[zlg_codes]

I mean, that's one way of viewing it, yes, but considering how influential they are in spaces other businesses are struggling in (free software), having a $34B market cap isn't shabby performance. IBM getting an easy-in to free software via a respected (by business, anyway) partner is a big opportunity, but they'd have to play their cards right and I can't think of the last big thing IBM was behind. They might be able to sell Red Hat to everyday people if they pair it with hardware and have reasonable pricing for personal or self-hosting support licenses. I'm not savvy enough on IBM's history to know if their current staff are good picks to develop a more complete product on top of RHEL, but I can see it having value and success if priced well. As I understand it though, both IBM and RH seem more interested in cloud stuff.

You'd have to be blind to consider Red Hat not influential in its sphere.

[xcv123]

Yes Red Hat is significant in its niche of enterprise server operating systems, but it's not in the same league as Microsoft as a company overall. Red Hat would typically be deployed on AWS or Azure where they rake in all the money.

While Microsoft makes $73B profit, IBM makes $2B profit.

[zlg_codes]

So IBM/RH can't be big because the biggest makes more money...? We've had two exchanges and I'm still trying to understand why this matters.

[xcv123]

This is very basic stuff. You are overthinking it.

Microsoft is in the group of "big five" tech companies (Google, Amazon, Apple, Meta, and Microsoft). IBM is not in that group.

The reason for that is IBM is significantly smaller in terms of revenue and market cap and so on. IBM exists in a tier below the "big tech" level. This is how company sizes are measured.

Very simple. Not complicated.

Server operating systems are a small fraction of Microsoft's business.