Just stare at it for a second, especially the Re-d coupling. It's unkerned. The 'e' is about to topple over to the right, 'd' looks pregnant, 'a' is too top heavy. There's no visual balance, rhythm or consistency to how "Red Hat" looks. It basically looks as an amateur job.
http://videos.cdn.redhat.com/NEXT/new-brand/Logo-RedHat-A-Co...
I think fonts are pretty neat in a "hey we can make things that look fairly different but are still perfectly recognizable as the same concept" way, like the different styles of house icons which all meant "go home" in HyperCard stacks.
I confess don't understand the extreme nit-picking about one line being slightly too far over. Or trying to explain alleged issues through strained metaphors. Yes, this lower-case "d" looks like it has a belly -- that is the shape of that letter! They all do.
They've got an entire operating system, and it's full of bugs -- as they all are -- and it has obvious and measurable problems that hurt usability. I'm not sure why a minor branding change justifies a blog post on their part, and I really don't see why unkerned text is "a disaster". I'm typing this in a <textarea> which (like everyone's 1960's-emulating terminals and 1970's-styled editors) uses monospaced fonts, which by definition cannot be kerned.
Typography is a venerable craft, and the new wordmark has technical flaws that one simply wouldn't expect from a high-profile project. This won't have disastrous consequences of any kind, but within the context of discussing a post on the new logo, calling a part of the result disastrous is, IMHO, appropriate.
Some people are genuinely interested in branding and typography, some are simply irritated by change, therefore it's common practice to introduce new branding with a blog post. You can see from the amount of comments that there are quite a few people who care about this.
Relevant XKCD: https://xkcd.com/1015/