Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Reviews

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is used in my organization primarily to install platforms and middleware, such as WebLogic or WebSphere. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) makes it easier to install and run platforms like WebLogic or WebSphere because the installation is more transparent and less complex, and it can be automated more easily with commands.

The best features offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) include scalability and ease of use. The aspects of scalability and ease of use that are most valuable for me in my day-to-day work with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are that it integrates much more easily with automation applications. Java-based platforms run better on those platforms. Antivirus solutions are less invasive on that type of operating system, and the code is more stable and less prone to crashes or instability of the operating system.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has positively impacted my organization as we have practically migrated to installing middleware applications on Red Hat. It is much simpler, there are no library conflicts, there are no conflicts with antivirus, and they are more stable.

A concrete result I have observed after the migration to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is that deployments are now much easier. They went from about six to ten days down to three days for delivering a complete environment across different environments: development, testing, and production. Additionally, the incidents that always caused conflicts with antivirus issues, library blocks, and application blocks that were not allowing installation or access to the operating system were completely eliminated.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is an extremely stable operating system. It is very open in terms of integration with other applications and migrations, and the applications developed for this type of operating system or that support these operating systems are more stable for a financial company like the one I work for.

At the moment, I do not think there is any functionality, documentation, or support that could be optimized. I have not had any problems with it. In fact, external documentation is very extensive, which is a big advantage because you can find documentation through searches on the internet itself.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in my organization for approximately four years.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is an extremely stable operating system.

The aspects of scalability and ease of use that are most valuable for me in my day-to-day work with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are that it integrates much more easily with automation applications.

I give Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a rating of 10 because I used to work with Windows and found too many integration issues. Even though it is visually easier, I prefer working with the command line and the stability and scalability.

I use VMware as the private cloud provider to deploy Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). I hardly handle patching in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), but Satellite is used for patching and updates, and I am satisfied with that management experience.

I have not tried tools like Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Image Builder or System Roles, so I cannot speak to how useful they are.

The knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is extremely useful and truly well documented.

The most important security features in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) include user levels, which have very good restrictions at the file level and at the execution level and obviously at the modification level. Additionally, viruses are still very restricted.

An example of a specific situation in which these levels of restriction and security have made a difference for my organization is that end users try to delete files, and it does not allow them. The audit features, which it handles very well, allow you to track down any problem, any execution or modification.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps me solve challenges and pain points in my daily work regarding integration and interaction with artificial intelligence. I gave this review a rating of 10 out of 10.

I am currently working with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as I administer a lot of Kubernetes clusters installed on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

For Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I use it as an operating system for our platform which powers all our company's software, mostly for Kubernetes or for IBM BPM or IBM PEL.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is a robust operating system, and I believe it is much better than Windows. I work with Windows and Ubuntu, but Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the best distribution I have worked with.

The knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is excellent. Red Hat documentation is the most valuable documentation in the market.

For Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I think the most time-saving aspects come from Red Hat Ansible because we use Ansible to automate many tasks and repetitive tasks on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and Windows. Ansible automation and the Ansible automation platform are the most valuable products that save us time and money.

Overall, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps me save time through automation using Ansible. For OpenShift, the core of containers saves time by automating the DevOps processes using the Red Hat pipeline built into OpenShift, Tekton, and source-to-image build. All of this saves us time.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps to mitigate downtime and lower risks for me, as most of my work is with OpenShift which enables us to do a zero downtime deployment. The deployment is done without any downtime. Red Hat OpenShift is a stable system. Red Hat OpenShift and Linux are very stable and the downtimes are very minimal.

I think Red Hat needs to implement more AI features in the operating system or Red Hat OpenShift.

I have been working with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for about 14 years.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is very stable. The product is very stable and very mature. All issues are documented in documentation or in the support portal and support knowledge base. When I have an issue, I primarily search the knowledge base and the support portal and find the solution. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is a very secure operating system, and they provide security patching every month.

I find Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scalable.

We have many cases where Red Hat helped us with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) or OpenShift, and their support is great. On a scale of one to ten, where ten is the best, I would rate the tech support a nine.

