Ok so I have read your blog post, I would like to address some of the things you raise

First you ask "Did you think of RHEL as a beta for CentOS, if not you should not think of CentOs Stream as beta for RHEL"

This is flawed in a big way, CentOS was complied from RHEL sources, only having RedHat trademarks removed. It was binary for binary compatible. RHEL 8.3 is the EXACT SAME as CentOS 8.3, so not it was not a beta.

This can not be said for CentOS Stream, first off there are no point releases, no releases at all for CentOS Stream, it is a Continuous Stream of updates (thus the name) for the entire 5 year support window (down from 10 year support for CentOS). So where one could plan and update from point release to point release there is no such way to do that with CentOS Stream, that type of release cadence is not acceptable for a production work load

Further Red Hat has explicitly said CentOS Stream is to be used "for the development of RHEL" so how else can one take that, the updates applied to CentOS Stream will then be used to roll up into a point relase of RHEL, sure seems like beta in all but name to me... Sure maybe it will be more stable than other types of Beta Testing, and maybe the baggage that comes with the word beta is a bit to strong for this case. Still CentOS Stream is not binary compatible with a Point release of RHEL that much is clear, to many of use that would classify it as a Beta

Secondly you also claim that RedHat or CentOS has acknowledged that is botched the messaging and it is water under the bridge. I have been following this issue pretty closely, and I do not see any such acknowledgement. I suppose it could have been on social media, i do not follow social media, but it certainly was not added to the Blog Post, nor has a new blog post been issued acknowledging it, nor has the original blog post been updated to clarify things

So no I dont think it has been acknowledged, nor it is water under the bridge we should move on from

Third you talk about "CentOS being old crusty etc", for many of us this is the EXACT reason we use CentOS, we support long lived legacy system that we do not want to change very often, some of use run software are a DECADES old, some dating back to long before I was born (and I am a middle aged man). We need, want a "crusty old" STABLE system. I am not runing the latest NodeJS project, or Ruby, or Rust, or Go, or what ever the hot new startup lang of the week is today...

I am not running docker, k8s, or any of the "hot new" technologies.

I am running an old EPR, an old database, an old Java app, or some other legacy system. I want stability, not hot new feature. CentOS is my choice for stability, if I want to play in the wild world of new hotness I have Arch for that.

as to licensing sales, RHEL shots them selves in the foot here. For example tagging their no support license as "not for production use" is a bad move IMO, why is not for production use, if I do not need RHEL support, why should not use a RHEL licensed system in production?

There are many many other problems with RHEL sales but that is for another day.

Though I do agree shoving CentOS in the face of a RHEL sales person is a shit thing to do. I hope it does not happen all that often, that said if a RedHat sales person does not have ready answer for that well that should be day 1 training for RedHat sales staff.

One final thing, the publication of sources. Some of the code they absolutely are required to release the sources. any Code that GPL. Now I understand not all of RHEL is GPL, and some if it would get in the grey area of what is "linking" code, but that is for lawyers to debate over, and like you I hope the day never comes where the lawyer need to debate over that issue

RedHat has done alot of good in the community, but FOSS is a three leg stool. Trust is one of those legs, and RedHat is taking a hacksaw to that leg right now....