Now consider that Red Hat had a net income of $433m. Even if they reach $500 this year, Big Blue will still be $200m short, every year.
At the moment, IBM is trading down at -0.5% on an otherwise slight green Nasdaq.
Just from these numbers we can conclude that IBM is seeing some pretty significant synergies in the purchase that the market isn't.
Or there was basically very little chance that the acquisition wouldn't go through, and since we have known about it for months, it is already priced in the current stock value of IBM, so today's trading would be mostly unrelated and not representative of what investors think about the purchase.
I didn't look into the details of the deal but IIRC $34B is the enterprise value, so it probably includes a refinancing of Red Hat's debt. RH had ~20M in interest last year, so you can take that off of the 700M.
So now we're talking about 680M in marginal interest expense on a firm with ~950M in pre-transaction free cash flow to equity. Not to mention RH's 65% top line growth in 2018, we'll see if that happens again. This transaction could be cash flow positive right off the bat.
Also Red Hat is operating at an ~18% ebitda margin (did not go looking for add backs), I'm assuming IBM can get that up.
Of course, it's easy to imagine IBM just torching all of Red Hat's top line... can't rule that out.
With this price for debt, IBM could be cash-flow positive on this deal within a couple of years even without any big synergy, just by the simple effect of cumulated growth on (net) income.
Just by pushing on it's customer base, IBM will make alot of money on Red Hat, both with new business and blowing up legacy junk at IBM.
One thing that may be missing is how much money flows between them.
I wish Microsoft had purchased Red Hat, that would offer real synergy:
1) Microsoft could contribute to Ansible
2) Microsoft would control licensing for RHEL on Azure
3) We might see Outlook and Office running on RHEL. Or even Direct3D?
The purchase multiple is pretty crazy, and I like that I can point to a multiple that high when suitors want to buy into my own tech companies.
But for IBM this is a net win. Paying all that interest is basically a rounding error and means they barely spent any money for decades if they so choose.
I wonder how much of that is from IBM anyway..
There are plenty of examples https://www.thelayoff.com/international-business-machines
specific example related to RH https://www.thelayoff.com/t/ZJ4vNfo
TBH I hope I'm wrong and that IBM corporate leaves RH alone long term, but that's not the general trend with acquisitions...
Cost cutting isn’t the only business strategy. Although one that modern (public shareholder driven) businesses became obsessed with since the 1980s.
Plus it's pretty clear they know how to do layoffs and that knowledge may be applied to RH soon to boost profitability.
You may well be right, indeed that was along the lines of my initial thought about this and would explain the size and scale of investment. Then if RH fails as they would currently to keep up those interest payments, then accountants can just rub their hands and use that debt to offset profits down the line.
Time will tell, certainly IBM has the kit and for years had its own dark fiber internet backbone globally, so have been well placed for years to capture the cloud market, yet failed to move on. Which for a company that saw a shift towards service offerings, was probably a big source of embarrassment internally at some levels.
It seems like the idea behind the Red Hat acquisition would be to increase the cloud division revenue and keep roughly the same profit margin, which in theory could be great for their bottom line, especially if Red Hat is growing quickly (is it?).
The arm chair CEO in me doesn't see how this adds up, though. Red Hat seems pretty pricey. I just don't see how Red Hat competes with AWS, Azure, and GCP moving forward, and I don't really see how it plays nicely / fits into those clouds either. I also don't see how it would make IBM's cloud more attractive. I can see how it could make IBM's cloud more profitable, but it seems like a stretch, given what they paid for Red Hat.
So far, Red Hat plays in a field slightly different than AWS/GCP/Azure. Our customers mainly want something _on premise_, something on their machines, their datacenter, behind their firewall. Most of our customers don't want to, or can't, hold their data on machines they don't physically own.
It doesn't. Their cloud tech, OpenShift, runs on top of the others. Kubernetes can sit on top of that. It makes private clouds portable (kind of).
From that perspective, community adoption of k8 benefits Google.
Kubernetes is realy a free, uncontrollable , widely installed (on prem and cloud) infrastructure, that compete directly with the clouds. Think of the iphone app store, without any apps (yet), and not controlled by apple.
