That is the one path to a real future for IBM instead of its slow decline into complete irrelevance.
That is the one path to a real future for IBM instead of its slow decline into complete irrelevance.
Hopefully the RH guys can bring back a focus on technology to IBM while IBM figure out how to sell it to customers.
PS: so will it be called Blue Hat?
Old Hat (tm)
;)
#stillyounghat
I work for a company driven by sales people. It sucks. They keep promising things we don't have and complaining that engineering can't deliver. IMHO a good sales person should be able to sell what we have. Any jackass can make empty promises.
Purple hat.
> Rometty told CNBC that the deal should not be interpreted as part of any plan for her to transition out of her position as CEO at IBM.
> "I'm still young and I'm not going anywhere," she told CNBC.
[1]: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/28/ibm-to-acquire-red-hat-in-de...
- Customers are stingy (think academic labs, supercomputer centers etc.), are not typically married to your solution architecture so for every purchase they will put out a tender that you have to bid for and win.
- Performance is king, which means very expensive R&D, and customers don't spend much on all these "enterprise value-adds" that enterprise focused businesses use to pad their bottom lines.
Performance is king, and we don't buy into the kind of sales bullshit that IBM is famous for.
Sadly, we just standardised on CentOS 7 for our new cluster and I am nervous about its future considering IBM involvement now.
A big part of the open source appeal is the the vendor who owns the trademark cannot unilaterally kill a product.
Honestly, I could see that happening and working out great .. for legacy IBM customers. But if you aren't an existing IBM mainframe/midrange shop, there will be only tangental benefits for you.
To go with your Jobs analogy, the original iMac was all about preserving legacy Mac users. The new customers had to come in from a different angle. Does either RedHat or IBM have the angle?