Oracle Linux Reviews

We use the solution for our internet banking product. 

I like the product's stable distribution. The tool offered us very good experience since it was very stable. 

I would want Oracle to explore more of Kubernetes and micro services. 

The solution is stable and it is one of the reasons for us to choose the product. 

The product's setup is okay. My company has an experienced team for the product's deployment. The deployment took two days to complete. 

We did the tool's deployment in-house. 

I would rate the product a nine out of ten. The solution is one of the best Linux OS for servers. 

We are currently using Oracle ERP, and based on Oracle's recommendation, it is best to use Oracle Linux.

The features that I have found to be the most valuable are the performance, stability, and support that Oracle offers for the solution.

I am not currently able to discuss the products in-depth, as I function at an upper level of management. I will need to consult with my team, who have hands-on experience with the solution. However, one improvement that I would like to see is an upgrade to increase its adaptability with new gadgets such as mobile devices and tablets. The interface should be easy to use. Also, the interface of the tool is a bit old and follows a traditional style.

I have been using Oracle Linux for the past three to four years. Our organization is currently using Oracle Linux Version 7, and we are considering upgrading it to Version 8.

Based on our experience so far, the stability of this solution has been good. I would rate it an eight out of ten for its stability.

In my opinion, this solution is scalable when benchmarked against KVM. While we have only recently implemented this solution, we have not experienced any scalability issues so far. From an ERP point of view, I think maybe ten people are using this solution. From a scalability perspective, I would rate it an eight or nine out of ten.

We receive support from Oracle for both Oracle Linux and Oracle ERP. In terms of technical support, I would rate this solution a six out of ten. The support process is time-consuming as it involves several steps. We first contact them for an issue, then they ask for some other sort of things like logs, after which they provide a patch. Then, we need to take a clone of that and apply the patch. After that, we need to test it out. Then, we again need to take time out for the protection services. We then apply the patch on the protection, take the backups, and do a few other things, which is overall a time-consuming job.

Neutral

We are currently in the process of upgrading to a KVM product. Before this, we were using Oracle OVS and Oracle VM, but we're moving to KVM. According to my team, KVM is a bit challenging to understand, and they need to invest a significant amount of time to properly configure it by reading the documentation. If I were to rate the setup process on a scale of one to ten, I would rate it a five from a KVM point of view, indicating an intermediate level of difficulty. It took my team a few weeks to deploy the solution, as we couldn't devote 100% of our time to the deployment process. However, we can spare some time in a day to carefully configure the solution. Also, our company has a team of three people.

Calculating ROI can be challenging, particularly in our economy, where the dollar rate keeps fluctuating a lot. Many factors that are considered in ROI calculations are tied to the dollar, and our company is not doing good business as well. However, we typically aim for solutions that will be effective for three to five years. From Oracle's point of view, this solution is stable, reliable, and performs well. We also have the local expertise to manage it. Overall, we are achieving a medium level of ROI, and so far, I would say that it is an okay solution.

This solution is very cost-effective, as it is essentially free, with charges only for support purposes. From a cost perspective, I would rate it as very cheap on a scale of one to ten, and I believe that our company can easily afford it. In terms of profitability, I would rate it an eight out of ten. On a scale of one to ten, with one being the most cost-efficient and ten being the most expensive, I would rate this solution a two or three.

Currently, we do not use any of the blaze servers, only independent servers such as rack mount servers and HPE servers. From the software perspective, we use multiple software solutions, including Linux and Microsoft. In terms of hardware, most of our servers are HPE servers, with a few Dell servers also in use. However, we are planning to upgrade our hardware and are considering composite blaze servers, which will help us reduce our energy footprint and improve management. We are evaluating options from both Cisco and HPE Synergy too. Our use of Microsoft technologies is limited, and we currently have a Cisco firewall in place. Our internet is provided by Kaspersky, and most of our software runs on the Linux operating system. As for Linux, we are mainly interested in Oracle Linux. Endpoint is something that is for business use. Overall, I rate this solution a seven out of ten.

I use it for security on our servers.

Security is the most valuable feature.

The configuration with Oracle database and Oracle Center databases is easy.

The documentation has room for improvement. We have difficulty searching through it for specific information. 

The scalability has room for improvement.

I have been using the solution for one year.

I give the stability an eight out of ten. Some of the setups are not supported by Oracle Linux.

The solution is not very scalable. There is not a lot of documentation around scaling.

The initial setup is complex compared to Windows. We have to install Oracle Linux on our on-prem server.

I give the solution a seven out of ten.

There were around four people using the solution.

I would not recommend Oracle Linux.

The tool’s password policies help us to create users and groups. We can also plan on the access that will be given to them. I use it for identity management during the installment and configuration process. We use it to start or stop processes and services. Another use case of the solution is post-opening.

The tool’s user interface needs to improve.

I have been using the solution for around seven to six years.

The tool’s stability depends on the system. The operating system’s stability is good. 

We have around 800 server systems. Our company has about 400 users of Linux. We plan to increase the usage.

The tool’s setup is straightforward. The installation is not complex, we can do it on our own. My team installed the product through the Command Line and GNU. The installation takes around two hours to complete. We completed two sets of operating systems. The tool’s installation depends on the target components. The access management part takes around one week to complete. We have around eight technical staff for the product.

I would rate the solution an eight out of ten.

The primary use case of the solution was for educational purposes at first and also used on some web-based applications, that require a Linux-based operating system.

