[neilv]

Besides external PR, does anyone know how this affects internal morale?

Some of the earlier Red Hat people I knew would not be OK with working on weapons systems even under the most legitimate circumstances. And they'd be much more opposed to collaborating with fascist regimes. And I think horrified by the idea of shoveling AI slop and grifter hype into life&death decisions.

Of course the tech industry makeup has changed (overall culture transitioning from hacker idealists, to finance bros), and some IBM-ification of Red Hat has has also happened. But I'd like to think Red Hat still attracts a more principled pool of talent than FAANG.

[RickJWagner]

Former Red Hatter here.

People who use terms like ‘fascist regime’ don’t get consideration. That’s like someone on the other side referring to ‘unprincipled savages’.

Name calling just doesn’t win. Maybe it makes the name caller feel better, but it loses the audience.

[neilv]

I was characterizing the objections I think some people would've had, from their perspective. Not trying to make a persuasive argument to people not already onboard with those perspectives.

But to one of your points: in some cases, it's not name-calling, but an objective assessment. And "fascist regime" and "collaboration" have historical meaning. I suggest that people of integrity would do well to consider the connotations. Especially at IBM, which infamously was a collaborator with one of the worst fascist regimes. "Never again" should still be in the minds of every executive and board member.

[razingeden]

> People who use terms like ‘fascist regime’ don’t get consideration.

Are they referring to IBM, or?