> are the culmination of all the work of customers reporting bug Aren't these supposed to go into Stream? > So, yes, it effectively conveys many of the certif

> are the culmination of all the work of customers reporting bug Aren't these supposed to go into Stream? > So, yes, it effectively conveys many of the certifications and system requirements to receive support from other companies. The clones have been promising "bug-for-bug" compatibility for a reason, and that reason is (in part) to ride the certification coat-tails. Yet, it is not the same as certifications. Certifications apply only to the original RHEL; clones are in the gray zone: it should work, but if there are problems and you need to use them, you better have it on RHEL. > If these things were not true, there'd be none of this drama. The drama is there, because RH/IBM thought, they could squeeze those customers, that use both CentOS and RHEL (usually CentOS for dev or staging and RHEL for production); they wanted it all. I can understand if those companies file support cases that originated in CentOS and RH things, that they abuse their support contract. That's not OK. But RH has it's own skeletons in closet, too. The clones themselves are a collateral damage there.