Positive

Most enterprises work on Linux, and as I am a DevOps and platform engineer, most of our systems run Linux, including Kubernetes, OpenShift, and the DevOps pipeline, all working on Linux. This is why I switched to Linux.

For Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), the setup is very straightforward. OpenShift is a little complex, but once you do it once, you will master it.

I performed the deployment all by myself.

When it comes to our business value, most of our customers are enterprise-grade customers from banking and government sectors, and they prefer to use an enterprise-grade operating system, not Ubuntu or CentOS. Additionally, in many cases, we need enterprise support from Red Hat as Ubuntu does not provide this.

My main use case for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is server management and cloud operations.

I use RHEL for server management and cloud operations to perform multiple tasks, such as user access management, user management, patch management, and troubleshooting.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) offers multiple features that are really accessible and stable, providing security and compliance, hybrid cloud compatibility, enterprise-grade container support, task automation through cron jobs, and an overall good platform.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has positively impacted my organization through automation, as my recent task saved a lot of time by reducing the work from months to a day using scripts developed in RHEL, thus boosting our productivity and cutting costs while empowering a skilled workforce, enabling scalable and secure infrastructure, and fueling innovation and digital transformation.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) could be improved with a modernized knowledge base and documentation, better performance under high load, and possibly a reduction in the cost of the professional subscription. Apart from that, I don't see much need for improvement.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for more than five years.

In my experience, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is perfect in terms of stability.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) handles increases in users, applications, or data smoothly, which is why we use it for all our projects, as it provides us with confidence. We also use Amazon Linux, but primarily it is RHEL.

I have reached out to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) customer support multiple times, and I've found the experience amazing, as issues get resolved in a lesser time compared to Amazon AWS.

I have majorly worked on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) only and did not use a different solution before switching.

We have seen a return on investment with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), having saved a lot of money and time due to the automation and scripting we perform, resulting in savings on man-hours as well.

I have mentioned earlier that the pricing, setup cost, and licensing for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) could be reduced a bit, indicating a scope for improvement there.

Before choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I evaluated other options like SUSE and AIX, but I don't think any of them are better than RHEL.

We do a lot of automation using Bash scripts. In a recent task, I had about 2,500 to 3,000 EBS volumes that I needed to change from GP2 to GP3 and calculate their throughput and IOPS, which would have been impossible manually due to time constraints, but we accomplished it with a Bash script thanks to RHEL. It's really very useful.

My advice for others looking into using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is that everyone working on Linux should at least give it a try because it's a great platform.

On a scale of one to ten, I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) an 8.5 out of 10.

The main use cases with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for me are hosting Oracle databases, Oracle server database, and MariaDB. When we need to install Oracle, we put it on Linux, and it usually was Santos in the past. Then we moved to Oracle Enterprise Linux or Red Hat, and when Oracle released the Linux distro, we moved to Oracle because the devices are really open source.

Some of the best features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) include stability; it doesn't break. Stability, along with management tools and users for management tools that they add to the Linux distro, are important. The main reason is stability. In the server area, we don't want change. That's why we're trying to move back to Debian, because Debian is stable—old, but stable. 

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) does help save time because the setup and general installation experience is very optimized and well-established. I made tests installing and setting up radioactive environments for virtual machines, and it was a very good experience, fast.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is for on-premises only; we try to avoid the clouds as much as we can. In Brazil, we are seeing an interesting movement with small cloud providers because Amazon, Google, and Microsoft are too expensive. I am noticing the rise of many small companies that build small data centers and offer cloud services to small companies. They prosper with a better price and a simpler solution—not a fancy data center with sophisticated security. Just a small space with a decent Internet connection and a stable energy source, and they are good to go. People are prospering with this model of small cloud providers.

The main difference between Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and some of the others that I'm evaluating now is that Red Hat tries to use more recent packages. The problem with Debian and some of the stable distributions is that they are too conservative, and they keep the version progress very slow. I sometimes develop and create things that need more recent packages and libraries, and with Debian, I usually struggle with that. Red Hat usually provides the new ones—stable, but new. That's one of the best features of using Red Hat. Ubuntu also upgrades some important libraries from Debian.

