Remove nvidia packages then install them again following rpmfusion instructions. You have a mix of different nvidia packages in there for some reason, that should not happen unless you mix together stuff from different sources (which you should not be doing). More on reddit.com

So given the sheer number of Linux based devices out there, how much money would he make if he took a penny for each device (or each instance) or a running Kernel? He would actually be poorer. If I remember correctly, there were two competing fully opensource kernels in preparation at the time : FreeBSD and Hurd. There were also already a bunch of proprietary kernels available. If he would have asked money (therefore making his kernel proprietary), nobody would have used it, and it would have simply died. On the other hand, as pointed out by others here, he got millions from RedHat stocks and now has an impressive salary. So yeah, it's kind of funny : he got rich by not being greedy. More on reddit.com

I fail to understand how the author is affected by these changes. RHEL is an "enterprise" distribution, targeted at large companies who need stability and very long-term support above all else. This is a lot of boring work, which means RHEL costs serious money to create and maintain. If the author needs this support, he should pay RH for it. All software in RHEL is still open source, and RedHat is always contributing changes back upstream. All RedHat is doing now, is to stop actively facilitating RHEL-clone distributions whose stated purpose is to download the RHEL source code, build it and redistribute it for free. In the meantime, RHEL is still fully GPL-compliant, and the development process of RHEL (Centos Stream) is more open than any other enterprise-targeted operating system. It's also disappointing that people are downplaying the upstream contributions by RedHat. They have been a top contributor to the Linux kernel for many years, and are also employing people working on many other pieces of the open source stack. Ignoring this work (like the author of this article does) is dishonest. More on reddit.com

The same reasons many buy IBM or Microsoft. Company IT departments do not want to be without support. When "stuff" breaks, it is desirable to point at a vendor. Rolling your own to avoid the license or support contract costs is good until it breaks and your department can't fix it. In some environments, production going down for even a day will far exceed the cost of enterprise systems (many of which suck in their own ways, but often in predictable ways or back to the diffusion of responsibility.) IT departments also don't want to be blamed if they pick a vendor that the C-suite isn't familiar with. "So you are telling me you went with x to save y, and it ended up costing >>>>y in delays, outages, and surprises?" Because this happens, developers tend to target those systems (larger pool of wealthy customers), and because developing against an infinite proliferation of configurations is difficult to do (even with standards), and even harder to test. This means your supported enterprise software is only supported on a handful of platforms/configurations--which means if your industry heavily relies on a given package or given hardware device, that is going to figure greatly into the OS/server software/hardware platform you buy. Once you do pick one, for any reason, it is much easier to maintain more of those systems. So if it is on the list some other product you need will run on, buying more of that hardware/OS software means fewer platforms to support and less specialization with your IT department. It is also easier to hire people familiar with those platforms, in great detail, because a lot of your competitors run those systems. It isn't terribly difficult to learn new things, but at the rate of job changing and the complexities of hiring anyone for anything (or replacing them), it is easier to justify someone with past, demonstrable skill rather than a general ability to learn (as much as that sucks) unless you are trying to roll the dice on a candidate willing to take below market salary (due to inexperience or for other needs). More on reddit.com