3 ms·

The article argues that Red Hat's business model was selling a "slightly better version of Linux". IMO they were rather in the business of being a professional

The article argues that Red Hat's business model was selling a "slightly better version of Linux". IMO they were rather in the business of being a professional scapegoat. Someone to blame when that scary open source thing goes wrong.

organsnyder 8y ago
That's how they were used at my last employer. Yes, their OpenShift platform is very good, and they have a lot of good products in their ecosystem, but the biggest value they provided was a vendor to blame if things went south. Maybe Red Hat and IBM aren't as different as we like to think.
- freehunter 8y ago
  Exactly. The best reason to hire IBM is so you have a company who is big enough to sue when something goes wrong.
  - organsnyder 8y ago
    "No one ever got fired for buying IBM."
  - raverbashing 8y ago
    Funnily enough, nobody sues IBM when their product is an obscenely expensive barely functional mount of manure Even more funny, those who propose the acquisitions of said tools are not held responsible when things go south for their complete inadequacy for their job.
    - dragandj 8y ago
      And even more funny would be to find someone who has enough power to sue IBM, which probably has more lawyers in its legal department than the plaintiff has total employees.
- Angostura 8y ago
  See also "a single throat to choke"
mixmastamyk 8y ago
I like to think of it as liability insurance.
setquk 8y ago
I never understood that mentality. Not once have I had an insurmountable problem with any Linux platform. The same is not true with Microsoft, Oracle and IBM from experience, even with paid up top tier support. Even 60,000 employee defence companies have no real power. I've seen someone forced to throw a registry fix out to 5000 desktops (over hundreds of disparate sites) because MSFT wouldn't fix a fucking bug.
phendrenad2 8y ago
> Buy Red Hat > Something goes wrong > Blame Red Hat > Keep your job Sounds about right.

organsnyder 8y ago

That's how they were used at my last employer. Yes, their OpenShift platform is very good, and they have a lot of good products in their ecosystem, but the biggest value they provided was a vendor to blame if things went south. Maybe Red Hat and IBM aren't as different as we like to think.

freehunter 8y ago
Exactly. The best reason to hire IBM is so you have a company who is big enough to sue when something goes wrong.
- organsnyder 8y ago
  "No one ever got fired for buying IBM."
- raverbashing 8y ago
  Funnily enough, nobody sues IBM when their product is an obscenely expensive barely functional mount of manure Even more funny, those who propose the acquisitions of said tools are not held responsible when things go south for their complete inadequacy for their job.
  - dragandj 8y ago
    And even more funny would be to find someone who has enough power to sue IBM, which probably has more lawyers in its legal department than the plaintiff has total employees.
Angostura 8y ago
See also "a single throat to choke"

mixmastamyk 8y ago

I like to think of it as liability insurance.

setquk 8y ago

I never understood that mentality. Not once have I had an insurmountable problem with any Linux platform. The same is not true with Microsoft, Oracle and IBM from experience, even with paid up top tier support. Even 60,000 employee defence companies have no real power. I've seen someone forced to throw a registry fix out to 5000 desktops (over hundreds of disparate sites) because MSFT wouldn't fix a fucking bug.

phendrenad2 8y ago

> Buy Red Hat > Something goes wrong > Blame Red Hat > Keep your job Sounds about right.