[lutusp]

> More than three decades ago, Red Hat saw the potential of how open source development and licenses can create better software to fuel IT innovation. Thirty-million lines of code later, Linux not only developed to become the most successful open source software but the most successful software to date.

This seems to conflate Red Hat and Linux, as well as try to equate Red Hat with open-source. Red Hat is Linux, but Linux is not Red Hat, especially now that Red Hat has decided to restrict access to the RHEL source (https://www.itworldcanada.com/article/red-hat-decision-turns...).

And a pet grammatical peeve of mine:

> ... in some respects they serve a similar function to code.

I see this everywhere now -- IMHO it should be "... serve a function similar to code." Doesn't the original grate on your ear?

Also this is a Turing-test bot detector -- bots don't use this weird grammatical construction, only humans do.

[mogwire]

Restrict access to paying customers? Restrict access to companies violating an EULA to not redistribute packages?

That fact that people continue to spread this trope is amazing.

I pay for RHEL and I have a developer subscription for personal usage and the SRPMs are right there on their download portal.

Just because CIQ err Rocky has to take extra steps and violate Red Hat’s EULA doesn’t mean they restricted access.