The reason that companies pays for cloud services (which are 20x the real cost of hardware) is to off load the human cost in managing their infrastructure, and to get hold of cloud native infrastructure (I.e. infra as code, fully scalable).
However, with kubernetes you can create your own automatic robots (aka operator) which would replace the costly admins by taking care of application management. And at the same time you architect to a portable API layer.
In my experience IP corresponds specifically to legally recognised property in otherwise copyable information.
Now, my limited view and perspective is as a bottoms-up techie grunt during this period, but my very personal observations are:
1. Absolutely, PWC got assimilated over time. However:
2. For the first 5 years, culture in my part of BCS was 90+% PWC culture. Perceptible (again, from bottoms-up perspective, I'm sure lots more was brewing in the background) changes started creeping around 2007-2010 mark.
3. Today, 17 years later, I would claim it's a hybrid mix. We are clearly not the same as we were during PWC private-ownership, partnership-structure - no public company can be; but we are still different culturally than rest of the IBM.
4. Perhaps most convincingly, I'd say 70-80% of people I knew in 2003 in my part of IBM, who were originally from PWC, stayed for ~15 years. When many of them moved on ~~2017, it was for a very specific and very different reason. A whole bunch still remain though, including much of the senior management / partner / executive structure (my direct peers and management are all still ex-PWC).
Again, FWIW - there will be a myriad experiences and stories in this complex picture, but that's been my experience.
I am certain IBM will think they know better than Red Hat, and will intefere. It is in their culture. The HPs and IBMs of the world no longer innovate. They acquire innovation and sqaunder it.
Just poach a few key folks internally from RedHat to lead “strategic initiatives” and backfill their roles with IBM lifers. The culture will degrade accordingly.
Have there ever been any situations where the acquisition of a smaller company by a larger one has resulted in the smaller company remaining independent? Or has there been any positives for companies like Red Hat when they get bought?
Usually I hear or read the positive-yet-bland press release talking about how wonderful this is, and how big-corp won't destroy little-corp's culture. Yet a year or less afterwards, I read stories of how everyone in little-corp has been laid off, and now little-corps applications/services are now crap.
I'm a huge Fedora/CentOS/RHEL fan, and use it every opportunity I get. I'm very, very worried that Red Hat will be gutted and defiled until there's nothing left. Which is a very, very bad thing for open source because Red Hat is a huge cornerstone of OSS development and support.
I've yet to find any affirmative answer.
It's good to have hope, but it's not good to be unrealistic.
Marvel / Disney
Facebook / Instagram
Massive numbers of banking / pharma/ industrial mergers.
I will agree though that I can't think of a tech sector merger at this scale that worked out really well. They seem to work best at the sub $2B level.
Although LinkedIn/Microsoft is looking OK.
Disney and gaming seem like a match made in heaven, but for some reason it seems like the mouse struggles to perform in that market compared to its unqualified successes in Movies, TV, and theme parks.
Pixar movies have become crappy sequels made to sell toys. Instagram has become an ad infested product that tries to have every feature, resulting in a confused mess. Exxon/Mobil is one of the worst things that could have happened to the planet.
eBay/PayPal is a good one that made product sense.
I’m not big enough of a Marvel fan to judge that one.
Not really. Most of what they do isn't sequels, and the ones they do are great. I saw Toy Story in the cinema and loved it. My daughter just saw Toy Story 4 in the cinema and loved it. So...financially successful, and people love the movies - not sure how this is a good example, to be honest (unless the metric is "I don't like it", of course...).
IBM acquiring RedHat is a way to play in the cloud field, not to change the complete IBM Organisation, which is huge.
If IBM shareholders think that the future of IBM is the cloud, and that RedHat is the cloud at IBM, I would not be entirely surprised for Jim Whitehurst to replace Ginni Rometty a couple years down the road... 100% speculation from very very far away (I don't pay for anything from either IBM or RedHat).
YouTube's culture and ux have slowly been killed by Google over the years, and the platform is becoming more bland and homogenized as we speak.
