I voted up the article because I think it'll produce some interesting discussion, even though I don't agree with the author.
I don't like Red Hat. I've tried to use their distros a couple of times, and I found that a lot of what they built in to promote "ease of use" slowed me down and confused me. Most of the config files also seemed overly large, because of the requirements of LinuxConf and related programs. I don't know if that's changed in more recent Red Hat distros or not. Other than that, it seemed to be a good product, well-worth the cost of a boxed set.
I didn't have time to do much for about a year, but recently, I tried Linux again. This time, I decided to go with Debian. Everything seemed quite a bit smoother and easier to learn, even if the software wasn't the latest version. So far, I like Debian much better. Especially the package-management stuff.
Both have their place, though. I can see Red Hat being very well-suited for a corporate environment. Recent software, good support system, wide range of config tools. So what if the sysadmin needs to install a few upgrades and fixes to get things working? Wouldn't they have to install just as much, if not more, for an NT or W2K server?
"...Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny. Free men pull in all kinds of directions. It's the only way to make progress."
- Lord Vetinari, pg 312 of the Truth, a Discworld novel by Terry Pratchett