RH's interpretation of GPL licensing in today's mature Linux market more than ever demonstrates lack of alignment of their incentives with their customer's and

RH's interpretation of GPL licensing in today's mature Linux market more than ever demonstrates lack of alignment of their incentives with their customer's and can be summarized as: let's introduce a thousand exclusive crap features on top of a POSIX core, then milk customers for support and ongoing maintenance. Yes RH pays most Linux devs (with SuSE a distant second, or at least it used to be like that), but their contributions are only monopolizing know-how, driving Linux further into the ground away from POSIX, and increase your dependency, a net negative. What's the point of GPL without choice? Consider that original Unix was developed in a couple of months and its point was to be compact, minimal, and portable. Linux today is a product of rent seeking in an environment of increased profit expectations, tolerated by its original developers (approaching retirement) as a well-paid hobby, that much is clear looking at its 30 years of development time. What are the goals of Linux as a development project? The Linux desktop is not only stagnating but severely regressing. It has become unusable for me after 12 years, with its focus on RH "innovations" such as gnome 3.x/4.x, completely unnecessary containers, and wayland, while applications are lacking. A fscking joke compared to Mac OS. The server-side? A cloud OS benefitting only FAANG where RH also uses its muscle to drive Docker out of business who dared to provide alternatives (not that I'm a big fan of solutions to self-inflicted problems anyway). Android Linux? The largest known spyware vector in the world. It's time for Linux developers to take a deep look into the mirror. On the plus side, RH's and Linux' demise means opportunities for the BSDs, for other Linux vendors such as SuSE, or entire new operating systems.