That's pretty disingenuous. Are we supposed to pretend that IBM bought redhat to do exactly nothing with it? It's not exactly far fetched to assume that redhat's owners influence redhat. We can't prove that every decision is directly coming from IBM but the point is moot. Redhat is IBM.
> Are we supposed to pretend that IBM bought redhat to do exactly nothing with it?
They bought Red Hat because Red Hat was profitable, the stock was going up, sales were in the early stages of a massive swing upward, and IBM was dropping stock price and waning in market power. It's the same playbook they've been using for decades.
It seems more far fetched to me to believe that IBM bought Red Hat so they could destroy it.
I actually work at Red Hat and IBM are very hands off. I'm quite surprised myself in fact, as I predicted that IBM would absorb Red Hat in one way or another. However you believe whatever you want.
>I actually work at Red Hat and IBM are very hands off.
Are you the CEO or within the decision making structure? Otherwise really it just sounds like you just aren't in on the backchannel where these instructions are issued. Oh and inb4 "There is no backchannel!", IBM is subject to Sarbanes–Oxley there's a backchannel.