I have used Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for more than fifteen years, because we have some infrastructure on it.

I assess the knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as excellent; they have a great technology base on their website, but it requires a subscription. You might think you get free access, but I really don't prefer it. I usually find other sources. I know they have a very good knowledge base with excellent documentation, but I usually don't get access to it. I have not reached out to their support, so I do not have any personal experience with Red Hat support. The support that we really use from time to time is Oracle. My clients use the Oracle database, and they all pay for support. We use it because my partner, who is an Oracle database administrator, frequently deals with problems with Oracle and uses their support, and it works very effectively.

Positive

My thoughts on the deployment with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are that it's easy, there are no problems at all. It's very easy, including in the cloud; they offer many partners, and it's really easy to move your loads to the cloud with Red Hat. I believe it's easier than with Microsoft. However, my clients usually do not get involved with this; most of them are Microsoft-based.

The ROI with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is useful if the company requires accountability or a formal contract, because they usually need someone involved in some kind of accountability process when lawyers get involved. Only in that situation does it make sense to pay that price. Usually, companies that are required by law to have licensed products, such as banks and insurance companies, have obligations by law. This is especially true in Brazil, where the insurance market is very regulated. It makes sense for these companies to have a license contract, particularly in the case of security leaks and similar issues.

My experience with the pricing or licensing for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) indicates that our clients never chose to purchase a license. I watched the prices a few months ago while considering buying one for myself, and they were expensive; it's not a reasonable price, especially for small companies. The business value of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is compatible and on the same level as other Linux distributions I have used. They all charge the same for their products. I usually don't see much difference. When I compare the price of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) to that of Windows, they are basically the same price, just a little cheaper, a small fraction. All of these big corporations try to squeeze the clients as much as they can. The only exception is Broadcom, which seems to try to charge an absurd amount for their products.

My clients all have their own firewall solutions and network security solutions that they purchase. We usually don't deal with that. We just keep the built-in firewall running, and that's all. That's the main feature that we use on Red Hat and other distros, the built-in firewall. 

Security Enhanced Linux (SELinux) is something we do not engage with. Last week, I tried to install a new version of Oracle Enterprise Linux from Red Hat on an old HP server, Gen 5, but it did not work; I needed to go back to Ubuntu. Ubuntu, even in the new version, uses a kernel that works on old hardware, so we have to deal with this situation. If you have old hardware and need to repurpose an old server, you can't use these new distros. Even Oracle does not work with very old equipment, more than ten years old. 

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as a seven or eight out of ten.

We have our in-house applications. We have several edge applications at our store locations. There is an in-house written app that we host on a basic Linux VM. Additionally, we have a few on-premises installations at headquarters. One of our major applications is being rewritten to be hosted on a Linux server, so that's in the process of migrating.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps me with configuration management. It has become a standard in many ways. There's substantial support and different applications that we run on it. The available options for configuration, maintainability, and stability are valuable, and it's not a rapidly changing base that we're working with.

My favorite feature of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) isn't narrowed down to one specific aspect. As someone who grew up using command line interfaces, the ability to access a command line and have the system at my fingertips is beneficial. There are multiple options and different ways to approach tasks with Linux, allowing for creativity in the process.

The command line feature of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) specifically helps me find ways to address problems. If there's a bottleneck, something slowing us down, or a manual process that we're spending significant time with, I can determine ways to either script around it or use an Ansible playbook. Having these different tools at our disposal is particularly useful.

While I don't have an immediate answer, there may be ways to lighten up the underlying system. There are many components I haven't investigated, making it difficult to pinpoint specific areas. It has always been reliable, and I haven't encountered many major issues. I've been content with Red Hat since I started using it.

We don't use SELinux because it gets in the way too much. It's a good product if you have the time to devote to it. A lot of management is involved in it. We typically set it to notify rather than completely disabling it, though vendors often request reduced security settings during application setup. Regarding areas for improvement, I can suggest streamlining SELinux, which currently feels heavy-handed in its approach to security. It's a system that requires deep immersion to understand. While there's probably justification for its current implementation, making the security component less intimidating for users would be beneficial. This is a recurring observation, as many users working on Red Hat systems or Linux systems tend to disable SELinux because it becomes an obstacle. With proper knowledge and usage, it could be beneficial, but it's similar to training a wild dog - it can be loyal, but without proper training, it becomes an impediment.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) professionally since around 2011, though I've been using some form of it since the late '90s.

