That article never actually explained why Red Hat was successful where others weren't. It got lost on showing how _not_ successful they were, even as it said how exceptional their results were.
Agreed. My theory: the market will only sustain a finite amount of revenue by open source software creators. That amount grows 20-30% per year as competing business models collapse and as customers learn the value proposition, but there is a ceiling. Red Hat has been brilliant about identifying the market segments that were ripe for an open source player, and entering those markets (often via acquisition).
There might be room for another Red Hat now that Red Hat will no longer be independent. IBM may have just legitimized Red Hat as a top-tier player.
That is, of course, if IBM still has the clout and capitalization to be considered a top-tier player. 20 years ago, it would have been considered funny to say "IBM is great and all, but they're no Apple". My oh my have times changed.
There might be room for another Red Hat now that Red Hat will no longer be independent. IBM may have just legitimized Red Hat as a top-tier player.
That is, of course, if IBM still has the clout and capitalization to be considered a top-tier player. 20 years ago, it would have been considered funny to say "IBM is great and all, but they're no Apple". My oh my have times changed.