Yeah, but 'Silicon Valley' isn't the term to use for that. I don't know why you think it would be?

Silicon Valley is also huge old companies built with massive defence contracts. If you think Silicon Valley is mostly small startups you're mistaken.

I use management focused vs technology focused when talking about this distinction. For me it boils down to is the organization more concerned about choices in regards to process/organizational structures or technology.

That's technically true, but it doesn't do anything to advance the discussion of the issues the article raises. In particular, I really doubt that anyone who read the article was mislead by its use of the technically incorrect term "Silicon Valley."

I think that the most people reading that comment understand that this that is shorthand for "startupy tech company".

When people refer to silicon valley, it is partially a reference to a place, but also partial a reference to simply culture.

Most people understand this, and quibbling over the exact physical location is just valueless pedantry, when the meaning was fully understandable.

I find connection redhat has with the Linux community about the same as Intel's since at least as far back as 2008. I also know people who were as likely to get jobs at redhat as and of the other big Corp techs, I.e. Dell, Cisco. Is there really something distinct about red hat beyond the trademark and distant memories?