10 ms·
Guys, this is not just, or mainly not RH Linux. :( - kernel development - Ansible - JBoss (I know HN hates Java, especially Java EE, but it was and is an imp
by sz4kerto 8y ago
Guys, this is not just, or mainly not RH Linux. :(
- kernel development
- Ansible
- JBoss (I know HN hates Java, especially Java EE, but it was and is an important factor in enterprise OSS adoption)
- OpenShift
- Ceph, Gluster
All these are in danger, not just RHEL. I don't know about any other company that is large, successful, focuses on the enterprise and absolutely behind OSS. Canonical is way behind Red Hat in terms of revenue (1/20).
Sad.
- sjellis 8y agoRed Hat's Open Source only approach does mean that none of these projects can be closed down, though: AFAIK, IBM are acquiring people and a brand, but no significant proprietary IP. If higher-ups at IBM turn out to be as clueless as Oracle, then key engineers will just walk and continue working on those projects elsewhere.
- coderjoe 8y agoWhere elsewhere? The landscape of options to be paid for your OSS has just become a barren field. Yes, OSS as a concept can survive only on gratis work. However I'm not sure the portfolio of projects supported largely by Red Hat maintainers could. If maintainers are forced to start walking as they did with Oracle I expect to see quite a few projects fall into disrepair.
- ric2b 8y agoI guess they can start a new company and keep working on the same products. The community would have to change to their new repo's but other than that RedHat could get a new start, with a different name.
- techman9 8y ago- etcd
- pinewurst 8y agoIBM would rather push Spectrum Scale/GPFS over Ceph or Gluster
- SEJeff 8y agoSpectrum Scale Support is one of the most horrific things I've encountered in my entire professional career.
- anothergoogler 8y agoIt goes much deeper than that, Red Hat maintains or contributes regularly to a wide swath of the Linux ecosystem. They also have a policy of open sourcing acquisitions. If the deal goes through, it's a dark day for open source software.
- geofft 8y agoAlso in practice glibc, systemd, GNOME, etc. have a ton of maintainers from Red Hat, even if they're not Red Hat-owned the way Ansible or Ceph is.
- davrosthedalek 8y agoMaybe they just bought redhat to kill off systemd. Ah, one can hope...
- mishac 8y agoYeah the whole freedesktop.org stack is to a large extent RedHat folks.
- chris_wot 8y agoNot to mention LibreOffice.
- lima 8y agoAdd Fedora to the list - while technically a community project, Red Hat is the main contributor.
- bigbugbag 8y agoIt seems to me that Red Hat is based on Fedora. Fedora being the fast release gratis community version and Red Hat the slow release commercial corporate version. Then CentOS would the community gratis version of Red Hat.
- snuxoll 8y agoThat's basically how Red Hat describes it: Fedora - Community Innovation RHEL - Commercial Production CentOS - Community Adoption
- grey-area 8y agoAlso Atomic/CoreOS - this will probably be cut now, perhaps even before it is complete. http://www.projectatomic.io/blog/2018/06/welcome-to-fedora-coreos/ http://www.projectatomic.io/blog/2018/06/welcome-to-fedora-c...
- cmurf 8y agoI doubt it. When you read the IBM and Core OS acquisition press releases side by side you get a lot of the same "hybrid cloud" language. Update: Near as I can tell the acquisition completed in March/April.
- grey-area 8y agoWe'll see. Often talk like that is just buzzword soup. What matters to large companies like IBM is money from services, not owning the coolest tech stack. If it is clearly contributing lots of money or it has a champion in IBM they'll keep it. In progress greenfield projects with no obvious monetisation are just the sort of thing that gets cut in this sort of merger, after the assurances that redhat will be run as a completely independent unit are forgotten and a new manager comes in looking to trim fat. I use coreos and am now very concerned about its future.
- cmurf 8y agoWell over in Fedora, it is full steam ahead. CoreOS is going to be merged with "atomic" (in particular rpm-ostree style updates and layering), and then base Silverblue on that, which will become Workstation. Could all of that work just stall out? shrug Yeah sure, and Red Hat could suddenly decide they want to support Btrfs.
- grey-area 8y agoCoreOS is going to be merged with "atomic" I’ve been following that work with interest. Red Hat could suddenly decide they want to support Btrfs Red Hat won’t be deciding much about anything after the merger goes through. I sincerely hope you’re right though and it survives and makes money somehow.
- Conan_Kudo 8y agoI don't know of any other OSS company that does _exclusively_ OSS. Canonical, for example, has a number of proprietary solutions built around their core OSS stuff, so they function as an open core business. And they're not doing anywhere close to as well as Red Hat does.