YouTube has existed for 14 years. It's been Google nearly the entire time it has existed.
> It's good to have hope, but it's not good to be unrealistic.
* HP paid $4.5B for LoadRunner : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_Interactive
* HP paid $1.6B for Opsware
* HP paid $1.2B for Palm
* HP paid ELEVEN BILLION for Autonomy
Exception that confirms the rule though.
Indeed since in another thread recently, folks pointed out that RH had taken over core functions, such as systemd, pulseaudio, dbus, gnome, wayland, significant share of kernel, etc.
At first, that meant our one to four person operation in SF (most are in London) moved from hanging around Google offices to getting a terrible fishbowl in AKQA. Then, right when I joined, they got approved for their own space in the financial district of SF. Since then, they've been expanding rapidly, with basically no input or oversight from AKQA or WPP.
So at least in this case it seems there was no issue.
The company is Potato, by the way.
Managers prioritize their bonuses over long term interests of companies they work for.
It would be strange and/or abnormal (as far as big co. goes), for IBM managers not to try fuck with Read Hat.
As someone who has worked at a company like that before I can foresee continual IBM management changes until you get the right combination of buiness minded leadership that will can everything at Redhat that isn’t directly related to developing what they consider obvious money makers.
That's an argument why IBM shouldn't interfere, not an argument why IBM won't interfere...
Pretty sure Microsoft is doing that with GitHub to a reasonable extent. Seems to me now that GitHub has more resources they can do much more than they could prior.
Red Hat does "control" a disproportionate amount of Linux development. Everything is also now basically dependent on systemd.
I'm seeing more and more IT guys I know move over to Free/OpenBSD because they don't like the direction Linux is taking. While Linux is only a kernel, the entire userland is basically dependent on systemd.
Linux has become what it hated in Windows. A massive, bloated mess. I've always preferred BSD on the server and something else on the desktop (hurry up, Haiku!). I still wish BeOS would have gotten more traction beyond the BeBox.
Methinks the move towards FreeBSD--and it's happening in quite a few circles, will continue, especially if IBM get heavy handed with Fedora/Red Hat. I'm not worried, per se, but I am concerned, for the aforementioned reasons.
Who? Where? for what?
You mentioned BeOS. Sorry, I love nostalgia too, but I have no idea what you're talking about. Out in AWS, GCP, Azure, DO -land... it's still going to be Ubuntu, Debian, CentOS, Windows, etc for a long time.
I'm still somewhat bothered that Apple let their server offering go. And yes, FreeBSD replaces Linux easily. Not everyone runs their stuff in the cloud. It's not the be-all and end-all. Serious non-IT businesses are still on mainframes, BSD, and other, and there are plenty of them. A friend of mine is a COBOL programmer for a large financial house, and he's set for as long as he wants to work there, and at almost $80hr (Texas), he's making better coin than most programmers here.
No, it doesn’t. Take any non trivial system running Linux and try to run it in FreeBSD. You may get it running in little time, however the number of issues you would have would be big.
Remember that the modern stack have multiple layers of complexity, Linux, your app, SomethingSQL, AnotherThingDb, Kubernetes, AWS/GCE/Azure, etc. Since FreeBSD is not the common choice to run those things you will probably hit a issue here, another issue there, a combination of issue in one layer with another, etc.
Yeah, this may say more about our current systems than anything, however to say that it is easy to substitute Linux with FreeBSD is simply not true.
For glue like kubernetes, yes, you're going to find differences or even lack of support for that specific tool. Ansible works pretty well, in my experience. But this is the more superficial stuff. If you're going to migrate for whatever reason, then updating the automation tooling around the systems you're managing is not that difficult.
These are but a few. Here in the Houston area, there are tons of FreeBSD/OpenBSD users.
Not sure about all programmers but I'm at $200 and I'm underpaid compared to my coworkers. Big telco.
Yes $200/h is underpaid, it should be what people working at Walmart get paid.
Yes, you're right, Ubuntu, Debian, CentOS etc. are the common systems in use for this purpose today. But, if you needed to, you could absolutely use FreeBSD as an alternative. And should there be pressure to drop any of these Linux systems for any reason, having alternatives right there you can switch to is very useful. As is avoiding vendor locking and ensuring there's meaningful competition.
