23 ms·
There’s multiple angles. I think RedHat is more for PR for IBM. I don’t think it’s binary in that RedHat is owned by a company that has other motivations than
by prepend 6y ago
There’s multiple angles. I think RedHat is more for PR for IBM.
I don’t think it’s binary in that RedHat is owned by a company that has other motivations than when RedHat was independent.
- EdwardDiego 6y agoRed Hat is still largely independent of IBM.
- prepend 6y agoTrue, but I think there’s “cancel risk” (or whatever you call it) to IBM were RedHat to do something like sell software to ICE or whatever is an action that people boycott/campaign on. People were threatening Microsoft because of GitHub’s actions. I think it’s reasonable that a lawyer at IBM identified this area to message whatever is supposed to be right and talked with RedHat to coordinate signing or whatnot. I think it’s weird that corporations make these kinds of moral/ethical statements.
- busterarm 6y agoRedHat has been on the road it's on long before the acquisition by IBM.
- akagusu 6y agoIBM bought RedHat to control the second most important piece of software that makes part of major Linux distributions.