60c2a78d757c755fa338bb6e347ca54c
IBM does not get Red Hat
Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 4.0
A COUPLE of years ago we wrote about what IBM had done to Red Hat less than 2 years after the takeover. We occasionally touched the subject again after that. It has not improved; it seems to have only worsened. The oversensitive but racist IBM does not tolerate any criticism!
"These people actually decide to leave their jobs."This is very sad to me. It really is. Those who have been reading this site since 2006 very well know that we were supportive of Red Hat, which many perceived as the archenemy of SUSE/Novell back when we campaigned to "Boycott Novell" (it was this site's name!) and when Jim Whitehurst became CEO we wrote an open letter to him. He later offered to do an interview with us -- a short interview that we published over 10 years ago.
After the takeover Whitehurst became a president at IBM (a "dream job" maybe; just maybe... if you worked in the IBM of the 1970s!), but that didn't last long. This former CEO left IBM and several other CxO-level folks from Red Hat did the same, including presidents and vice presidents. It's a lot like IBM of Ginni Rometty, except now it happens at Red Hat. It's alarming because it's difficult to run a business with a 'leadership turnover' quite so profound and quite so rapid. Those shake-ups aren't strategic. These people actually decide to leave their jobs. Is Chris Wright (CTO) next to quit? CEOs rarely leave or resign unless there's a major scandal, as that tends to cause a major PR/morale crisis and the Board members (for shareholders) don't like that, so they prefer to spin the whole thing as a peaceful transition of power from one person to another person. Maybe that's even in the contract (CEOs never resign in anger or 'ragequit'). Look what happened in Microsoft's GitHub a couple of months ago. It's like a face-saving cover-up.
"That's why many people leave (those who can anyway)."Shown above (as video posted) is the latest high-profile departure (the financial department). Yet another top-level executive, the CFO of the company (and a lot more, also a token 'activist'), just leaves. It was announced about a day ago (ignore the face-saving headline and read between the lines), reaffirming what we've long said about IBM ruining what became of Red Hat after more than 20 years. Sooner or later IBM too will die (while faking its finances, e.g. by offloading losing units), so the writings on the wall are generally there. That's why many people leave (those who can anyway). It is willful.
"IBM has basically discarded red hat, I'm not sure what the point of the acquisition even was given how things have been (mis-)handled," an associate of ours said today.
Wrong assumptions had been made about Red Hat and then they paid too much mostly for a brand, not recognising how GPL (or copyleft) actually works. It's anti-monopoly. A source once told us that attacks on Linus Torvalds and his undeserved 'suspension' (very shortly after the announcement of a mega-takeover) were meant to lower the price of buying Red Hat. That was a year before quote-mining a decade-old RMS on the most problematic issues, not technical or legal issues. That's mentioned in passing in the video above. ⬆
IBM and the (tall) Hat