something.
The motivation behind Eclipse/JWT was similar to the French supporting American rebels in the late 18th century. It had nothing to do with what they stood for and everything to do with being able to poke a stick in the eye of their most hated enemy (Sun and Great Britain, respectively). Hell, the name and logo even tells you what they're trying to do.
3 replies →
Eclipse is horribly bloated. Many, many developers have moved to IntelliJ IDEA.
1 reply →
OpenBMC is worked on by the OzLabs group (which is the core of some of their mainframe BMCs), as well as lots of work around POWER9 and s390. Don't get me wrong, they are a proprietary shop at the end of the day, but they do an incredible amount of free software work.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JFS_(file_system)
https://openpowerfoundation.org/
What has OpenPOWER actually open sourced? Seems to be more a quid-pro-quo between IBM and its select partners.
3 replies →
They have many (you might argue some are somewhat autist but there are): https://developer.ibm.com/code/open/projects/
And they also do several contributions, e.g. openstack, linux kernel
I would agree that IBM is not pop enough and that their motivation is usually not based on ideals or a social contract.
EDIT: I forgot IBM Blockchain, which you might think it is not "core" just because the company is still divided between areas like services, consulting and hardware...
https://github.com/IBM-Blockchain
There was an era when IBM's "core products" were hardware. I think today their "core product" is consulting.
Open source hardware exists but is rare. I don't know what it means to open source consulting?
Does IBM have any core products?
Eclipse
Eclipse is hardly a core IBM product.
1 reply →
Their J9 JDK alongside with WebSphere AS.
WAS is not open source.
2 replies →
Went they the primary driver of eclipse?