We haven't experienced many problems with downtime. Our operating systems have been consistently stable regarding uptime. Any downtime issues have been related to upstream factors, networking, and power infrastructure.

In terms of stability and reliability, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is very stable. I rarely recall having issues where the OS wouldn't boot up. Any stability issues have typically been hardware, network-related, or facility-related rather than OS-related.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales with the growing needs of my company very effectively. We implement it in any place where we can find a suitable application.

The customer service and technical support for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are very good. I would rate it approximately eight or nine out of ten. It has been particularly good recently. Though there were past instances where support initially took a hands-off approach due to gray areas in their support scope, which was disappointing, they ultimately delivered when crucial support was needed.

Positive

We are largely a Windows shop. I'm probably the only Linux person on the staff. We have legacy systems, including HP-UX and Stratus VOS, with some RHEL outliers that are being phased out. While Red Hat will likely absorb some of that capacity, many people coming from a Microsoft environment are bringing Windows .NET applications. We're currently evaluating Azure as a hosting platform, which is already in place but not actively used yet.

I've been involved in Red Hat Enterprise Linux upgrades and migrations since Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5. We still maintain one Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 server due to legacy applications. We have successfully removed all Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 installations and currently maintain a large base of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 at our store locations, which we're migrating from. We've implemented both Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 and Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9, completing the entire cycle. We've been through all the versions. We don't do in-place upgrades or anything like that. We just rehost the applications, which is probably pretty typical. This is largely a VM-based environment.

I use Satellite combined with the Ansible automation platform for provisioning and patching. I implement kick-starting via Satellite for most systems, with Ansible handling the final configuration. As Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10 approaches, I'm interested in exploring image options to streamline the process, particularly regarding CIS benchmark compliance.

We are going to move to Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10. We've been pretty good about getting up to the latest version once it's available. It took us a while with Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7, but we jumped to Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 fairly quickly. I had my process down, so with Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9, I got right on to it and rewrote my configuration. I'm hoping to streamline that to get Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10 up and going once it comes out. I'll have a new service based on that. Our footprint is shrinking a little bit because a lot of our apps are being rewritten in a Windows .NET environment. It's not going to be as big as it used to be, but we're still going to have Red Hat.

The biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is time. Time is a crucial factor, and attempting this level of automation with Windows would be challenging. While automation is possible with Windows, it comes naturally with Linux. Being able to transform common manual tasks that previously took all day into processes that take an hour, half an hour, or even less, demonstrates clear value.

Management handles much of the pricing, setup costs, and licensing for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), though I receive many of the invoices. While it isn't inexpensive, it has proven to be a worthwhile investment. The virtualized environment has provided good value. Each of our Satellite locations has its own physical license, which adds complexity, but Red Hat and our partners have worked with us to secure competitive pricing.

My rating for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is 10 out of 10.

My main use case for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is application servers, and it's all of our VMs. Most, if not all, of our physicals, on the Linux side, are Red Hat. The only thing that we run that isn't Red Hat is our Kubernetes nodes.

The feature of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that I find most interesting is image mode, which has ramifications far beyond just upgrading the OS. Speed to market and zero day could really be accelerated leveraging it. 

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) benefits my company at the end of the day by providing the foundation of Red Hat Linux, over 20 years and more. Coupled with the backing of a company such as IBM, you've got a company that can help solve pretty much any problem. 

It's the flexibility, almost the one-stop-shop nature, that Red Hat provides, that really creates an administrative-friendly environment.

The package manager is pretty solid now with DNF, which is the industry standard.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps solve quite a few pain points; I would say that in RHEL 8 to RHEL 9, when they went to AppStreams, it really helped simplify the repository structure and made package management significantly easier.

I wasn't part of the discussion about whether security requirements were a consideration in choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for our cloud operations, however, my guess is that it had to do with being able to do configuration management across on-prem and cloud in the same manner in both environments.

