SUSE Declares Independence

SUSE as of last week became an independent company for the first time in about 15 years during which it was owned by three companies, two of which are now defunct.
https://techcrunch.com/2019/03/15/su...ndent-company/


Notably this means SUSE, not Red Hat, is now independent.

Rejoice! Long live the Geeko!

Originally Posted by wagscat123 Notably this means SUSE, not Red Hat, is now independent.

Maybe not cause for fireworks yet, they still have that patent agreement with Microsoft.

It's no small thing. Basically, they take work done by a global community, and attribute it to a company that didn't write it. That's not what I call "independent." It's the equivalent of a guest staying at your house, and while there, filing an official deed that says it actually belongs to a bank-- that you aren't even in business with.

But don't take it from me, visit their own website: https://www.suse.com/c/news/microsof...ity-agreement/

As far as I know, this is the same thing but with Novell: https://www.eweek.com/development/no...ment-documents

Now, what if said this is only happening so that Microsoft could buy SUSE?

Wild speculation? PROBABLY. I made the same wild speculation, immediately after they puchased Github, that they would buy Red Hat.

OK, So IBM got there first-- that's a major detail (of wild speculation) that I got wrong. But it did happen within just months of my prediction.

IBM and other companies have been known to buy things simply to supply the internal customer. They tend to discard what's left over.

Need new phones for everyone, buy a phone company.

Really?

The article says

The company today finalized its $2.5 billion acquisition by growth investor EQT from Micro Focus

and then proceeds to say that SUSE is independent. So are they or are they not wholly owned by EQT? And in which way is this better than being owned by Microfocus, Attachmate or Novell (RIP)?

What blows me away is the price IBM paid for Redhat, 34 billion, versus 2.5 billion for SUSE. Is Redhat really 15 times more valuable than SUSE?

Originally Posted by berndbausch Really? The article says and then proceeds to say that SUSE is independent. So are they or are they not wholly owned by EQT? And in which way is this better than being owned by Microfocus, Attachmate or Novell (RIP)? What blows me away is the price IBM paid for Redhat, 34 billion, versus 2.5 billion for SUSE. Is Redhat really 15 times more valuable than SUSE?

The articles say "independent", but it's really more SUSE is on track to be independent, and pretty much is for all intents and purposes. Everything in EQT becomes independent eventually. Nonetheless is an important step though.

IBM paid too much for a company they very well might tank. In total honesty Red Hat might have been better off with Microsoft

What blows me away is the price IBM paid for Redhat, 34 billion, versus 2.5 billion for SUSE. Is Redhat really 15 times more valuable than SUSE?

Seems strange to me that a company would buy another company and pay over ten times it's highest gross annual income for it.

https://investors.redhat.com/financi...ial-statements

Originally Posted by yancek Seems strange to me that a company would buy another company and pay over ten times it's highest gross annual income for it. https://investors.redhat.com/financi...ial-statements

I asked a guy who followed it more closely than I did, if Microsoft was going to buy Red Hat (if they could afford to pay so much for Github.) He said that Red Hat was worth way more than Github. I don't know how he got that either, I figured you could buy them for a few billion. That's not what they sold for, though.

Many of the folks I talked to are worried about things like vendor lock-in with Red Hat. Much of what I read were "promises" to keep Red Hat largely autonomous from the rest of IBM. But owning Red Hat certainly has a lot of leverage that IBM is paying for.

SUSE in some of their language touting their independence and freedom from "vendor lock-ins" seems to play off this fear a little.