There is a lot of QA work involved in moving a large enterprise to a new linux distribution.

In such a large instance, there is probably a change control group that approves or denies such things for going into devel, testing, and then production. They're supposed to look at the benefits of change versus cost.

I've seen places where the systems people want to leave RH completely over their new policies, change control is fighting it, and it goes up to management -- which does what it does best, playing ostrich.

So do you blame the $75,000/yr (ha!) systems admins who are trying to protect and maintain their environment?

Or do you blame the $95,000/yr chimpanzees who call themselves developers who squat over the change management system like their own personal toilet, because they're too stupid and/or lazy to switch?

Or do you blame the $200,000/yr managers who look at the problem, and decide not to make a decision in the hopes that the problem magically goes away? (and when things go horribly wrong, shoot the systems administrators ...)