[redhat-reallyp]

This is a content-free article. It boils down to "we've committed to CentOS, so that's what we prefer to use."

The claim that "in our experience, [Debian/Ubuntu] are not nearly as stable or trouble-free as RHEL/CentOS" says more about their lesser experience with those systems than it does about Debian or Ubuntu.

[larrys]

"Many people ask us why not use Debian-based systems such as Debian or Ubuntu server. We do support these if there is no other choice, but in our experience, they are not nearly as stable or trouble-free as RHEL/CentOS."

So while they do have "less experience" they do have ongoing experience with Debian or Ubuntu. They say. We don't know what that means it could mean 1 machine per year or it could mean 10 per month.

Now if they hadn't needed to support essentially any Debian/Ubuntu that might mean they are stale in that area. So without qualification of their exact experience "how often" it is really hard to tell the bias in that statement wouldn't you agree?

[redhat-reallyp]

"without qualification of their exact experience "how often" it is really hard to tell the bias in that statement wouldn't you agree?"

No, because many people have experience which contradicts theirs, and they don't provide any support for their claim: no information on what the stability issues or troubles they encountered were, no information on the causes and how they were specific to the OS in question as opposed to e.g. user error, no information about how CentOS would do better on that issue, etc.

All the indications are that they're making a very typical sort of claim that people make when trying to defend a decision that they're not qualified to defend. They provide no reasons to take it seriously. As I said, it's content-free.