4 ms·
> But if the strategic logic is to “change everything” thereby “resetting the cloud landscape”, they’re really paying over $34 billion for OpenShift. Which is a
by cwyers 7y ago
> But if the strategic logic is to “change everything” thereby “resetting the cloud landscape”, they’re really paying over $34 billion for OpenShift. Which is a vanilla container runtime. That is open source. That IBM already had at least one of (as does everyone else in the industry, including the hyper-scale clouds). And one that isn’t a dominant brand or implementation. IBM could have bought both Docker and Pivotal at a nice premium for a quarter the price of Red Hat and gotten better assets if that is the strategy.
So I guess the question is... why didn't they?
- pm90 7y agoBecause they tried and failed.
- djsumdog 7y agoThey attempted to buy Mobi/Docker? That's pretty sad if your company says, "We've not going to take this buyout, because we'd rather our platform survive than take your money and watch you kill it."
- ageek123 7y agoI think the parent comment warrants a <citation needed>
- parasubvert 7y agoI refer you to the song “No one else was in the room where it happened” on the Hamilton Soundtrack. Not everything can be cited.
- simonebrunozzi 7y agoBut then, maybe there was no room. There's no way to believe a random HN comment on such an important issue just on face value.
- fatherlinnux 7y ago+1
- o-__-o 7y agoOpen shift is not vanilla