Regardless of one's opinions or critiques about the implementation of systemd specifically, the idea that it came up in some kind of vacuum or started a "trend" is utterly ridiculous.
Prior art in UNIX would be SMF at a minimum, and systemd clearly looked at launchd for some inspiration in other areas (systemd ended up having the goal of covering both use cases of launchd and SMF.. ie generally server and desktop).
Also what is this about binary blobs? systemd is configured with text files. Last I checked, the init process itself on BSD is a binary.
What exactly cannot be solved with init scripts?
Also, keep in mind that FreeBSD init scripts (which actually come from NetBSD as rcng) are very different from the SysV mess Linux used to use - they handle dependencies, have a sane way of configuring way, they don't reimplement features which ceased being useful in the eighties (runlevels) etc. They are also quite fast. This means the pressure to migrate off to something else is much lower.
People have been claiming this for the past 20+ years that I've been working with Linux.
I'd take it with a grain of salt.
And yes, systemd is a dependency for quite a few userland programs. Here is one of the best articles I've read on why systemd is really bad.
journald has its own remote gateway and can ship logs elsewhere. It's not on by default, but you can easily configure it. There are several addons for plugging in specific protocols and services into the journal.
I am referring to something syslog-based:
which can be used by other tools to process.
Can you point me to documentation on how journald can be configured to send to a remote syslog server?
Seriously, it's in the man page.
From the man page:
> Journal events can be transferred to a different logging daemon in two different ways. With the first method, messages are immediately forwarded to a socket (/run/systemd/journal/syslog), where the traditional syslog daemon can read them. This method is controlled by the ForwardToSyslog= option. With a second method, a syslog daemon behaves like a normal journal client, and reads messages from the journal files, similarly to journalctl(1). With this, messages do not have to be read immediately, which allows a logging daemon which is only started late in boot to access all messages since the start of the system. In addition, full structured meta-data is available to it. This method of course is available only if the messages are stored in a journal file at all. So it will not work if Storage=none is set. It should be noted that usually the second method is used by syslog daemons, so the Storage= option, and not the ForwardToSyslog= option, is relevant for them.
That is all about local. Again: I end having to running a syslogd locally so that I can send stuff remtely using an industry standard protocol.
Check out how many projects Red Hat claims to "maintain"
IBM could leave GNOME, gtk, and graphics stuff out to dry. After all, GNOME doesn't sell cloud server support contracts.
If you'd like us to hurry up, we could use more hands; software (doubly so clean, well-designed software) does not write itself, especially on shoestring budgets :)
I believe this offering appeared in April.
Did Devuan ever get their build servers back up after they did a childish aprils fools day joke?
Is this really true? It seems to me that a lot of the people who control the direction of Linux might work at RedHat and IBM, but that can change. It has in the past and it will in the future, billion$ acquisitions don't make them immune.
There's a history of companies simply acquiring the competition:
1) Ansible was written by a former Red Hat employee, and then Red Hat simply acquired his company.
2) Centos was an open source alternative to RHEL, and then Red Hat simply acquired the company.
RedHat gets access to IBMs massive sales machine and IBM picks up a number of key technologies. Win-win.
Disclaimer: former IBM employee with short tenure with a failed acquisition by every definition of it
What engineering-related innovation has RedHat come up with?
As a Linux sysadmin I've noticed that all of the companies I've worked at that have used RedHat chose it not because it was innovative but because:
1 - they could get a support contract
2 - because RH dominated the commercial Linux space
3 - because RH was the OS the admins knew and both wanted to leverage that knowledge and keep their knowledge current for continuing work with this market leader in future jobs (as that was likely the OS they'd use in most jobs to come)
Most of the "innovations" I can attribute to RH have been widely seen in the sysadmin community as negative. Innovations such as systemd, Network Manager, and selinux. The latter two we've often turned off because they caused so many problems. Unfortunately, systemd was too integrated in to the OS to be able to turn off.
