After reading and watching way too much content related to this, I think this has been blown way out of proportion.
I don't understand how anyone can honestly say that RHEL is going closed source when they know that's factually incorrect. I don't understand how anyone can say they're changing from Fedora to Ubuntu and not see the colossal irony on that. If anything, I can understand the position of RH even more. If I made a 1:1 clone distro of Fedora, nobody would give a shit about it. So, the ONLY incentive of using a 1:1 clone of RHEL is saving money.
And please, spare me the "Alma Linux is a gateway to RHEL", because any sane business will take any opportunity to save money.
Why not taking CentOS, direct upstream of RHEL, and use its code to create a RHEL competitor? Why not taking RHEL code, modify it and make a different distro instead of a bug-for-bug clone? (They've encouraged this in their blog post). The more I read, the more I feel it is because it takes work, simple as.
I like Fedora, you get the best of many worlds. It is as bleeding edge as a non rolling release distro can be, so you'll get updated versions of hyprland, for example.. Fedora's package manager is super-easy to learn and I would say it is one of those "just works" kind of distro that still allows you to take it wherever you want. If you want it for gaming I would recommend Nobara specifically, because it is a Fedora-based distro tweaked for gaming and maintained by people specialized in that field. I don't like Ubuntu (Snaps suck) or even Linux Mint (Cinnamon is ugly, sorry). I really love Opensuse and it has a ton of things going for it (Yast and their involvement with btrfs and snapper, and mostly chameleons!), but I've got to say Fedora has given me a better experience after using both extensively.