The most valuable feature is the ease of the commands which take little time to learn.

The solution can be improved by making it more user-friendly for basic users to reduce the time it takes to learn the commands and to reduce the dependencies that come with the OS so the deployment time can be reduced.

I have been using the solution for three years.

The solution is stable and we have been using it for over ten years.

The solution is scalable.

The tech support for this solution has always been on point.

Positive

Previous to using this solution I used TinyOS.

The initial setup is straightforward and took about two days.

The implementation was completed through a vendor.

The solution has no fees.

I give the solution an eight out of ten.

The solution required over ten administrators to deploy.

I recommend the solution to others.

The product offers improved performance and it is easy to handle. 

It's very stable.

They offer an improved hypervisor based on KBM.

When we compare it to Oracle Virtual Manager, the IO definitely improved. The way it handles disaster recovery and high availability is great.

According Oracle's license restriction, so it's a good alternative to VMware.

The product can scale. 

There's always room for improvement in the product. 

They could introduce the same level of remote capabilities, which are available with VMware applications to build distant environments. There's still some room for improvement over there.

I've used the solution for two years. 

The solution is stable. There are no bugs or glitches and it doesn't crash or freeze. It is reliable. 

This is a scalable option. It's in the same leave as VMware. it expands well and quite easily.

We didn't really need the help of technical support. We had our own people build it up. If we had a deep crisis, we could handle it. 

We switched when Oracle announced the end of Oracle Virtual Manager. We switched to Oracle Linux Virtual Manager and don't regret it.

I'm also familiar with VMware and would consider these both in the same category. However, this is a less expensive option. 

The initial setup is very straightforward. It's not overly complex or difficult. 

We had a cluster of two times four machines and split it across two data center locations and it was quite easy.

We have witnessed a positive ROI. 

While I don't have the exact costs in front of me, it is much, much less than VMware. 

I'd advise anyone looking to implement the solution to just do it. 

If there's someone around dealing with Oracle and VMware, my advice is just to try it as it's really straightforward. With Oracle, you don't have to care about the nitty gritty things. There are ways of partitioning it or isolating machines so that you have costs related to specific machines very easily. It's a good way to save license costs and have good performance.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. 

We are using Oracle Linux for server systems.

I have been using Oracle Linux for approximately one year.

The stability of Oracle Linux is good.

Oracle Linux is scalable, We have thousands of systems running on it.

We have no plans to increase usage but we are only maintaining what we have.

I would rate the support from Oracle a four out of five.

We have previously used CentOS, which is quite different from Oracle Linux. and Red Hat because we are running Oracle databases.

The initial setup is reasonably straightforward.

We did the implementation of Oracle Linux in-house. We have two people who are supporting this solution.

The price of Oracle Linux is similar to Red Hat. That's the reason why we went, with a combination of CentOS and Red Hat, and then later to all Oracle Linux. We not do not have to maintain two different solutions.

If you choose the support there are additional costs but there are not any other costs.

The price of Oracle Linux overall could be less expensive.

Oracle Linux is very good. Oracle has put a good amount of effort into enhancing it from generic, plain Red Hat Enterprise Linux for Oracle's purposes. The support is good, it is all we asked for.

I rate Oracle Linux a nine out of ten.

We're using Oracle Linux to run virtual machines for their database solutions in the cloud. We're also using Oracle Linux to run an SFTP server.

We have several Oracle Linux 7s that support the databases. We have about ten of those. We have one SFTP server as well. That is the extent of it.

We do a lot of mounts so we can use shared storage. It has a good amount of mount points. I'm just getting very comfortable with it as far as the ACLs and the users go.

I cannot recall any areas that require improvement, or any missing features I have come across. 

Occasionally, we might get an alert to restart our database, and if we don't do it on our own, the system will do it automatically. That can cause downtime issues if your clients aren't expecting it.

I've used the solution for about a year and a half at this point. It hasn't been too long. 

The stability is very good. The databases are all VMs. Sometimes the database might have an underlying condition, hardware condition, and Oracle will send us an alert to tell us to please restart our databases so that they can be moved to another piece of hardware by a certain date. If we don't do it on our own, they will do it. That, however, leaves room for corruption. Also, you run the risk of not telling our customers ahead of time that there might be a little bit of downtime.

The solution can scale up or down easily. You can always scale up, scale down, add more storage, add more memory, that kind of stuff.

Since we have an Oracle cloud subscription and a tenancy, our service requests are answered by tech support from OCI tech support. It's pretty much whatever we need. However, I must say, their tech support usually addresses OCI problems, such as infrastructure problems. When it comes to the Oracle support, you really have to dig and you really have to get on them to actually get it down to the Oracle support. That said, I want to say, so far, so good. I'm happy with the support so far.

Before I worked on Oracle Linux 7, we were on-prem with Red Hat 6 or 7. It might have been Red Hat 6. Everything really just transfers very well as far as the commands and all of that. Oracle Linux 7 is basically Red Hat 7.

When it is in the could, the initial setup is very easy. When it's in the cloud, you just pick a shape and say, "Make me a machine."

What makes each shape different is the number of CPUs. The amount of storage comes with it. 

I'm just an Oracle customer and an end-user.

For those considering the solution, I would say, if you're familiar with Red Hat, there's very little change and the users should just go for it.

As far as dependability and ease of use go, I would rate the solution at an eight out of ten.