Oracle Linux Reviews

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. 

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 the solution for application servers. Linux offers many features, including CPU monitoring, memory management, hard disk monitoring, process management, and log management. We rely on command-line tools and shell scripts rather than graphical interfaces for these tasks.

It can be integrated with almost any other product. We use standard methods to make it more compatible with any flavor of Linux.

Patches and upgrades for Oracle Linux are readily accessible. The package management system is streamlined and well-organized. Oracle Linux provides a more integrated approach to package management, consolidating resources and minimizing the need to search for various components separately. This centralized system simplifies the process of maintaining and updating the operating system.

They keep increasing their license prices, making it increasingly costly. So many banks and customers are moving away from Oracle Linux. They are going to other flavors because they are cheaper.

You can add things to it, but Oracle may have added extra stuff that is not supported by other Linux. Then they don't get used to it because we have to work with standard Linux features.

I have been using Oracle Linux for 15 years.

It's very stable. I rate the solution’s stability a nine out of ten.

The scalability is good. You can scale up using more processors, memory, and a hard disk. 

You can have 10,000 users on our system.

I rate the solution’s scalability a seven or eight out of ten.

The deployment is similar to CentOS and takes an hour to complete.

I rate the initial setup an eight out of ten, where one is difficult and ten is easy.

Oracle Linux is probably the most expensive one.

I rate the product’s pricing an eight out of ten, where one is cheap, and ten is expensive.

I recommend the solution because it is one of the most stable systems.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

We use the product for Oracle Database and MySQL databases.

We do not use any features specific to the OS. We are more interested in the packages needed as prerequisites for Oracle databases. The performance, feasibility, and flexibility of the I/O subsystem are valuable to us. The compatibility of Kernel with Oracle is much better than other tools.

NTP communication should be more concrete and robust. Time drifts happen frequently, and the database restarts automatically to protect data integrity. The product should give a warning before the time drift happens. It should alert us about how long the time drift will take. Such features will make the product a very good OS.

I have been using the solution for around ten years.

I rate the product’s stability an eight out of ten. The operating system has some issues with the network time protocol.

The scalability is very nice. We can scale horizontally by adding more servers. We can also scale a single server vertically. It depends on the physical hardware that is available. On average, we have 1500 users.

We got a few opportunities to interact with the support team when we had vulnerabilities in Kernel. We contacted the team for feedback on which version to use to fix the vulnerability. We have created four or five tickets. All the tickets were supported very well.

Once, we created a database ticket that required a spin-off ticket to the operating system team. We could easily create the ticket and get both teams to work together. That is the advantage of having both Oracle Enterprise Linux and Oracle Database.

The initial setup is straightforward. Once the first installation is done, we can clone and replicate it for other installations. The solution is deployed on our own private cloud.

We have nine DBAs and two engineers to deploy the solution.

We are not paying anything for the operating system.

We are using synchronous I/O and ASM storage. We are not using any other features. Before bringing in improvements, we want to evaluate RHEL and OEL for better integration of the platforms and the virtual machines we are deploying. We are checking the compatibility of RHEL and OEL with our existing infrastructure.

We want the product to support the database, have more compatibility, and give fewer issues during peak workloads. These are the things we are looking for. We are mainly concerned about library support, security patching, and technical support from the vendor.

I am an end user. I am not aware of the deployment process. The operating system will be deployed as per our specifications, and it will be given to us. We perform the database installation on it.

We do not have much interaction with the development team. We only interact with the team when it needs to create a new database or a user inside it. I recommend the solution to others. Most of the Oracle tools were developed on Oracle Enterprise Linux. Compatibility and support-wise, everything will be under a single umbrella. We do not have to find another vendor. We have an unlimited license for Database. I do not know the terms.

Overall, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

In our company, we are using Oracle Linux for virtualized machines or VMs. So, Oracle Linux is the operating software for us. The tool is easy to use, and its performance is also good. From a competitive point of view, the solution is cost-effective, so it is installed in our machines.

The solution's security could be better and improved, but I am not sure.

Since it is a VM, it gets slow. It can be an area for improvement. So, we get a connection, making it not a very significant issue since it usually works well.

I have been using Oracle Linux for two to three years as an end-user. Also, I don't remember the version of the solution I am using.

It is a stable solution. We rarely face any issues with the machine.