We manage our Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems through Red Hat Satellite, which we do not use to provision but only to patch, while provisioning is done through vRealize Automation. That's how we provision all of our VMs and custom builds, though there is additional infrastructure behind that.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) supports our hybrid cloud strategy as we are currently in the process of investigating different VM hypervisors, and as that investigation goes on, OpenShift is definitely at the forefront of the things we are looking at.

My number one request for improvement would be better Kickstart functionality, as I feel the Kickstart notation is outdated and it's not programmatic, so that would be my focus point, based on what I do.

From my perspective, I would prefer to see more of the knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) be freely available and not tied behind a Red Hat account, as there's a lot of common knowledge content that would be really helpful to many people. Now, I have a Red Hat account, so it doesn't matter to me. Still, that would be a great show of faith on Red Hat's part to open up many of those knowledge articles and make them freely available.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for probably 12 years.

My thoughts on the stability and reliability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are quite positive; my stuff doesn't go down, so I don't have problems. 

It's one of those nice things, similar to your refrigerator—you don't notice it until it breaks. It just works, and that's really the key factor; I can't remember the last time we had a system go down and had to restore it due to a bad patch. Those things just don't happen. The way they have things set up with Fedora, CentOS, and all of that user testing and integrated testing feeds into a really good final product, one that's stable and that you can rely on.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales with the growing needs of my company effectively, as we are currently running approximately 11,000 Red Hat VMs, and we manage, patch, and do everything all the time without issue. 

I've seen a significant decrease over my twenty-ish year career of needing backup tools to restore files since files just don't get corrupted the same way that they used to, making me feel Red Hat has really kept up to date with all of the intricacies and small components of the OS to provide a great ecosystem.

I cannot speak to the customer service and technical support of the platform, as I don't have to open tickets; there's a whole other team that does that. My understanding is that we have a regular cadence with our Technical Account Manager once every other week or once a month, and we've had good successes to the best of my knowledge.

Positive

While working with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), we actually considered other solutions, specifically SUSE Enterprise Linux, which we were running for quite some time until their pricing model changed. Red Hat offered a better pricing model, a more mature product, and it was just overall better in my opinion.

I have been involved in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) upgrades and migrations in my company, and it depends on what your approach is, however, we don't do in-place upgrades, as they're just dangerous, no matter what anybody says.

I always say a fresh install is always the best thing, so for us, it's a matter of leveraging Kickstart and Packer to generate the VM images or Kickstart to generate ISOs and install them on physicals. It's just a matter of taking and being able to easily set it up for repeatability, although it takes probably more time than I would prefer to get that consistency.

The biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for me is its close coupling with Ansible, which I am a big fan of. I've been here since the beginning, and Ansible is a great marrying tool with RHEL to really manage those systems at scale, allowing me to do pretty much anything, which I do every day; it's awesome.

Assuming you can leverage virtual data center licensing, I don't see the costs as being terrible. There are a lot of viable ways to decrease those costs while increasing the value you get from RHEL by leveraging CentOS and lower environments. 

Overall, I don't end up having to write the check at the end of the day, however, I've heard that the licensing models have changed a bit since I've had to work with them directly and that they're less painful than they had been before, with a lot of moving licenses from one pool to another pool, which I've heard you don't have to do now, so that's nice.

On a scale of one to ten, I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and eight out of ten.

In the banking industry, we provide software for banking, from our development infrastructure to deployment infrastructure for the banks. We generally use Linux RHEL. It is only for on-premises, but what we did was try out Red Hat OpenShift, basically on top of Linux platforms to run it on the Kubernetes enabled architecture to see how it would perform.

For us, the best features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are that running it in a containerized environment makes setting up multiple Linux environments much easier than any other high-end or risk-based machines like AIX or Sun Solaris. Having more Linux boxes and setting up RHEL was much faster.

In terms of security, the most important feature in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is that it has a good sandbox with policies and features that are very effective. Whatever we could do in terms of hardening the Linux software, it was much easier for us.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps me solve the pain point of having a huge monolith of big AIX boxes because I could have smaller Linux boxes with Red Hat, and I was able to do both vertical and horizontal scaling much faster.

