> All we have now is Red Hat taking the CentOS branding and running with it. And even that point I don't get - they could have done this with plain RHEL or Fedo

> All we have now is Red Hat taking the CentOS branding and running with it. And even that point I don't get - they could have done this with plain RHEL or Fedora branding too. Yeah, it's all very confusing. The only thing I can think of at the moment is that CentOS has so much mind-share that RHEL wants to tap into that and funnel it back to themselves more effectively. It used to be people knew what Red Hat was and you had to tell them about CentOS, now so many people use and know CentOS I think there's probably a good chance a lot of them don't even know that it's a respin of RHEL. All of this only makes sense to me if the whole point is to leverage the popularity of CentOS into more RHEL subscriptions by providing a product that's more annoying for most people that care about a stable server (because it's backing their business) to use because it's less static. Personally, I think it doesn't matter why Red Hat bought CentOS, what matters is what they just did, and as I think that's purely self serving (and to the detriment of the public and community) and if there are apologist engineers here that work for RH, perhaps they should look closely at how management is managing them, because of course management is going to present it in a way that tries not to alienate their staff and community. The results speak for themselves though, CentOS in the form that so many people relied on is effectively dead in a year.