- TylerJewell 8y agoWSO2 - an open source integration software company - is exclusively OSS. We will do $50M in sales this year with 80% of that subscriptions for on-premises open source software. We are the 6th largest OSS company by revenues. We'll probably jump up to 5th next year because of the RedHat acquisition of IBM.
- equalunique 8y agoNice to see WSO2 represented here!
- davanumsrinivas 8y agoCongrats!
- solarkraft 8y agoI'm happy for you, really. But you being in 6th place with 50M$ in revenue says worries me about the market.
- basch 8y agobig typo on your home page "by using our our open source"
- TylerJewell 8y agoThanks - forwarded onto marketing.
- andrewshadura 8y agoCollabora?
- eecc 8y agoOn the other hand it might mean the end for SystemD! zing!
- jhasse 8y agoDebian and Ubuntu still use it.
- kitd 8y ago- kernel development - OpenShift I very much doubt these 2 are in any danger. In fact, I'd say these are the golden eggs IBM wants.
- amq 8y agoAlso everything CoreOS-related.
- cakkineni 8y agoCoreOS :(
- outside1234 8y agoThe OpenShift folks sit on a ton of critical posts in the Kubernetes project. I'd suspect this is what IBM wants, but it's a risk that they stop contributing to the open source project.
- kgc 8y agoAlso CoreOS, recently acquired by Redhat.
- Stratoscope 8y ago> I don't know about any other company that is large, successful, focuses on the enterprise and absolutely behind OSS. Doesnt Microsoft tick all those boxes? Even if they aren't exclusively an open source company, they are "absolutely behind OSS" if you go by how much open source code they have contributed.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- techntoke 8y agoMostly useless projects though for people that want speed and Linux-native open source.
- solarkraft 8y agoMeh. They have a bad reputation due to calling open word source software cancer the new windows business model. Also, while their engineers are certainly smart, their software seems very crusty (the down side of infinite backwards compatibility) and usually doesn't play well at all with existing open source software. Thus: Mostly useless.
- rincebrain 8y agoAmusingly, they're damned both ways at this point, since many of the Windows 10 complaints have, in fact, been breaks in backward compatibility.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- thatcloudguy 8y agoThe early 2000s called and would like their objection back. Microsoft isn't that same company any more and haven't been for a long time. Sure, some of their technology is pretty awful but they definitely changed their tune around OSS.
- snorrah 8y agoSuper pessimistic point of view. Why do you think these are all in danger? These are things that people and more importantly enterprises use. Why would IBM ruin that?
- simcop2387 8y agoExactly, these are products to monetize and make money from.
- hnzix 8y agoSure rationally the products should be a success, that's why IBM bought them. But GloboMegaCorps have a consistent record of acquiring great products then running them into the ground by smothering them with shitty internal policies. It seems like a fair % of SVers haven't had the pleasure of working for one of these Kafkaesque giants. They operate on dream logic and risk aversion.
- johnvanommen 8y agoThough I dedicated a few years of my life to OpenStack at HP, I sometimes wonder if OpenStack would be healthier if GloboMegaCorps didn't get involved. In 2013, OpenStack felt like the "new Linux"
- module0000 8y ago2013, OpenStack at HP, aka Helion? Anupriya Ramraj - is that you? :) If so, your old team misses that project. We're bored these days.
- Aeolun 8y agoBecause IBM ruins everything it touches? It’s possible they don’t want to. But they will.
- gautamdivgi 8y agoAlso with RH's recent acquisition of CoreOS, that suite will also be in IBM's arena. I work for "a corporate". We used to be big IBM shops (AIX, IBM Java, websphere, etc, etc...). But AIX is now hardly used and neither is websphere. It's mostly off the shelf k8s, wildfly and other open source projects deployed on RHEL (not my personal favorite since its kernel is way behind the times). I think this is IBMs way of playing catch up in the arena. I worry how they will handle entrenched "political interests" - e.g. Webpshere/AIX/etc.. and the more open source friendly RedHat suite. Pretty sure its going to be one big mess in a few years time.
- solarkraft 8y agoThey _did_ pay a lot of money to acquire them, so there's a reason to believe they're committed to fully integrating RH technology. Considering Jim, who certainly has an interest in the survival of open source software, signed this off also gives some hope.
- Aeolun 8y agoJust because the people in charge sign off doesn’t mean they won’t later be fucked over anyway. E.g. Instagram & Whatsapp.
- parasubvert 8y agoPivotal is probably next in line for size for independent enterprise OSS but still a fraction the size of Red Hat, at under $1b in revenue. And some proprietary bits.