6 ms·

In every acquisition the Acquirer imposes on the Acquiree..... In this case, I'd bet that it's Arvind Krishna pulling people out of IBM Cloud (his old division

by htrp 5y ago

In every acquisition the Acquirer imposes on the Acquiree..... In this case, I'd bet that it's Arvind Krishna pulling people out of IBM Cloud (his old division) to run the rest of "big blue" And yes, IBM will basically bleed talent from Red Hat for the next 3 years until RHEL is a pale shadow of its former self.

paiute 5y ago
I expect IBM will be an Irish or similar company soon.
- na85 5y ago
  What's an Irish company, in this context?
  - simcop2387 5y ago
    I believe they're referring to this, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ireland_as_a_tax_haven https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ireland_as_a_tax_haven
- raverbashing 5y ago
  It already is ;)
  - jhallenworld 5y ago
    Same as google.. https://www.google.com/maps/search/google,+dublin/@53.3401654,-6.2380077,16z https://www.google.com/maps/search/google,+dublin/@53.340165...
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
spitfire 5y ago
Exception to this rule was NeXT purchasing Apple for negative $400 million. Most of the NeXT senior staff (jabs, avi, etc) Went on to take over roles at Apple. They also brought in all the NeXT technology and threw out Apples' Nextstep/Openstep->Mac OSX
- kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
  They were acquired by their old boss so less of a culture clash and no need for turf wars between opposing sides.
  - Ryder123 5y ago
    Steve Jobs had been gone for 12 years, there was plenty of culture clash and turf wars. Steve just managed to prevail. When he returned, the workforce was pampered and attached to projects that weren't going anywhere. Steve removed a number of perks, and killed some of the biggest, most internally popular projects (Newton and OpenDoc come to mind). Lot's of people left. But Steve came back to Apple as a savvy politician. He managed to get the board of directors in his back pocket, and sell his vision of Apple to the employees. Those that stayed, stayed because they came to believe in his vision, not because he placated them. I will say this though, I think there's a truth underneath your statement. Apple attracted people who wanted to change the world. The culture may have been different, but there was still a core motivation in Apple employees that came from Steve's original vision of computing.
    - wrs 5y ago
      Minor correction: I wouldn’t call Newton an “internally popular product”. At least, working on Newton I didn’t feel that way. And just before SJ came back, Apple had spun Newton out into a separate company because it wasn’t really fitting in. SJ spun it back in and killed it.
      - eternalban 5y ago
        Would love to learn more about Newton - history and/or tech. Any resources on the web or anything interesting you may want to share?
        pjmlp 5y ago
        Check the Dylan thread, which was supposed to be the systems language for Newton OS, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15106802 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15106802 Or just reach out for the Newton documentation, scattered about some sites, https://newtonfaq.com/ https://newtonfaq.com/ http://newtonscript.org/ http://newtonscript.org/ https://www.newted.org/manuals/ https://www.newted.org/manuals/
atatatat 5y ago
Anyone have any insight on why Red Hat sold their soul?
- rst 5y ago
  The decision was in the hands of a board whose sole legal goal, these days, is securing maximal financial return for shareholders (and the shareholders agreed -- there was an explicit vote). A soul is a luxury that companies don't usually get to keep past IPO.
  - ghaff 5y ago
    Sole? No. No matter how many times people repeat it. Or, at least, companies can and do spend money on things that can be argued to be in service of the long-term profit and image of the company. Otherwise, how could a company do charitable giving? That said, if someone makes an offer for a public company, the board does pretty much need to put it to a shareholder vote although they can negotiate for a higher price and ultimately make a recommendation. But it's up to the shareholders. They're the ones that own the company.
    - fossuser 5y ago
      This is why I'm in favor of founder controlled shares (Founder's Fund companies tend to do this - Zuckerberg at FB). Founder's retain total voting control of the company and can do what they think is in the best interest of the company. The board can complain and vote against it in favor of stupid short-term decisions that harm in the company, but in the end Zuck can tell them to fuck off and buy instagram because he thinks it's the right thing to do.
      - ghaff 5y ago
        While I don't completely disagree, a Benevolent (or not) Dictator For Life can have it's own set of problems. And I'd not that it's generally not considered a great governance model for large open source projects--though that's obviously a somewhat different situation.

