3 ms·
From my position, I don't feel any IBM influence. In fact, if Red Hat were still a publicly traded stock, I believe the shareholders would have had much more i
by ptoal 3y ago
From my position, I don't feel any IBM influence. In fact, if Red Hat were still a publicly traded stock, I believe the shareholders would have had much more influence than IBM is exercising right now. That said, from the outside looking in, I know that a lot of people have a negative view of IBM, and I can understand how they would come to the conclusion that this has something to do with IBM.
Fully agree on the "PR Problem". It's tough to "control the narrative" in OSS. Based on my observations, I think Red Hat's approach is: Deliver the facts, ride out the storm, pick up the pieces and move on.
- type0 3y ago> I believe the shareholders would have had much more influence than IBM is exercising right now. Well, you answered yourself why it went as it did. Don't you think answering to your shareholders is what keeps the company competitive and on the right course?
- bonzini 3y agoNot necessarily. The economic situation has been tough for everyone and maybe the shareholders could have asked for reducing the work done on Fedora or Stream for a short term benefit?
- tremon 3y agoI don't see any link between shareholder demands and business viability, other than "keep the business profitable". What makes you think shareholders are more familiar with the market a company operates in than the company itself?
- ptoal 3y agoIn fact, with tech companies, the shareholders don't usually demand "profitable", they usually demand double-digit revenue growth.