I'm concerned about the idea of open source turning into teaser content, the main goal of which is to get people to pay to unlock "sponsors only" content.
(Red hat is disincentivized from making the Linux ecosystem more sane on a deep level.)
At the end of the day, given https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law, it's probably more feasible to incentivize less sharply: UBI with the incentive improve society's productivity and you and everyone else get's more stuff. Do that overly-blunt incentivisation along with the overly-sharp incentivisation we have today, and we might strike some sort of better balance if not spectral (bluntness ~ wavelength) coverage.
That's a bit confusing. Are you able to expand on that, so it's easier to understand?
Some points:
* While "support" is part of their business, so is training, consulting, etc.
* Not sure what to lump performance tuning under, nor writing up white papers, tuning guides, and best practise docs. But there are whole teams which did that (back then anyway) for products like RHEL.
With support, wouldn't it make more sense for things to be clearer and easier, so there's less staff time needed to provide the documentation and support?
Saying that because AFAIK the places that pay for support (rather than use CentOS or similar) are more doing it for compliance reasons than straight out really needing (much?) support. eg they're going to pay for it anyway, even if they don't really use it