Since the solution is a per-machine license-based one, I am unsure about its scalability.

I have worked with thousands who were working on the solution.

With our machines, we do seek help from the solution's technical support. So, whenever we have an issue, as I mentioned, we go back to IT support to raise a ticket, and they resolve our issues in a day.

We switched to Oracle Linux from another solution since it is our organization that provides us with software, it is. So they decided Oracle Linux to be the operating system we all use.

We get the machines to work on, but since I am an end-user, I feel that I am not the right person to speak on how Oracle Linux does the setup and the cost involved in the solution. We let the staff involved in the deployment and maintenance know whenever we have an issue with the operating system. We generate a ticket, and depending upon an issue, they take a day maximum to resolve our issues.

Our IT support team did everything related to the installation part.

We are currently operating the solution using a license-based version. We get licenses per machine.

The evaluation of other solutions was not carried out at an organizational level but at a personal level, and I looked at Microsoft-based products. There are two different scenarios, one of which, at a personal level, I might have a different operating system on my computer, while in the second one, my office might be providing me with some different machine. But we need to acknowledge the fact that the company's decision is of paramount importance.

I rate the overall product a seven to eight out of ten.

I primarily use the solution as an operating system, an OS. It's mainly used for hosting some products. 

It's a decent OS.

It is a stable solution. It's mostly reliable. 

I did not really enjoy working with the solution. 

The deployment is a bit complex.

The community and the documentation were not great. I did not like the end-user experience and decided to move towards an open-source Linux. 

I haven't used the solution for a very long time. 

The solution was stable. It was reliable. There were no bugs or glitches. I'd rate the stability seven out of ten in terms of reliability. 

I've never tried to scale the solution. I just used it myself for my personal needs. 

While I have never used technical support, the company might have. I'm not sure how useful they were in terms of assistance. 

I've also worked with Ubuntu Linux. I've also used Red Hat and CentOS among other solutions. I find other solutions easier to use as opposed to Oracle Linux.  

I have found the solution to be a bit complex in terms of the original setup. 

I wasn't directly involved in the setup and therefore do not know much about the deployment process. I'm not sure how long it took to deploy. 

I didn't deploy the solution on my own. We had a team that managed the deployment. 

While my understanding is that a license is involved, I don't have any details about terms or cost. 

I work with the latest version of the solution. 

I wouldn't recommend the solution to others. I had an easier time with other operating systems. 

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten. 

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.

We are using Oracle Linux for supporting traffic surveillance in Hungary.

When it comes to my favorite features of Oracle Linux, I have been impressed with its ability to facilitate a smooth and efficient workflow system. This system is responsible for gathering data from multiple cameras and transferring this information to the backend systems. The system comprises around 10 to 12 servers, all of which are integrated into a highly reliable and redundant cluster setup. Currently, we are using Red Hat Linux for our production needs, however, we have plans to switch over to Oracle Linux in the near future. The reason for this change is due to the specialized nature of our system which precludes the use of cloud computing capabilities.

What can improve in the solution is a rather challenging question given that Oracle is pushing towards cloud computing and the closed nature of the system. Maintaining Oracle Linux behind a firewall can be a cumbersome process, as it requires manual intervention to copy repositories and obtain approval from internal authorities. With the current emphasis on cloud computing, the support and development of traditional, closed systems like Oracle Linux may not receive as much attention, leading to potential limitations in the system's capabilities and performance.

My aim is to be in control of the automation process of Oracle Linux, as it holds immense significance for my current work. However, to request that the traditional methods of operation be maintained, as not everyone has the means or access to utilize the public cloud for their services. This is particularly true in my case, where I am operating within a closed system, which is protected by a state firewall and lacks direct internet connectivity. Additionally, I have been unable to find a clear and comprehensive guide or roadmap that addresses how to effectively manage these types of scenarios, as my level of experience in this field is limited.

I have been using Oracle Linux for approximately one year.

The solution is indeed stable. After conducting a thorough evaluation and comparison between a Red Hat system and an Oracle Linux system, the kernel stability remains constant and unaltered. There was no observable difference in the stability between the two systems. Additionally, during the period of usage, no issues or problems regarding stability were encountered.

The number of users utilizing Oracle Linux within our organization is rather limited. This is due to the fact that the system operates in an autonomous manner, and primarily, it appears that only a maximum of one hundred individuals utilize the front-end component of the system.

