>> but that's not what some people want, they specifically want RHEL, but for free. Well in my world we used to run many Dev/Training/Non-Prod servers with Cen

>> but that's not what some people want, they specifically want RHEL, but for free. Well in my world we used to run many Dev/Training/Non-Prod servers with CentOS and then Run the Prod Servers with Licensed RHEL Similar to having a MSDN License for Windows vs Production licenses Then with the announcement of CentOS Stream they tried to sell their Dev program, but that program was TERRIBLE for enterprise use, it was built for individual developers, and not at all compatible with the model many organizations where using. They have since tweaked the terms to make is somewhat more compatible but it still IMO, not very useful for many of the scenarios I found myself in over my life And frankly I have enough problem keeping track with MS Licensing I do not need the additional headache I might as well just use windows at that point. Red Hat was able to become a billion dollar company by providing great support, and being easy to do business with, even before IBM buyout and accelerating after their support was becoming less and less quality, and they became more and more hostile / harder to do business with Many organizations where already questioning their continued use of Licensed RHEL because of this, this like played a part in them killing CENTOS (and yes they killed CentOS, CentOS Stream is not a compatible replacement) as that was easier that fixing the systemic internal issues around support and business processed.