It's been a while since I wrote anything on my blog. I'm not even sure if blogging is a thing anymore! Maybe I should be recording a short TikTok video or overlay some commentary on a cute kitten YouTube video. However, until I figure that out, I'll stick with text and blogging. Fortunately, I also have something important to write about, which hopefully makes the long gap between my previous entry and this one worth the wait: the Red Hat Middleware move to IBM.
If you're not already aware, then you can read about the general idea in this article. In summary, after having a successful enterprise Middleware strategy and portfolio for almost two decades, it has been decided that our future is best served by moving to IBM and merging with their Java middleware teams. On the one hand, you might think that this was inevitable given the IBM acquisition of Red Hat, but on the other you would be forgiven for asking, didn't IBM do this in the opposite direction in 2020? In this article, I want to try to address these thoughts as well as what I actually think about this and the future of my team. It's important that I point out at this stage that everything I'm writing here is my personal opinion and not any official statement on behalf of Red Hat.
On the subject of whether or not this merger is inevitable, I agree. I've been acquired a number of times during my career and the fact that Red Hat has managed to retain so much independence for so long is a surprise to me. I remember talking with a few other Red Hat friends and colleagues in 2019 after the acquisition was announced and we all agreed that IBM would fold Red Hat into itself within a couple of years. Five years later and we were wrong, though clearly we've seen some fluidity between what products are the responsibility of Red Hat versus IBM, e.g., PAM/DM and Storage. Therefore, I do think it was inevitable that, at some stage, someone at Red Hat or IBM would turn their attention towards the two middleware businesses.
This brings me to the next point: didn't IBM do this already? Kind of. In 2020 IBM decided to move some of their Java middleware expertise to Red Hat, such as AdoptOpenJDK, Kruize Autotune, Node.js and developer productivity, as well as making the business decision that the Red Hat Build of OpenJDK would be the preferred OpenJDK/Hotspot distribution for IBM customers. However, they retained a significant business with technologies like WebSphere, Liberty and J9. Along with these, IBM retained its own strategy for enterprise Java which was distinct from that which Red Hat had created.
Alright, let's get to the important questions: why now and what do I think about it?
On the first question, I think it's a combination of things. I can't talk about them all, but I can mention some of the more important things that drove the decision. There's the fact that Red Hat wants to focus more on hybrid cloud and open source AI, which has meant reduced investment in middleware, as someone reported in El Reg last year. I need to be clear here: focus is not a bad thing and the open source enterprise software landscape is just getting larger and larger; even a company with pockets as deep as IBM cannot be the master of everything.
It's also precisely because of this need to focus that merging the two Java middleware efforts makes sense: better together! As Red Hat works more and more in the AI space, the emphasis is around Python, which to enterprise Java developers is often difficult to grapple with when they have such large Java-based applications already deployed. IBM recognises the need to bridge AI and Java but cannot do this by relying solely on its own middleware offerings. When you look at what Red Hat Middleware has to offer, the answer is pretty obvious: combine and innovate together!
And I suppose that then leads us to the second question: what do I think about it? Recently I hosted my annual Engineering Kickoff meeting, where I gathered about 50 senior managers and individual contributors from my organisation in the same place. We also hosted an All Hands meeting which was attended remotely by about many hundreds of people! Of course, that question came up, more or less. Therefore, I'll try to answer it in the way I did in those meetings.
For a start, I do believe that, on paper, combining the teams makes perfect sense. IBM is one of the key companies that originally helped to popularise Java. This is in no way meant to ignore the great work Sun Microsystems did in creating and pushing Java. Still, I think if it hadn't been for companies such as IBM, HP, Dec and yes, even Microsoft at the time, Java wouldn't be the dominant language for developers we see today. It may be hard for many to cast their minds back to the late 1990s and comparing it with today is hard, but back then, it was these companies dominating the enterprise market prior to the advent of the Web and even for the first few years after it came to life.
Whatever you might think about the pros and cons of things like messaging systems, databases, transactions, DCE, CORBA, J2EE and Web Services, IBM was a dominant force in them all at the time and into the early 2000s. It's had its ups and downs over the years and I'll leave it to more involved people to talk about them, but overall I'd say that IBM has a rich history in the Java and Middleware space. Furthermore, many of IBM's products today are built on Java, so they definitely understand its relevance.
Now I also like to think that Red Hat and all those companies it acquired over the years, such as JBoss, FuseSource, 3scale and FeedHenry, have a lot of history in many of these same areas. I'd also say that, without question, our open source influence has been at least equally prolific and influential. Prior to the IBM acquisition in 2019, we also had a growing business taking out IBM, so there's always been some good rivalry there.
Looking at things objectively and, as I said earlier, perhaps as a paper exercise, combining two related businesses and teams into one makes sense. I know many of these groups and individuals have worked together for years in upstream communities. On a personal note, I count a number of IBMers as friends I've known for decades. None of us are “evil” and everyone at Red Hat and IBM wants to do the best for our communities and partners.
