Oracle Linux Reviews

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 the solution to host Oracle Database and ACSLS which manages tape libraries. ACSLS used to be owned by StorageTek but was purchased by Oracle. 

For example, our infrastructure utilizes the solution to run ACSLS and provide commands to the tape library, conduct inventory, provide encryption, and keep track of volumes with their location slots. 

The solution is not used by thousands but instead provides inter-computer communications and services like DNS, encryption, and management. 

The solution runs very well on inter-platform or HPE Intel servers. 

Product documentation and technical support are excellent. 

The graphic interface could be improved to work better in a desktop environment like Red Hat or Ubuntu.

Few people use the solution because its marketing is faltering. Unless companies buy other items from Oracle such as ACSLS for managing tape libraries, there is no need to use the solution. 

I have been using the solution for two years. 

The solution is very stable and has been running for months with no issues. 

On occasion, we install patches to fix security vulnerabilities. 

We use the solution for a very specific applications so do not have the need to scale. The solution is connected to another platform to provide encryption or management. For our use, the solution works very well. 

We do not have thousands of users connected to the solution. 

The solution provides the best and most detailed documentation available. Step-by-step instructions are provided for downloading packages and installing operating systems. 

The response time for technical issues is excellent and second to none. If you have an issue, they will be able and willing to help. 

Positive

I am also a system administrator for Solaris and prefer it because it has been on the market longer and I am familiar with it. 

In my opinion, Solaris is the best operating system available but has limitations because it must operate on a SPARC server. It is a legacy solution that is aging out and being replaced by Red Hat or Linux. 

The initial setup and deployment is easy.

Our data center operators racked everything and connected the network. Then our engineering group connected the console, mounted remote DVDs with the software, connected remote ISOs or ICOs, and deployed the operating system. Our security group handled authentication like the LDAP configuration that allows use of the same accounts for all servers. 

Daily operations include several monitoring services like Netcool or ScienceLogic to keep track of things via SNMP. When something fails, a ticket is received via Remedy and our security group lets us know to patch for vulnerabilities. 

The implementation was done in-house with no issues. 

We downloaded software packages from the website, repurposed some hardware, and installed the operating system. 

Overall, the solution is less expensive than Solaris and allows for use of existing hardware.

I do not have access to actual costs but believe the licensing fees are quite high.

The Linux solution can run on inter-platform so that puts it in competition with Red Hat which is marketed better and has bandwidth. 

Red Hat has become the standard since it was purchased by IBM and users are migrating to it. Red Hat was not an option for us because we had specific needs. 

We chose the solution because it supports our HPE Intel server and ACSLS. 

Documentation for the solution is outstanding and support is good. 

For security, disable things you do not need like Telnet or ports and rely instead on SNMP for great monitoring that alerts you to memory and space utilization. 

Partition your file system instead of using defaults for root and boot file systems. Separate file systems protect against machine crashes or root file system issues. 

Ensure that you secure your entire system to prevent hacks. 

I rate the solution an eight out of ten. 

We use Oracle Linux to deploy our core banking product. Our client has nearly 1,000 concurrent users. 

We have an Oracle-based platform. For example, we use Oracle WebLogic for our application server and Oracle's enterprise database. We previously used SUSE Linux, but we were exposed to some vulnerabilities in SUSE Linux 9.10. Switching to the Oracle UX platform cut down on some of these vulnerability issues. All our Oracle applications like WebLogic and Oracle database sit perfectly on top of Oracle Linux. 

We don't have any failing cases. Oracle releases regular hot patches, so we don't have many difficulties. 

I've used Oracle Linux for four years.

We are in live banking production servers using Oracle Linux. 

Yes.

We are running in clusters, so Oracle Linux is scalable.

We have a dedicated ticketing system based on severity. As an ISV partner for Oracle, we are okay with the support system. It could be easier to reach a higher support level. 

In the past, all our deployments were running on SUSE Linux. When Oracle Linux come into play, we took 90 percent of our deployment off of SUSE Linux because of the license cost and the vulnerability issues in the old versions. I hear that the latest SUSE Linux is doing well, but we stopped using it. The bottom line is that we believe that an Oracle operating system is better for Oracle products.

Setting up Oracle Linux is straightforward. One person could handle it, and it took two or three days to deploy.

We did everything in-house. 

The ROI is what we expected at the end of the day.

It's free to do development on Oracle Linux, but you need to pay a license for dedicated support. I think it's relatively cheap. 

I rate Oracle Linux eight out of 10. On the surface, there isn't much difference between SUSE Linux and Oracle Linux, but Oracle's kernel is a little more powerful, and the operating system performs better when you are running their products. My advice to new users is to explore enterprise deployments on top of Oracle Linux that will give you the best result.

I am using the solution for a project that I am trying to migrate it to the cloud. My experience with the cloud is at the beginners level. I haven't tested the solution very much yet but according to the published documentation, opinions etc., I see that Oracle Linux is the closest to my needs for future migration to the cloud.

