I'm not sure why it's so hard for anyone to find this on their own. OpenShift forced users to use CRI-O and RHEL removed Docker as part of the Yum repository.

Plenty of references to this: https://crunchtools.com/docker-support/

Even though, at the time, CRI-O was a much worse option. Yes, Red Hat plays competitive lockout games all day long. This is just a singular example.

Some of it also sounds a bit like leftover angst from Red Hat winning the systemd war too.

Turns out hanging out in someone else’s cathedral can have some pretty big benefits.

RedHat has not won any systemd war. From all the distributions out there using systemd, RedHat is the one that uses the least amount of systemd features. They are even going so far as disabling features.

See * https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1962257 * https://gitlab.com/redhat/centos-stream/rpms/systemd/-/blob/...

Sometimes they even backport systemd features from more recent versions, disable them but leave man pages in the original state. Even the /usr split isn't progressing at all.

Meanwhile Fedora has implemented all these changes, which according to https://www.redhat.com/en/topics/linux/what-is-centos-stream, should be the upstream for CentOS.

I would say RedHat dropped the ball on systemd and has no intention of supporting any of the new features in any of their systems.

I too find Red Hat's poor documentation hygiene a pain in the arse. But as for the disabled system features, I think that they all fall into the category of experimental/unproven sort of features that overlap with other existing RHEL components. Every enabled feature has a cost in the form of support burden.

Those are not "systemd features", they are components within the systemd suite. Using systemd-init has never required that you use every component within the systemd suite (e.g. ntp, network management, etc.)