The best explanation I read was that IBM has bet the farm on Linux as a major dependency, Red Hat was a major contributor with successes they couldn't achieve, and IBM basically internalized a dependency on Red Hat to be in control with maybe other benefits down the line. Now the biggest, two contributors to Linux are the same company. I could see them doing a huge deal just for that.
I don't disagree that they're a major contributor to Linux itself, however RHEL usage is plummeting over the last 5 years as stated in the article. Being a contributor and owning RHEL is really no advantage at this point.
Redhat profits were growing for 4 years steadily 15-20% for each of last four years. I dont see the confirmation of redhat usage declining, more like very perspective and growing company.
Are you saying that from your perspective or what you think IBM's is? It's the latter that determines their actions. I'm guessing at it for sure. I just don't think you see it their way given difference in your statement and what they paid.