There's RPM, but that was created decades ago when RH was not the company it was now, and it's just one packaging format out of many, and not one that IBM even needs to spend billions to buy. The only other positive tech that RH owns that I can think of is Ansible. But they didn't create it. They bought it.
What RH-originated innovations should we impressed by?
When you say that "most of the innovations [...] have been widely seen in the sysadmin community as negative", well, that can only be true in your own sysadmin community. If you replace "innovation" by "contribution", and make the list include everything RH works on (SELinux, NM and systemd are really a tiny part of it), the sentence becomes factually incorrect, even in your own sysadmin community (I hope).
Also, systemd was not created by RH (LP was not employed by RH at the time), and SELinux is from the NSA's TRUSIX. Labeling SELinux as a "negative innovation" is very weird (not that whole sentence isn't).
When you say that RH's only "positive tech" is Ansible, but that it was an acquisition, that's true for mostly everything RH participates in (Ansible, but also systemd, OpenStack, Ceph, CoreOS, GlusterFS, KVM, LVM/DM, gcc, gdb, systemd etc... were acquisitions or acqui-hires), so I really don't see your point. Does the fact that all of this software originated from somewhere else than RH negates the existence their engineering culture ?
EDIT: made quotes inline
Now, if you're talking about the engineering cultures of the companies RH acquired, if RH was able to preserve the engineering cultures of the acquisitions they made, why can't IBM?
Also, if by "engineering culture" you're not actually talking about any innovative products that RH itself came up with, but rather the contributions that RH engineers made to open source projects like gcc or the Linux kernel, IBM has done a lot of that too. I'm not sure why that wouldn't continue under IBM's stewardship of RH.
Personally, I just hope that RH can preserve its engineering culture. I can't say anything on whether it will happen or not, because I don't know.
I suppose that nobody could find another source than him saying that he works for Red Hat in a FOSDEM 2011 interview.
If you have such a source, I suggest correcting Wikipedia, as it may induce others in error.
Ansible was created within the Fedora Project (owned by RH) as "func" originally. The creators left RH to found AnsibleWorks, which was then acquired by Red Hat in 2015.
Not going to disagree that a lot of what RedHat has championed recently has been controversial. What kind of innovation isn't controversial though until usually many years afterward?
Also, cultures can be relative to each other and are not definable in single dimensions. But nobody besides the most Kool Aid soaked of IBMers could say that IBM is more of an engineering-centric culture than RedHat.
I'm not sure how well Google fares either. I mean YouTube is a success story but Boston Dynamics & Motorola are pretty sad outcomes.
With RH and IBM - they were competitors. So, for everything RH does there is an alternative in IBM (operating systems, application software, Java, etc.). Corporate fiefdoms are not so easily dismantled or pacified :)
Word from the inside is that IBM's own "sales machine" selling Watson for what it really wasn't ... was a great deal of the problem with Watson.
The skepticism about IBM is rooted in their recent history.
That being said, my personal impression from the market, and completely unauthoritative, is that Watson is a brand-name, NOT a single product; it's a collection of products, some built, some purchased, some integrated, some stand-alone, some simple, some complex, under the AI/ML/"Cognitive" umbrella. Most companies have branding/pillars - in IBM, Infosphere used to be information management, Lotus was collaboration and communication, Rational for project management / testing / modelling / etc, and so on.
So you have "Watson Predictive Analyzer" and "Watson Chat Service API" and "Watson AI Doodad #37", etc where you can seamlessly take out Watson, replace it with IBM or not at all. There is no single Watson product that I'm aware of. Some stuff was likely even re-branded from previous analytics/BI into Watson branding as deemed appropriate.
Globally-intentionally or not (opinions differ wildly), market perceived "Watson" as "that big machine that won Jeopardy" - a single drop-in product, as opposed a suite of independent products that can certainly do many things, but need hard work at data cleansing, formatting, modelling, testing, etc to do useful things.
I mean, cognitive/watson/AI implementation projects seem to be order of magnitude faster than my experience with Enterprise Architecture projects; but still not a "plug in box, push button".
My $0.01CAD :)
However, Watson was sold and advertised as more of a drop in solution with a lot promised of results that Watson has never produced.
