Comment by kartan
7 years ago
IBM has been historically a Linux contributor. Eclipse, their open source IDE, opened the other to Java and other programming languages in the OS. And Power processors supported Linux early on. From that perspective to purchase Red Hat makes sense. It makes even more sense as the announcement states that they are trying to create a bigger cloud provider to compete with Amazon Web Services, Google Cloud, and Microsoft Azure.
My main concern is the reduction on variety. All big businesses are buying layer after layer of different markets reducing the number of options that one can choose.
* https://thenewstack.io/contributes-linux-kernel/
* https://www.redhat.com/en/about/press-releases/ibm-acquire-r...
According to their 10Q and 10K filings, IBM is over seventy percent a consultation business with less than ten percent of revenue being made from hardware.
So with RedHat and the remains of IBMs hardware division, they make a push into the cloud with their own RISC-V servers with chips fabbed on an advanced node and with a full software stack driven by both IBM and RedHat developers. They'd be vertical in their cloud offerings.
You don't need to tell me I'm hallucinating - I know. But it's fun to imagine something good coming from this rather than the simple destruction of RedHat.
Why would they drop OpenPOWER for RISC-V?
1 reply →
I am CEO of WSO2, an open source software company, with 500 enterprise customers and competitive to IBM, MULE, and RHT.
I have packaged up my observations on the acquisition and the impact to open source in this blog post.
https://medium.com/@tylerjewell/ibm-acquires-red-hat-what-th...
"We expect OpenShift to become the dominant brand for Kubernetes."
That seems like a strong statement that I didn't see any backing for in the blog post. Care to expand? I haven't seen much settling in the k8s space. In fact it looks like things are still heating up with many companies pivoting in that direction.
Not sure why you're getting downvoted, this is the real fear.
whats a WSO2
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/WSO2
A previous employer used their identity server for a SSO system. It did what we needed it to and seemed like it was well written.
What is a better business model then taking something that is free, and renting it at a premium ...
>>IBM has been historically a Linux contributor.
Maybe, but IBM has been historically a for profit enterprise, required to appease investors every quarter (or the CEO goes, stock crashes etc.)
They may have contributed to projects to then sell services, but make no mistake, IBM has their own interests at heart, not yours.
You do realise that a lot of Linux kernel development is being done by for profit enterprises, don't you? None of these companies are doing this out of the goodness of their hearts, but because they have a vested interest. Linux is at the heart of possibly the majority of modern IT infrastructure.
Besides,IBM/RH are by not even the largest contributors. Intel does more than both of them combined, and then you have other heavyweights like Google who have an interest (notably through Android) in keeping the project going. Even if IBM were to pull out for some reason, there are more than enough others who could pick up the slack.
Not just "a lot." Over 90% of contributions come from developers who are hired by companies to contribute to the Linux kernel: https://thenewstack.io/contributes-linux-kernel. Intel and Redhat each contribute more than all the individual contributors put together.
Are RedHat not a for profit enterprise required to appease investors? They're also a publicly traded company - and part of the S&P 500 even!
> Maybe, but IBM has been historically a for profit enterprise...
So has RedHat.
I see way too many good open source projects relying on donations, and they are not doing well. Nothing wrong with making money, or rather, it's an essential part of life (for better or worse).
Horay for Free Market! This is why all our stuff are low quality now as all the brands are actually owned by 1 mega corp.