Any particular shenanigans from IBM and Red Hat aside from the EOL and transition of CentOS that was widely viewed internally within Red Hat as an absolute trai

Any particular shenanigans from IBM and Red Hat aside from the EOL and transition of CentOS that was widely viewed internally within Red Hat as an absolute train wreck? For an open source and free software steward, I would side with Red Hat over Microsoft in most (if not all) situations. That's not to say Red Hat is infallible. The internal organization of things does create misalignments around approach, path, and incentives. But it's not drastically different conceptually from any other business. There's just an inherit foundational hurdle of needing to convince potential customers that their products provide enough value over the upstream projects they derive from to agree to pay money for something they could, in essence, obtain at no-cost.^ Almost everything Red Hat does in the FOSS projects they contribute to can be a double edged sword. ^ No-cost can be a very, very loaded term. What you save on subscription costs may come back to bite you when trying to assemble or use something complex and rapidly developing. Your cost/risk tradeoff becomes staff with expertise, upstream communication, and operational reliability.