Accordingly the massive costs incurred by customers were unexpected and the processes to do it right rushed, customer expectations were not met (quite the opposite) and the results were often quite poor.
IBM seems to have backed away from all those grand claims.
We’re also seeing the end of independence that was making the open source model work with dignity. It was a huge milestone for the company and many people view this as a regression.
> That’s according to an analysis by Recode, which found the e-commerce giant [Amazon] spent nearly $23 billion on R&D in 2017. Technology companies rounded out the top five, collectively spending $76 billion on R&D last year. The other tech companies that spent the most on R&D were Alphabet (GOOG), Intel Corp. (INTC), Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) and Apple Inc. (AAPL). Alphabet was in second place with R&D spending of $16.6 billion while Intel had spending of $13.1 billion and Microsoft spent $12.3 billion. Apple rounded out the top five with $11.6 billion. Meanwhile, Johnson & Johnson (JNJ) spent $10.4 billion while Ford Motor Co. (F) weighed in with 2017 R&D spending of $8 billion. Potentially telling, International Business Machines Corp. (IBM), once the innovator in techland, spent the least at $5.4 billion. (See also: IBM Traders See Stock Plunging 20%.)
Amazon does not report R&D spend, but “Technology and content” spend. This includes for example AWS infrastructure.
If you review HP's acquisitions, you can see the "worst case scenario."
IE, what if they just drive the acquisition into a ditch?
When I worked at HP, we saw lots of customers who needed automation software, and it seemed like nobody at HP was even aware that we offered a competitive product. (Opsware aka "hp server automation.")
IMHO this is a good time for the Debian project to reconsider the decision to rely on systemd. If you also think so, consider letting them know.
In any case, IBM is very respectful of the health of the open source projects on which it depends. While the vestiges of Red Hat may become less and less attractive as a place for a maintainer to work over time, I do not expect IBM to exert any control over any of these projects in any meaningful way any more than it has over the areas that its current employees maintain. Look at SCSI in the kernel, or even RCU, both maintained by IBMers (two examples among many).
(I worked at IBM in its Linux Technology Center for over a decade)
Can they not be forked in the case of a sudden change of direction that Debian, or anyone else disagrees with?
What do you mean by "control"?
Forks historically only really work if the fork comes from within.
You can read my blog post and comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20391504
I'm assuming that you're implying that's what IBM wants?
It makes us worse off, I feel. Nearly all these big mergers are about cornering markets, reducing competition and avoiding innovations. At best they're about finance shenanigans.
It's not as if redhat customers are likely to be excited about this.
After a certain point, it's pretty clear to me that consolidation only benefits a few significantly invested shareholders and no one else. I suspect this is somewhere greater than the "big 4-5" we've become accustomed to accepting in every sector, when economies of scale stop showing significant sizable benefits to consumers and the market at large. Instead, it turns into pure financial strategy to maximize the few most significant investors' ROI which becomes significantly disproportionate to their contribution to society.
Antitrust cases are quite slow to react to these circumstances, be it intentional (financial influence in government) and or structural (government intentionally moves slowly).
A second reason is that practices evolve around legal limitations. Monopolies can stay on one side of the legal letter, and that evolves over time.
To actually deal with trusts requires legislation specifically tailored to the monopolistic tendencies of (for example) the 2019 tech sector. Maybe "data share" needs to be a concept like market share is/was.
This acquisition has the potential of IBM using RH to disrupt the cancer of putting everything on AWS/GCE/Azure by pushing open source-based models.
If there is one thing that’s obvious, it’s that people in this thread have very little imagination of the benefits of teamwork and conjoined efforts. The only thing this is evidence of is the shocking ignorance about businesses.
I like the Walrus best," said Alice, "because you see he was a little sorry for the poor oysters."
"He ate more than the Carpenter, though," said Tweedledee. "You see he held his handkerchief in front, so that the Carpenter couldn't count how many he took: contrariwise."
"That was mean!" Alice said indignantly. "Then I like the Carpenter best—if he didn't eat so many as the Walrus."
"But he ate as many as he could get," said Tweedledum.