One area that could be improved with Red Hat is probably pricing. Discounts that are slightly cheaper would be better.

In Enterprise Linux, I have dealt with it for probably more than five years.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is definitely stable.

In my opinion, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is absolutely a scalable solution. That is why I was able to do both vertical scaling and horizontal scaling very seamlessly.

Regarding their support, we did not reach out to support too much, but I thought it was good. I would rate it a nine.

Positive

Before using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), we used Windows, basically, and then moved everything to Linux.

We switched to Linux from Windows because there were a lot of server hangs happening on Windows, with antivirus and virus problems. Basically, it was a nightmare managing Windows, so we moved to Linux.

With the initial setup, it is very straightforward and much easier to set up.

On a scale of one to ten, if ten was the easiest, I place it at a nine.

We also do Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) with Red Hat. I would rate this review a nine overall.

The main use case for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is to manage the database and the server.

The solution helps solve pain points for monitoring servers, for example, databases and servers.

The most valuable feature of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the security and also the performance for scheduling and tasking for the memory.

These features benefit the organization because we have hundreds of servers, databases, and many files, and we have the ability to use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

I am interested in migrating to the cloud platform, so we are trying to implement that in the organization.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for five to seven years.

I have not experienced any downtime, crashes, or performance issues with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales well to meet the growing organizational needs.

We are looking for containerization for scalability, and it is easy to scale out and scale in.

We have expanded usage and tried manually to increase the number of servers, and we see the disk increasing exponentially, which is why we are looking for scaling.

I would evaluate customer service and technical support as quite good, since I technically get 24/7 support if I encounter issues from updates or new features.

I would assess the level of support from Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) team as very informative; we learn a lot from the documentation from the Red Hat support team.

Positive

Before selecting Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I considered the availability of resources and security, as we have files and a lot of data with not enough time to handle that from the internet, and distribution is mostly for security.

The experience deploying Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) was easy, as we use different methods, such as installing or using some source files by using some servers to deploy.

The most common challenges faced with the deployment are mostly enterprise related, such as resource compatibility and making automation instead of active compatibility.

The opinion on pricing and its cost-effectiveness for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is that it is quite good for production on-premises.

The advice I would give to other organizations is that they should mostly rely on the Linux operating system; it is quite reliable and easy to use, install, deploy, and manage, so I would advise them to use it.

I would rate this product a 10.

The main use cases were certifying our product with this OS platform, installing our product on this platform, and identifying the challenges we face, such as memory leak issues or OS-level issues, such as some libraries not being supportive, permission-related issues, or glitches due to different folder structures because the paths vary from Windows. Developers mostly keep Windows in mind as they have Windows laptops for the development environment.

Most of the time, we only certify our product with this OS. We perform most of the operations related to that only, leaving very little chance to explore features. However, as I read the news and newsletter from the Red Hat side, there are a good number of features, such as server editions, that can be really helpful.

System roles are helpful because we can achieve security through them. This is a good feature, as we can restrict permissions and policies with their help. 

When interacting with terminals, most of the errors can be a bit complicated for humans to read. If they used more user-friendly error messages, it would help people understand quickly. 

There are also a few changes needed at the library level. Some libraries supported by others, such as Oracle, are not supported by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). Especially in terms of Java, as now Java is with Oracle, if the Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) system could align with those libraries, it would be helpful for end-users, eliminating the need to figure out which library is causing issues.

I have been working with Linux solutions for four to five years.

It is stable.

We create a ticket when we contact Red Hat support, but most of the time, we are able to find solutions through the community. The support is good from both Oracle and Red Hat. I would rate their support an eight out of ten.

I have tried Oracle Linux and SUSE Linux, and we've explored different versions. It depends on the customer's requirement and whatever platform the customer is comfortable with; we have to certify our product with that.

There are multiple factors that led to our decision to move to Linux: pricing is one of the biggest factors, then security because Linux is more secure than Windows. Performance is another reason since malware programs do not run directly on Linux. Additionally, the command prompt is always faster than GUI mode.