by htrp 5y ago

paiute 5y ago

I expect IBM will be an Irish or similar company soon.

na85 5y ago
What's an Irish company, in this context?
- simcop2387 5y ago
  I believe they're referring to this, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ireland_as_a_tax_haven https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ireland_as_a_tax_haven
raverbashing 5y ago
It already is ;)
- jhallenworld 5y ago
  Same as google.. https://www.google.com/maps/search/google,+dublin/@53.3401654,-6.2380077,16z https://www.google.com/maps/search/google,+dublin/@53.340165...

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

spitfire 5y ago

Exception to this rule was NeXT purchasing Apple for negative $400 million. Most of the NeXT senior staff (jabs, avi, etc) Went on to take over roles at Apple. They also brought in all the NeXT technology and threw out Apples' Nextstep/Openstep->Mac OSX

kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
They were acquired by their old boss so less of a culture clash and no need for turf wars between opposing sides.
- Ryder123 5y ago
  Steve Jobs had been gone for 12 years, there was plenty of culture clash and turf wars. Steve just managed to prevail. When he returned, the workforce was pampered and attached to projects that weren't going anywhere. Steve removed a number of perks, and killed some of the biggest, most internally popular projects (Newton and OpenDoc come to mind). Lot's of people left. But Steve came back to Apple as a savvy politician. He managed to get the board of directors in his back pocket, and sell his vision of Apple to the employees. Those that stayed, stayed because they came to believe in his vision, not because he placated them. I will say this though, I think there's a truth underneath your statement. Apple attracted people who wanted to change the world. The culture may have been different, but there was still a core motivation in Apple employees that came from Steve's original vision of computing.
  - wrs 5y ago
    Minor correction: I wouldn’t call Newton an “internally popular product”. At least, working on Newton I didn’t feel that way. And just before SJ came back, Apple had spun Newton out into a separate company because it wasn’t really fitting in. SJ spun it back in and killed it.
    - eternalban 5y ago
      Would love to learn more about Newton - history and/or tech. Any resources on the web or anything interesting you may want to share?
      - pjmlp 5y ago
        Check the Dylan thread, which was supposed to be the systems language for Newton OS, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15106802 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15106802 Or just reach out for the Newton documentation, scattered about some sites, https://newtonfaq.com/ https://newtonfaq.com/ http://newtonscript.org/ http://newtonscript.org/ https://www.newted.org/manuals/ https://www.newted.org/manuals/

atatatat 5y ago

Anyone have any insight on why Red Hat sold their soul?

rst 5y ago
The decision was in the hands of a board whose sole legal goal, these days, is securing maximal financial return for shareholders (and the shareholders agreed -- there was an explicit vote). A soul is a luxury that companies don't usually get to keep past IPO.
- ghaff 5y ago
  Sole? No. No matter how many times people repeat it. Or, at least, companies can and do spend money on things that can be argued to be in service of the long-term profit and image of the company. Otherwise, how could a company do charitable giving? That said, if someone makes an offer for a public company, the board does pretty much need to put it to a shareholder vote although they can negotiate for a higher price and ultimately make a recommendation. But it's up to the shareholders. They're the ones that own the company.
  - fossuser 5y ago
    This is why I'm in favor of founder controlled shares (Founder's Fund companies tend to do this - Zuckerberg at FB). Founder's retain total voting control of the company and can do what they think is in the best interest of the company. The board can complain and vote against it in favor of stupid short-term decisions that harm in the company, but in the end Zuck can tell them to fuck off and buy instagram because he thinks it's the right thing to do.
    - ghaff 5y ago
      While I don't completely disagree, a Benevolent (or not) Dictator For Life can have it's own set of problems. And I'd not that it's generally not considered a great governance model for large open source projects--though that's obviously a somewhat different situation.