Comment by cosinetau

7 years ago

I feel you're right, which is why I'm surprised by the seemingly negative response to this news, and the overwhelmingly positive response from GitHub+Microsoft.

Some of the same conflicts of interest exist in both modern cases, notwithstanding, both have opposite contribution histories.

Am I missing something?

13 comments

cosinetau

Reply
prepend  7 years ago

Others pointed out that the Github merger wasn’t all positive, but Microsoft is at least a software company.

IBM is a consulting company and their model is really different than RedHat.

Competing with AWS and Microsoft is pretty crazy and does not make sense to me. RedHat’s value is in its software, not its cloud delivery.

And, frankly, I depend a little more on centos/fedora than I do Github.

  • _emacsomancer_  7 years ago

    > Others pointed out that the Github merger wasn’t all positive, but Microsoft is at least a software company.

    > IBM is a consulting company and their model is really different than RedHat.

    Maybe the complementariness of this could be good?

    (Yes, Microsoft is a software company, but they produce a particular type of software which is why many people weren't thrilled about their acquisition of Github.)

  • xorcist  7 years ago

    It may be strictly wrong to call them a "cloud" provider, but they've bet big on on-premise cloud-like systems, which carries a lot of potential for future growth.

    If you want enterpricey Kubernetes, scratching those auditing and authorization itches it carries, Openshift is probably on your short list.

ianai  7 years ago

Concentration of power isn’t always socially optimal. It’s probably never optimal.