IBM is, as far a I can tell, the best example of a "mixed bag" in tech. I have heard both great and terrible things about IBM from customers, employees, developers on Open Source projects, etc. They are a huge organization, and one that seems more divided than many.
It may be more useful to view IBM as a collection of fiefdoms rather than a single, focused, entity. Yes, the money all goes into one pot at the end of the day, but there's large variance across organizations within IBM.
That said, from what I can tell OSS that goes into the IBM machine doesn't usually come out the other side improved. I worry for the health of CentOS/RHEL/Fedora under IBM's leadership. My desktop and server OS of choice, with a few brief forays into other territories along the way, has been from Red Hat for 23 years. I'd hate to lose Fedora or CentOS, or see them stagnate. Red Hat has been among the most steadfast in their support of Open Source software, as well...so, there's a real risk of the kernel, Gnome, and other OSS core infrastructure suffering, because Red Hat is a major contributor to those projects.
I don't think it'll be sudden. It usually takes years for projects to become clearly worse for having come under IBM's purview. Red Hat is large itself, and will probably take years to be fully assimilated and homogenized into IBM's lukewarm culture of mere competence with regard to their Open Source contributions.
On acquisitions, I can offer the anecdote of a friend working at a startup IBM purchased.
Things started with "IBM loves you, and pledges to stay hands off and help you do what you're already doing", continued to "We're going to replace a few management positions with folks from IBM" and "We're changing some benefits, titles, and procedures to better align with The IBM Way", and finally ended up with "You aren't meeting your sales targets, so we're going to overhaul your leadership."
Admittedly, this was a much smaller company than Red Hat. But they were profitable before being bought and had a respected product and growth.
That sounds about right. And, I suspect it'll happen to Red Hat, too, despite the fact that Red Hat is a money printing machine. They've been literally unbelievably effective at turning open source into profit (as someone who's tried to make money on building Open Source software for roughly 20 years, I find it difficult to comprehend how much money Red Hat makes). I've even occasionally considered applying at Red Hat a few times over the years (and have on a couple of occasions been encouraged to do so by people within Red Hat), just to get a direct view of how they do it.
But, IBM is a different beast. They make a lot of money on Open Source, too, but they're not a software company. It's ancillary to their core competency, and so when software goes in, it seems to eventually become a meandering bloated and bulbous creature without a clear purpose or direction, and most of the really smart people seem to leave within a year or two.
The old saying, and who knows whether or not it's true, is that this was basically the deciding factor in Sun deciding to sell out to Oracle v. IBM.
Supposedly both companies had bids out on Sun, with Sun's leadership believing Oracle's tighter business operations would result in fewer layoffs and ultimately less harm to the staff then at Sun. If true, that seems like it mostly turned out to be extremely naive, since Oracle immediately locked down whatever they thought they could sell and cut off everything else.
To be honest the only way Red Hat selling out would've been more disheartening would've been if it was Oracle making the rounds again. I think I'd be happier about an MS acquisition than IBM. Weird, sad stuff.
Was it naive? Seems Oracle boosted investment in Java after the acquisition, at least. The stuff they cut were all dead projects walking anyway, eventually those projects were going to go no matter what Sun's fate was.
Aww.. I would have loved MS buying them. That'd actually make a ton of sense, and we would probably give them autonomy, like we've done for LinkedIn and GitHub.
Isn't it how pretty much any acquisition goes? That's my experience from the inside anyway. All hell breaks loose once the golden handcuffs have expired (3 years mark usually?) and people including management can quit with a full payout.
That lines up very closely with the experience of some friends who sold their (growing rapidly, highly profitable) startup to IBM.
It took a few months for them to realise their startup was going to languish completely within IBM, and their destiny for the 2 years after acquisition was to sit by quietly and wait for their payout, while looking for the next thing to do.
Any time & effort they put into trying to grow their startup product's future within IBM was going to be a waste of everyone's time. This was a hard lesson for them to learn post-acquisition, but I think the money in their bank accounts 2 years down the track will help them get over it
I really don't understand the point of this anecdote.
This is standard practice for almost every acquisition. If the startup didn't want to be part of the IBM way of doing things they shouldn't have agreed to be acquired by IBM.
In fact the rare situation was the Facebook "acquire but treat more like an independent subsidiary" model. And even that didn't last all that long.
> If the startup didn't want to be part of the IBM way of doing things they shouldn't have agreed to be acquired by IBM.