At the current moment, there are no concrete plans to increase usage. This is due to the fact that the individuals responsible for utilizing the system are state-employed clerks and the organization has no intention of expanding its numbers. Instead, they have expressed interest in implementing automation as a means of streamlining the process, rather than increasing the number of personnel involved.

The solution can contain a substantial amount of data, it is not considered to be a true big data system. At present, there are no scalability issues to contend with as the system is not overburdened in terms of memory or processor capacity. The data is preserved in clusters that are connected through load balancing, and no quantization is currently being utilized. While it is possible that scalability may become a concern in the future, particularly if there is an increase in the number of connected devices, it is unlikely to be a pressing issue in the near term, perhaps two to three years down the line.

I have not utilized the technical support offered by Oracle. Unfortunately, due to some unforeseen circumstances, my previous agent was not able to continue providing support, which resulted in me seeking support from the community instead of professional support. I highly recommend that Oracle invest in proper support services, however, at present, it is a challenge to persuade them to do so.

The Oracle Linux setup process is simple and effortless to execute. The installation DVD is a great resource for those who want to verify their administrative privileges, as it is a straightforward and uncomplicated process. By downloading the DVD and utilizing it to install the software, one can ensure that it is installed in a seamless and convenient manner, with the strength and security of fiber and steel behind it. This makes the setup experience truly outstanding.

The deployment process took approximately one week to complete. The duration was due to the need for thorough checks and verifications of the sources behind the firewall, which required additional control measures. The Red Hat system that was previously used had not been properly maintained for the past five years, which caused some delays in the upgrade process to Oracle Linux. The upgrade involved significant changes to auxiliary systems, including the higher proxy and naming system, which added to the time taken to complete the deployment. Despite these challenges, the actual installation of Oracle Linux from scratch only took approximately one or two hours. The slow deployment process was not a result of the installation of Oracle Linux, but rather the previous maintenance issues and the need for thorough checks during the upgrade process.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I am Oracle Linux a nine out of ten.

We deploy the OS and prepare the VM, then give it to the development for the application users to use. It is the base that we create, depending on requirements, on how many CPUs or how much memory is required.

Oracle Linux is stable, easy to back up, and easy to maintain.

The solution has zero downtime and is easy to optimize right out of the box.

Troubleshooting the solution is simple.

I would like Oracle Linux to have more frequent updates.

I have been using the solution for five years.

The solution is stable.

The solution is scalable. We make a copy of the request and keep it so that we can modify the scale of the solution as needed.

The technical support is absolutely good, there are no issues.

The initial setup is easy. 
Depending on the requirements of the prerequisites, which we have. The deployment doesn't take us more than two to three hours.

The implementation was completed in-house.

The majority of our evaluated solutions were Red Hat Linux.

I give the solution a nine out of ten.

We need an OS admin, and VM admin to clearly apply, install the solution and verify it according to the prerequisites we have, which are given to us by the application owners. Two, or three people are enough to deploy and maintain the solution.

We only have to deploy the solution and the system is used by all the students and faculty of the university.

I recommend Oracle Linux to new users.

We use Oracle Linux for Virtualization Platform, DNS Servers, Database Servers and IT infrastructure observability tools

Orlacle Linux has provided a redhat compatible open source OS for diverse needs. We smoothly run on Oracle OS; KVM virtualization environment, Postgesql databases, Zabbix, Grafana, Fluentd and other observability tools. We have seen a remarkable improvement as DNS queries are fast and the platforms can be easily secured with no worries of security issues arising due to unpatched systems.

There is full compatibility with RedHat-based operating systems, in particular Centos, which we widely deployed before Oracle Linux (OL).

For usability, the GUI options during the initial setup could be included with advanced OS tuning and optimization, currently as with most Linux systems that can be done via  CLI.

We have been using Oracle Linux for more than three years

Very stable

Very scalable, especially with available support options

Haven't used the customer service and support

Positive

Centos, migrated after Centos switches to Centos Stream

Straightforward setup, used the free option

Implemented in-house

100%

It's an open source OS freerly available. Support subscription is paid

Yes, Rocky Linux, Alma Linux and OpenSuse

A pretty stable and secure operating system that perfectly serve as an alternative to Centos OS.

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.