This was a puzzler. After a pause, Alice began, "Well! They were both very unpleasant characters—
That's the problem with your thinking and people like you in this thread: you're entirely banking on faith that IBM won't ruin RH, even when you cite a great example here about Oracle making similar acquisitions and running them into the ground. Seriously, what makes you think IBM is going to be any different?
I'm just trying to be optimistic in this case, although I agree with how acquisitions always run into the ground regardless of the company, but something tells me IBM would think twice about doing something remotely like that to RH. For one thing, they contribute excellent work into the kernel and some of their senior engineers have had pivotal roles in adding components to the kernel which may have been a significant factor in improving it, and a minor testament that they care about the system as a whole. That doesn't guarantee anything but it is quite evident from their perspective that they are just looking to both increase their foothold in the industry and improve the base system.
Who will be developing the lion share of what makes "the Linux desktop?"
If IBM wants to ever make money of this deal, the only way available for them is to kick everybody, but support people, and crank up fees to the max from big corporate clients.
Ubuntu has certainly stole the crown of "the server linux" as being built on a more sound foundation, and being more conservative in bringing disruptive novelties — something that just any sysadmin likes.
And that timeframe might be shorter than you'd think. My guess would be "days".
Any evidence to back up your guess, or is it just the hunch of some dude on the internet?
Maybe Ubuntu could pivot into this space.
With the cloud, especially containers, there is little future in a business that involves paying for operating systems licenses.
Most interesting is probably supporting legacy versions of operating systems for customers who value compatibility to be able to continue to run existing applications with the minimum changes.
I'm pretty sure since like 2 years they're working on at least the second, but the purchase of Ubuntu too doesn't sound that absurd to me. What really concerns me is their power as a big corporation, which could play a role in attracting a growing Linux user base to their distro. This could lead to disasters should Microsoft pollute their OS with proprietary extensions: developers writing software for Linux on a MS branded Linux would create software that "runs better" there or wouldn't run at all on others.
No conspiracies here, this happens every day in all offices when printers refuse to work with non same brand ink cartridges; so let's say tomorrow Microsoft ports a significant part of their windowing object model to Linux - to their Linux - as a closed linkable blob, then update their development systems so that one can develop full desktop linux applications with the same graphics interface model of the Windows ones. Technical issues aside, how many developers would resist the temptation? And how many of them would keep dual booting when they could build a career by working exclusively on Microsoft Linux?
This is pure speculation of course, but I have this feeling that Microsoft becoming a top Platinum Member of the Linux Foundation was the corporate way of slowly getting to the captains chair.
This sounds like something right out of a dystopian nightmare I might have had in the early 2000s.
For some context you can read the email our CEO sent out to the whole company today: https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/jim-whitehurst-email-red-hatt...
Thing is, IBM has been around for a long time and has a long history of acquisitions. They've done it enough that there's a process. My suggestion would be to go through this list and decide which one looks most like the situation in which you find yourself.
If you were feeling like a little research, you could probably even find the names of some folks in a job role like yours who were there at the time and see what happened to them post-acquisition.
Oh, man, wouldn't it be pretty to think so?
In all seriousness, this is an INSANELY naive statement. It doesn't matter what IBM says, and it matters less what the Red Hat CEO says. You got bought. They can, and will, do whatever they want, regardless of what lip service they pay to independence or preserving culture or whatever.
Can you point to any acquisition EVER where the acquired company remained "independent" for a meaningful amount of time? Or where the smaller firm retained their own culture? It doesn't happen.
The old management maxim will hold true:
If nothing will change, why fuck with the formula?
Of course Redhat under Big Blue will change, considerably.
I'd really suggest finding one of your colleagues that's seen IBM's track record with acquisitions and pick their brain a bit. They'll have much more relevant information for you than your old CEO.
Canonical is already in that market and has been for a long time. I work for Pivotal, we have a contract which gives us all-the-gold support for Ubuntu, because that's what we're shipping to our customers.
Disclosure: Pivotal competes with Red Hat/IBM in the cloud platform market.
Enterprise is hard though, for total outsiders.