3 ms·
From Red hats point of view, RHEL shouldn't be an option without paying for it, it's why they stopped CentOS and now git.centos.org. And as mentioned in the art
by fariszr 3y ago
From Red hats point of view, RHEL shouldn't be an option without paying for it, it's why they stopped CentOS and now git.centos.org.
And as mentioned in the article, people just using clones as free RHEL were way too many for the user/sales flow to be worth it.
It's basically if a car company had a free car on every road, hoping it would drive people to buy a car for themselves, but people are just using it as their car, avoiding buying one because the free one exists.
- apple4ever 3y agoBut as he says, that's not actually how it works. Lots of companies have RH on critical systems, and Cent/Rocky/Alma on less critical, because they can't afford to have RH everywhere. So why would you think they would now go RH everywhere, especially after losing Cent and having to switch to Rocky/Alma, instead of going to Debian/Ubuntu or SUSE and not having to worry about it? Not to mention that new admins and even current admins using Cent/Rocky/Alma at home to learn and play - now they can't. There definitely was a platform effect, and now they have killed it.