When it comes to learning, it's all about perception because most people carry their perceptions from their college days. If someone is new or a fresher joining the industry, they have their own perceptions in mind. They often feel comfortable with Windows because most colleges provide Windows machines, but once they get hands-on experience with Linux systems, they start preferring Linux over Windows.

I haven't seen many complications with the initial setup of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) because whenever we provide a build or our product, we have a readme file with all the steps included. It's usually not that difficult. It's a couple of hours of work, and if any difficulties arise, it doesn't take long because we have a good community online to find solutions.

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a nine out of ten.

The main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are all application-based; it's an enterprise-level OS based on open source. There are many applications. We are using it for Oracle databases and applications which need more security and flexibility. 

Red Hat provides support for a variety of file systems, making it easy to create and manage them. It also allows for straightforward management of volume groups. Although we have not used it for our client, Red Hat offers services such as Satellite service for online patching and automated patching, among other features.

The knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is excellent. If you have an account created with even a single subscription, you get access to all documents available online free of cost. 

From the security perspective, IP tables are very important for firewall protection and network communication. While these features exist in other Linux distributions, the implementation in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is particularly robust.

Regular patching rollouts and immediate bug fixes help maintain compliance with cyber security requirements. 

All major Linux distributions should have common commands, which would make it easier for users to understand and remember. Each flavor has their own native tools and features, which can be confusing when managing multiple flavors in a single environment.

Documentation is comprehensive and available in one place on the Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) portal, but connection and integration could be better with more out-of-the-box connectors. 

Recently, I came across something interesting regarding the management of multiple environments. SUSE offers more flexibility in managing multiple environments, as their product can manage Ubuntu and Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). However, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Satellite server can only patch Red Hat and CentOS, not Ubuntu or SUSE. Cross platform support should be implemented in their product.

I have been working with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for almost 15 years.

It helps to mitigate downtime and lowers risk. Most environments have very high uptime values with Linux machines. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) rarely crashes or has issues. All the security features are very good in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

The documentation clearly explains what each patching or update will do to your environment, and whether it is required. When asking for support, even for informational purposes, they provide detailed information about whether it is required for your environment, including bug fixes and CVEs reported by local cyber security personnel.

The business value of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) compared to other Linux distributors is their strong support process. While we haven't worked much with other flavors, we are satisfied with Red Hat support. Their technical expertise is excellent, especially for premium support. They helped us solve critical issues, such as when we had a file system corruption in a production environment that we couldn't mount or fix without their support.

Positive

There are other options such as Ubuntu, SUSE, and Oracle Linux. It depends on requirements. Some application vendors want to go with Ubuntu, so we have to provision Ubuntu. Some want to have SUSE. SUSE is used less frequently, but mostly people are using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and Ubuntu here.

Ubuntu is a Debian-based Linux distribution. While all belong to the Linux category, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is more mature and flexible but costlier in terms of support. Ubuntu is less costly but has a different system administration approach due to being Debian-based. SUSE has more inclination towards ERP systems, with most SAP environments running on it.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) operates in a vast environment with multiple products including Ansible, containers, and OpenShift. System administration is straightforward in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) because people are more familiar with these open source tools and commands. There is extensive online documentation and free versions available, making administration preferred by most administrators.

The setup is very straightforward. Even someone with minimal experience can follow the documentation and install it.

It brings ROI and measurable benefits. When support is needed for issues such as security vulnerabilities, ransomware protection, or bug fixes, Red Hat will resolve system downtime issues.

The licensing cost for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is comparable to SUSE for premium support. For approximately $2,000 per year, you can get premium support for one subscription which allows you to run two VMs.

I have not tried the Leap or Red Hat Insights feature because we currently work with standalone systems. For image builder and system roles, we can get the recovery system built with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) tools, which are very good and handy for recovery.

Since most systems are based on VMs in private cloud or hypervisors, it's straightforward to take snapshots for any changes on Linux. If something goes wrong, reverting the snapshot is simple.

My advice to other organizations considering Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is that while other enterprise Linux distributions such as SUSE and Ubuntu are good in their respective areas, they should have cross-environment support for products, especially for patching, centralized monitoring, and user management.

Based on my experience, I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a nine out of ten.