In this situation, I don't think it makes sense to think of an organization as a single, monolithic entity. In this context, the only sane way to think about Red Hat is as over 12,000 employees, plus I-don't-know-how-many shareholders.
Only a very small number of those "agreed to be acquired by IBM". Probably less than 0.1% of them. They are probably also going to be the ones who are going to be the least affected by how IBM operates internally. They've now got FU money, so, as soon as whatever retention agreements they may or may not have signed expire, they'll be prancing out the door.
Everyone else probably knows very little about it - the linked press release indicates that this is probably a surprise for about 12,000 Red Hat employees, most of whom won't be getting any additional details until tomorrow's all hands meeting.
management and the board
agreed to the deal. Companies are not democracies , while it is nice to have grassroots approval , it is a top down process. the very nature of these transactions make it impossible to disclose until it is done.
Ultimately in a decision like this the board has only one entity to consider -shareholders , if they believe the deal will create more value to shareholders they should consider it
Value maybe subjective Of course shareholders could be against for ideological reasons and prefer not take the money, that doesn't seem to be the case here.
While I agree with you that decisions of this nature are made top-down, the value in RedHat is its employees (as RedHat sells support for Open Source software). If a mass exodus occurs because of this acquisition, RedHat will no longer be providing value to the shareholders and will become a long running debt with no future in the black on IBM's books. It is quite possible that IBM will fail at properly handling RedHat after the acquisition due to entrenched business culture that is incapable of grasping the cultural change required to support a business model such as the one that RedHat employs. Business often appears as a bedfellow with economics with regards to ignoring the "human factor".
Re: "Importantly, Red Hat is still Red Hat. When the transaction closes, as I noted above, we will be a distinct unit within IBM and I will report directly to Ginni. [...] They understand and value how and why we are different and they are committed to allowing us to remain Red Hat while scaling and accelerating all that makes us great with their resources."
Yeah, we moved out of SoftLayer soon after that acquisition, as well. They just weren't as interested in the kind of (small) money we spend and it showed.
We were a Softlayer customer for dedicated servers before the acquisition. Afterwards, we needed to add additional servers, and IBM wanted 50% more for the same config, already quite high (twice as much as we pay elsewhere). When we needed to increase the RAM from 16GB to 32GB, they wanted $50/month for a stick of RAM that costs about $100.
It's like they are using cloud pricing as a reference for dedicated servers. We run dozens of dedicated servers, and using the cloud would be 10x the cost. Amazon at least has a culture of passing on cost savings to customers.
There was a problem with a server, and I needed to connect to the console. That involved using a VPN, then downloading a Java applet with a very specific (obsolete) version of Java. The applet didn't support copy and paste, and frequently repeated keys. Try typing in a 16 digit randomly generated root password by hand with your keyboard duplicating keypresses. Linode can offer a console over SSH, why not IBM?
"then downloading a Java applet with a very specific (obsolete) version of Java. The applet didn't support copy and paste, and frequently repeated keys"
Ah, yes, Lantronix Spider. My current colo still uses that old bastard. It's the only reason I still have Java on one of my laptops. And, now that our colocated servers are getting old and crotchety, I'm beginning to think it's not worth it and considering moving out to some cloud-based thing (but to keep costs down we'd need to reimplement a lot of stuff, because "big box with a bunch of services running" is outrageously expensive on the major cloud-based virtual machines, compared to ~$100/month to stick a fat server in a rack and get a gigabit pipe plugged into it).
It may be more useful to view IBM as a collection of fiefdoms rather than a single, focused, entity. Yes, the money all goes into one pot at the end of the day, but there's large variance across organizations within IBM.
That said, from what I can tell OSS that goes into the IBM machine doesn't usually come out the other side improved. I worry for the health of CentOS/RHEL/Fedora under IBM's leadership. My desktop and server OS of choice, with a few brief forays into other territories along the way, has been from Red Hat for 23 years. I'd hate to lose Fedora or CentOS, or see them stagnate. Red Hat has been among the most steadfast in their support of Open Source software, as well...so, there's a real risk of the kernel, Gnome, and other OSS core infrastructure suffering, because Red Hat is a major contributor to those projects.
I don't think it'll be sudden. It usually takes years for projects to become clearly worse for having come under IBM's purview. Red Hat is large itself, and will probably take years to be fully assimilated and homogenized into IBM's lukewarm culture of mere competence with regard to their Open Source contributions.