Once installed, the product is good, I like it. The core of the software is really good.

The installation documentation needs to be improved, especially the current installation guide. For example it states that it is needed to format and to store the installation ISO on a DVD, but this is not possible to do in 8.0+ versions, as the ISO files are 7-9GB - greater than 4GB and the regular DVDs do not support it. The actual 8.3 version ISO cannot be put on USB either, as a file  as the setup requires the 9GB ISO also as a file, but this imposes the use of exFAT instead of FAT32, which is not supported by the system boot. Therefore I installed 8.1 from USB, which went just fine and upgraded to 8.3 afterwards with YUM.

My network card is supported by 5.3 kernel (UEK), but not supported by the 4.x RedHat kernel used too, which I had to realize by chance. My video and network cards are not completely supported in the 8.1-8.3 versions, better compatibility with up-to-date hardware is needed. When looking for compatible drivers, there was no clear statement which drivers are supported. Better directions are needed regarding hardware drivers and how to obtain them.

From my experience with Oracle, I completely rely on its documentation and its presence, completeness and reliability was one of the reasons to choose Oracle Linux. The documentation I see worked for 8.1 or 8.2 setups, but not for 8.3. It needs update - Oracle Linux  8.3 changed the installation procedure and doesn't match the documentation. My experience with Oracle is that what is written in the documentation just works. This time it did not help.

The ability to update the look-and-feel of the Desktop UI would be beneficial - the current one is pale to my taste, it is black, grey and white.

They could provide more repositories of tested software, or at least refer to them and comment on their use.

I have been using the solution for less than two weeks.

The solution is stable.

I used CentOS for an year and a half. Now I had the chance to choose my OS considering my plans for cloud development and also the resent concerns about the future support of CentOS, I chose Oracle Linux 8.3

In the 8.1 version, the setup works fine but it is when trying to install from an USB instead of DVD as it is written in the documentation. There were issues with the 8.3 installation - see above.

The installation of version 8.1, however, was good and worked fine. Some my attempts to install compatible drivers for my hardware failed and I had to reinstall the whole OS. The third time doing the install, it only took me one hour, it was easy. I achieved some compromise between up to date video (nouveau instead of Nvidia) and wifi (iwlwifi of Intel) drives and the system now works really fine.

I decided based on my experience with CentOS, Ubuntu, Kali Linux.

I rate Oracle Linux an eight out of ten.

Oracle DB is used in one of the use cases that you have worked on, specifically for the database aspect. It is likely that all of the solutions that have been deployed and are currently running use the Oracle database.

Oracle is well-known for its strong security measures. I have a great deal of confidence in the security of the Oracle DB, including its ability to monitor changes made to the database.

The interface is good.

Pricing could be improved.

I have been working with Oracle Linux for four years.

We are not working with the latest version.

I would rate the stability a nine out of ten.

Oracle is highly scalable.

In our company, we don't use it ourselves, but some of our clients have deployed it for their own use.

They have fifty users

The number of users increases as our clients open more branches in their network. As the number of branches grows, so does the number of clients and users utilizing the system.

What makes technical support easier for us is that the Oracle DB is used for the CVS that is used. Therefore, the same person who provides support for Oracle is also able to provide support for CVS, which simplifies the process for us.

At present, we are not as closely associated with Process Maker as we are with Microsoft and IBM. This is because many of our clients also use SharePoint and Office 365.

I am currently in the process of learning more about SharePoint myself. While I have some experience with the design aspect, I am trying to improve my skills and knowledge in this area through training and practice.

In the past, we used Microsoft technology, but we made the switch to Oracle due to its superior security and robustness.

The initial setup process can be challenging and not particularly straightforward, but with effort and careful reading, it can be successfully achieved.

The deployment was a team effort since it was a project being deployed for a client.

During the deployment, we had a project manager on-site who provided guidance on the steps involved in the process, particularly with regard to migrating from an Oracle environment.

The most significant challenge we encountered during the deployment was data migration from the old platform, which was an SQL version. Data cleanup was also a time-consuming issue that we faced. However, once the data had been cleaned and set up properly, the rest of the process became much easier.

We pay an annual subscription.

When it comes to budgeting, it is easier to plan for a new subscription because you can allocate a specific budget for it.

I would highly recommend this solution.

I would rate Oracle Linux a nine out of ten.

We use the solution as a database and operating system. 

The tool's performance is good. 

The product's support is expensive. 

I have been using the solution for two years. 

The tool's stability is good. I would rate the product's stability a ten out of ten. 

The product is scalable. We have 1500 users for the solution. 

The tool's tech support is good. 

The product's setup is easy. The software's setup took six months to complete. We required a team of seven members consisting of developers and engineers to deploy the solution. 

We sought the help of other people to deploy the solution. 

The product's pricing is cheap. The tool's pricing is yearly. 

I would rate the solution a ten 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.