redhat has benefitted from centos and the other clones immensely by the fact that an entire generation of SREs trained on their distro. entire businesses (like my old one) were built around partnering with redhat and providing support and consulting for RHEL and the clones.

the redhat partner network was bootstrapped on the back of the clones. you lab with the clones and then start working with the real thing.

and yes, sometimes users who wanted support went with consultancies like mine and not upgrading to RHEL, it’s true. but that does not matter because when consultancies like mine were working on large contracts with large commitments we would suggest that RHEL be used instead of clones so that there was a point of accountability.

and really, that is and remains the only reason to buy a commercial Linux system: the contracted accountability in the form of the SLA. if a deployment does not require an SLA, then withholding the product just creates a situation where they will use a different one.

that results in a brain drain: the users who would have stayed in your ecosystem (via a clone), will now go learn a different ecosystem. and this causes you to lose your partner network as consultants retire.

@ariadne There's a big big elephant in the room nobody (especially Red Hat) is talking about: a lot of public research institutions run EL derivatives, licensing costs for RHEL would be higher than their IT budget (sometimes even higher than their *entire* budget) and essentially gobble up public funds that would be better spent for actual research.

Previously I worked in such an institution: we had ~1500 dual-socket physical systems and ~3000 virtual machines in one datacenter alone, all running CentOS or Scientific Linux. One day, Red Hat asked to meet us and tried to sell RHEL with the usual bullshit about CentOS/SL being essentially "stolen work", when we asked if they had discounted licenses for non-profit research institutions they replied with the publicly listed prices for RHEL. Given our numbers, that would have put yearly operating costs in the range of tens of millions of euros just to bless our machines with a license.

We laughed hard and told them they were wasting their time if they thought we'd give them that much money for basically nothing in return ("no, we don't support that" was their recurring answer when we told them what kind of workload was running on those systems).

@rfc1459 Did the systems need to be RHEL-compatible? If so, why?