However, many "on paper" exercises don't turn into good reality and in this case, there remain a number of potential stumbling blocks. Let's quickly address the overlaps because I don't really believe these are that significant in the grand scheme of things. Over the last 5 years, both IBM and Red Hat have collaborated more and more on sharing efforts on innovation and products. Several of the IBM products embed Red Hat Middleware products or components. IBM uses the Red Hat Build of OpenJDK, where J9 isn't an option. IBM uses a number of our Eclipse MicroProfile offerings on their own.
I'm not going to suggest that there aren't going to be discussions around future product strategy. There are obvious questions to be answered, such as where do EAP and Liberty come together, or what about OpenJDK/Hotspot and J9? What about AMQ and MQ Series or various Apache Kafka efforts? What about Visual Studio Code java and Eclipse Java? As mentioned in Matt’s announcement, Red Hat customers will continue to buy our existing products from Red Hat and partners, including getting new features, fixes, etc. Everything will remain open source, in the same communities and with the same passion the teams have brought over the years. The future planning around cloud-native Java, including Quarkus, will need to take all of this into account.
This leads us very neatly to where I do see problems and we all have to work seriously to alleviate them. What I'm about to outline may well be just perception on the part of my team, but it will directly impact the success of any such endeavour.
Our two cultures are very different, even after 5 years of being part of IBM. As some of my extended team have pointed out, even the culture within my organisation is different from the wider Red Hat culture. That difference is seen by the associates in my organisation as a positive and important thing to preserve. I'm not just talking about the different ways in which Red Hat and IBM approach open source. Rightly or wrongly, there is a strong belief that IBM has a very top-down approach to strategy and business, whereas in Red Hat, it has largely been driven the other way. Some of this is definitely a result of Red Hat's roots and a community-first mentality. Still, our engineering and business leaders stay in place for a long time compared to their IBM counterparts and that helps to build strong trust relationships internally and externally. Amongst other things, this leads to a very autonomous approach in my organisation/business for driving strategy and delivery.
As I told my entire organisation, our culture doesn't come as a right because we are Red Hat: we all shape it, nurture it and allow it to evolve… or decay. Therefore, if our culture is important to us, it's something we can take with us and fight for wherever we end up. I've discussed this within Red Hat and IBM and they all agree that this move is not meant to change our culture and they recognise that it is an important part of how we function and deliver value to our customers. Therefore, changing it will be detrimental to our continued success. I have made the commitment to my entire team that our culture is something I want to protect, or I won't be involved.
This is one of my "red lines". These are commitments or promises that I've obtained from Red Hat or IBM, which I believe are necessary to maximise the chance of success for this move. There aren't many of them and in my view, they're all reasonable. However, I've been clear that these things are not negotiable, or we risk losing key associates, communities, customers, etc. If this move is truly going to bring the best result for everyone, then Red Hat and IBM need to deliver on these commitments and I’ll continue to help them do that. Failure to do so risks attrition of myself and many others.
So far, I am pleased to say that both companies agree and are giving my team and me the support to bring our culture and processes with us. I know many of you reading this will already be asking yourselves, "For how long?" and you aren't alone, as it's something many in my team are also asking. I don't know the future, but I do know that if their response changes then they cross that red line. These things aren't just important for the initial transition, they are important for the duration. It's important to know that this isn't about me; it never was. I've had the privilege to work with a growing team of committed and passionate people who are responsible for the success of the business and it's them I'm doing this for now. They're my extended family!
Some may read these ‘red lines’ as threats. Nothing could be further from the truth. In the opinion of myself and others, these items are key elements needed to ensure our success regardless of the name on the letterhead. They can't be taken piecemeal. If there's no commitment then what's the point in all of this? I'm at a stage in my career where I want to invest my time and energy in things that I truly believe are worth it, or I may as well stop and take up lion taming!
As we move forward with the transition, I’m convinced that the IBM people we are working with are authentic and want to make this a success too. For example, I’m just back from a few days in Raleigh meeting with the Red Hat and IBM leadership teams and I thought that was a pretty positive experience. In general, Red Hat has been good at treating my team fairly over the years, which has been a part of our corporate success. If IBM can continue that tradition, then the transition could be as simple as moving from one good home to another. I know speaking with a number of IBMers, they also seem to feel treated well by IBM, so that’s a good start. While the positivity and goodwill continue, I’m more than happy to continue to lead the organisation and help define the future of enterprise Java well into the future.
Conversely, if the support we need for our culture, upstream first approach etc., falters, it will affect how the team works and how our communities and partners trust us. That would be a bad thing no matter which company we were working for if it happened and I think the results would be obvious. However, if I was really worried that might happen, then I could put a pin in it right now and stop. I’m not going to because this team and this business are worth the effort and so far, IBM and Red Hat agree.
