<story><title>Red Hat is buying Ansible</title><url>http://venturebeat.com/2015/10/15/source-red-hat-is-buying-ansible-for-more-than-100m/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>superuser2</author><text>I really don&amp;#x27;t understand why an organization would want to use Docker (besides buzzword compliance) if they were planning on mutating running containers. What&amp;#x27;s the advantage?</text></item><item><author>mattzito</author><text>I think the price point here is about a couple of things:&lt;p&gt;- Chef and Puppet are too expensive for most companies to acquire, and have too much operational cost for too little revenue&lt;p&gt;- Ansible got a strong following in the SMB space, Red Hat probably thinks they can move that upmarket some&lt;p&gt;- Ansible&amp;#x27;s agentless configuration management has potentially strong applicability in a container world (why do I need a chunky agent to configure resources on my docker image?  What if, for some reason, I need to affect change on running docker images? - I realize this is a bit of an anti-pattern for docker, but it was something I heard a lot from big enterprises)&lt;p&gt;$100m still sounds very high, kudos to the ansible folks who have come a long way in the last few years.&lt;p&gt;EDIT: one more piece I didn&amp;#x27;t think of here - the openstack side of things is an area where Red Hat has made big long-term bets for the future of the company, and it probably helps to justify the price in terms of backstopping their openstack support.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>justingood</author><text>I think one thing to keep in mind about Ansible is that it&amp;#x27;s an orchestration tool that also does configuration management. We&amp;#x27;ve integrated Ansible into our workflows in such a way that it kicks off everything we need to do, even if that involves just coordinating some info between APIs. 
We don&amp;#x27;t mutate containers at all - merely get Ansible to make things happen around their deployment and communication.</text></comment>
<story><title>Red Hat is buying Ansible</title><url>http://venturebeat.com/2015/10/15/source-red-hat-is-buying-ansible-for-more-than-100m/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>superuser2</author><text>I really don&amp;#x27;t understand why an organization would want to use Docker (besides buzzword compliance) if they were planning on mutating running containers. What&amp;#x27;s the advantage?</text></item><item><author>mattzito</author><text>I think the price point here is about a couple of things:&lt;p&gt;- Chef and Puppet are too expensive for most companies to acquire, and have too much operational cost for too little revenue&lt;p&gt;- Ansible got a strong following in the SMB space, Red Hat probably thinks they can move that upmarket some&lt;p&gt;- Ansible&amp;#x27;s agentless configuration management has potentially strong applicability in a container world (why do I need a chunky agent to configure resources on my docker image?  What if, for some reason, I need to affect change on running docker images? - I realize this is a bit of an anti-pattern for docker, but it was something I heard a lot from big enterprises)&lt;p&gt;$100m still sounds very high, kudos to the ansible folks who have come a long way in the last few years.&lt;p&gt;EDIT: one more piece I didn&amp;#x27;t think of here - the openstack side of things is an area where Red Hat has made big long-term bets for the future of the company, and it probably helps to justify the price in terms of backstopping their openstack support.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>unethical_ban</author><text>Containers are useful as an alternative to full VMs. I use LXC on Ubuntu, and I edit software and packages on my containers as I would a normal VM.&lt;p&gt;Maybe that&amp;#x27;s not standard with Docker specifically.</text></comment>