undefined | Better HN

0 pointsscns3y ago0 comments

There are paying customers. It might not be shiny/fun, but there is a reason Red Hat became the first one-billion dollar open-source company in 2012.

0 comments

Jedd3y ago

Wouldn't IBM be the title holders there?

capableweb3y ago

"open-source company" is kind of an subjective term at this point I guess, so hard to say.

But what can be said, is that even though IBM contributes a lot to open source, not many would claim IBM is a "open-source company" I think, at least when compared to Red Hat.

Jedd3y ago

Yeah, I get that distinction, and the vagueness of the phrase 'open source' doesn't help with this kind of definition.

If IBM put US$1B into 'Linux' 22 years ago - but this was a small part of their operating budget at the time - do we look at absolute or comparative value?

If IBM buys, three years ago, RedHat for US$34B, does that mean IBM is now the biggest 'open source' company? (If so, the next question is obvious.)

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

Jedd3y ago

Wouldn't IBM be the title holders there?

capableweb3y ago

"open-source company" is kind of an subjective term at this point I guess, so hard to say.

But what can be said, is that even though IBM contributes a lot to open source, not many would claim IBM is a "open-source company" I think, at least when compared to Red Hat.

Jedd3y ago

Yeah, I get that distinction, and the vagueness of the phrase 'open source' doesn't help with this kind of definition.

If IBM put US$1B into 'Linux' 22 years ago - but this was a small part of their operating budget at the time - do we look at absolute or comparative value?

If IBM buys, three years ago, RedHat for US$34B, does that mean IBM is now the biggest 'open source' company? (If so, the next question is obvious.)

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse