6 ms·
Full disclosure , I work at Red Hat, but IBM buying red hat is a big deal. Just go back 40 years and IBM vs Microsoft. Microsoft bought QDos (which became windo
by zubairq 7y ago
Full disclosure , I work at Red Hat, but IBM buying red hat is a big deal. Just go back 40 years and IBM vs Microsoft. Microsoft bought QDos (which became windows). Now IBM bought red hat, which has openshift and
- PhilWright 7y agoQDOS became MS-DOS and not Windows.
- zubairq 7y agoWindows only became successful because of msdos backward compatibility
- caspper69 7y agoThat's impossibly untrue. OS/2 2.0 had better DOS AND Windows compatibility/stability than Windows 3.1 at the time. It still got its ass handed to it. Microsoft won because they got the OEMs.
- wilsynet 7y agoI used OS/2 2.x, but it needed more memory than Windows 3.1 and on the machine I had, Windows ran faster even if OS/2 was more stable. Later I tried Warp, but when Windows 95 came around, it was better too. Less stable, but better in other ways. I like this article. It communicates the nuance and complexity of the issues at the time. https://www.google.com/amp/s/arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/11/half-an-operating-system-the-triumph-and-tragedy-of-os2/%3famp=1 https://www.google.com/amp/s/arstechnica.com/information-tec...
- fragmede 7y agoMicrosoft got the OEMs via anti-competitive actions. To quote myself from a few years ago: > Probably one of the worst and most egregious is Microsoft's use of a "per processor" fee in the 90's which they only stopped when the government forced them to. If you were an OEM like Dell or HP, and sold Windows on any computers, you had to pay Microsoft for a copy of Windows on all computers you sold, even ones without Windows. > This anti-competitive move meant alternative operating systems, like BeOS, or OS2/Warp, or even Linux weren't really an option. BeOS died, not on any technical merits, but because Microsoft forced it out via other means. Linux only survived because its openness made it hard to kill. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9552661 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9552661
- zubairq 7y agoMicrosoft did get the OEMs, true, I stand corrected. But Windows needed backward compatibility to DOS applications, otherwise Windows would have failed, as there was such a huge installed base of existing DOS business applications
- aliswe 7y agoWell wasn't windows built on ms dos in the early days?
- k__ 7y agoNever understood OpenShift. If you don't use the serverless benefit of "not having to manage your own infra" what do you win?
- cagenut 7y agothe latest incarnation of openshift is basically just a bundling of kubernetes. like GKE or EKS, but on-prem. the hybrid-cloud dream therefore is to target k8s as your runtime, and then spread your workload across N cloud vendors and on-prem resources. regardless of if you think that's a good plan or not, its the perfect sales pitch to the fortune 500 cto who doesn't want to go all-in on "the cloud" but realizes he has to "do something".
- cwyers 7y agoBut you can swing a cat and hit eight k8s bundlers. Why is anyone going to want to use IBMs if they aren't already in the clutches of IBM or RH?
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- atgreen 7y agoAnother Red Hat associate here... Using OpenShift doesn't necessarily mean managing your own infrastructure. There are a number of cloud-based managed OpenShift offerings out there from multiple vendors, including Microsoft. But you can also run it on-prem where it delivers tremendous value: better infra utilization, agility, security, productivity, portability, etc. Simply decoupling the lifecycle of the app from the lifecycle of the host is a huge win for many enterprises.