Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Reviews

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux for servers. We have deployed application servers and database servers on it. We run Oracle Database, WebLogic, Apache, and JBoss on it.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is very important for our organization. We are very sensitive to security.

It is not difficult to move workloads between the cloud and the data center using Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Mostly, our teams use file servers centrally, and then they use scripts so that it is done automatically in the background. Initially, they may get problems while connecting due to the security or firewall, but once the connection is established, we do not see any problem with that.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has helped to avoid cloud vendor lock-in. I am not sure how much our organization has saved in costs by avoiding cloud vendor lock-in, but we would have saved a good amount.

It is very stable and robust. My team is very comfortable working with it for all end-to-end activities. They can work with it very easily. They prefer working through the console rather than the GUI.

Its resiliency is good. There is no doubt about that.

I don't prefer Red Hat Enterprise Linux for desktop over other options. 

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for a good amount of time. It has been eight to ten years.

It is very stable. I would rate it a ten out of ten in terms of stability.

It is very scalable. I would rate it a ten out of ten in terms of scalability. It is highly available and scalable for servers.

It is good. I do not see any challenges. I would rate their support a nine out of ten.

Positive

We choose an operating system based on the needs and the use case. We use different operating systems for different purposes, so they are not comparable. For example, for desktops, Linux is not the best. For desktops, Microsoft Windows is the best. Similarly, if you are using any Microsoft products, such as SQL Server, Microsoft Windows is the best option. However, nowadays, we also have Microsoft products installed on Linux.

I am not involved in its deployment and maintenance. We have a separate team with 40 to 50 people around the globe for that.

We most probably have both on-premises and cloud deployments on a private cloud, but I am not sure. Our infrastructure services team takes care of that.

We have got a good ROI, but I do not have the metrics. I would rate it an eight out of ten in terms of ROI.

Its pricing is good and competitive.

I would recommend it based on the use case and the budget. If it meets your needs and budget, Red Hat Enterprise Linux is the best option.

Overall, I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux a nine out of ten.

RHEL is a phenomenal operating system for three primary reasons: 

• Support compared to the rest of the Linux ecosystem
• Cohesive ecosystem 
• Application platform

The combination of these three aspects has proven to me from an advising perspective that it is key in decision-making.  

Our clients purchase the use cases via cloud provider and hyper-scale. It's a combination of both. Mostly, new clients prefer going for hyper scalers. Whereas the clients with Red Hat licenses, predominantly those from the banking sector, transfer the licenses to the cloud depending on their hyper scaler plan.

The main benefits my clients have seen are the supportability, maintenance of the operating system, security, and the ecosystem that ties it all together.

The solution has a phenomenal operating system. Its support features are best compared to the rest of the Linux ecosystem. Generally, applications don't rely on operating systems per se. When combined with the container ecosystem, security is the paramount feature that is most asked for.

The problems our clients try to solve by implementing Red Hat Enterprise Linux vary. The main ones include containerization, cloud transformation, and visual transformation in terms of how you get to the cloud in a hybrid mode. The key aspect that I give advice about is how for the operating system in terms of the scalability to bridge the cloud to the on-prem world, so where they could have the OpenShift ecosystem that it runs into and helps them manage both systems together. 

The solution's operating systems are phenomenally resilient and stable. The good part is that Red Hat has backing and support. Also, combined with IBM, it gives more confidence to my customers.

The solution's ecosystem is good but it would be better to create cohesive components in all of the development tools. 

A developers' hub feature would help. 

OpenShift already provides excellent visibility, but bridging the gap with Kubernetes would be key because Red Hat Enterprise Linux drives OpenShift.

I'm a big open-source user. I've been using different forms of Linux for quite some time. For my enterprise purpose, I use the RHEL for other purposes and a few other different Linux operating systems. We have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for more than ten years.

I have experience working with Ubuntu, Fedora, Canonical, etc. From that perspective, the solution's stability is good. The security feature plays a key role in terms of the pace at which it receives updates for operating systems to maintain it.

In terms of the architectural perspective, the nature of the solution is scalable.

The solution's technical support is very good. My clients generally manage it, and I have received positive feedback. They have a responsive support organization to communicate with.

I have used Canonical and Ubuntu. In comparison with Red Hat Enterprise Linux, Ubuntu's ecosystem consists of multiple operating systems and container platforms like MicroK8s. The partnership with hyper scalers in terms of deployment is one of its benefits as well. On the flip side, it has some drawbacks regarding licensing and export control, where Red Hat shines well.

The solution's pricing and licensing are good. Although the open-source space is becoming more competitive, Red Hat brings value in terms of support. At the same time, different operators like Canonical Kubernetes are catching up. Thus, the price would become the differentiation factor regarding packages for support, and container ecosystem combined with Ansible. All these key elements would add more value to the pricing.

The solution's key element is its cohesive ecosystem between hybrid and cloud environments. It helps clients such as giant banks create a single space for managing workloads in different hyper scalers. This way, it helps in cost management and visibility. It creates a single platform to manage work. It helps in saving costs, especially with subscription plans. It provides them with a consistent cost structure. Also, being an open-source solution has benefits that fit within the ecosystem.

I rate it an eight out of ten, primarily for the support and licensing terms. It helps some of our enterprise clients navigate open-source licensing and export control complexities.

There are areas of improvement, such as the cycle of updates and the ecosystem as a whole. Also, the elements like Ansible are priced separately. For automation, there is an opportunity to combine everything. Even though they are different products, they shouldn't be charged separately from the ecosystem perspective.

Our use cases are pretty broad. We develop the automation that provisions the VMs, and then anyone in the company can request the VM for whatever intended purposes.

Red Hat Support is really good. Support has a fast response time. The product has good security. We deal with very urgent issues. The response time should be optimal if the issue requires Red Hat Support. 

My company is a utility company. Outages are a major issue for us. A faster response time is very important to get the applications back up so we can keep up with our production time. Red Hat's documentation is always really good.

As a software developer, documentation is very important to me. The solution should provide better documentation.

The solution is very stable.

The product is scalable. We're able to provide as many VMs as we like. We never run into an issue with how many VMs we are provisioning.

Support can always be improved. I rate the product’s support an eight or nine out of ten.

Positive

The solution can get pretty pricey depending on how many machines we're licensing but for a good reason.

We purchased the solution from Red Hat. We use Packer by HashiCorp to build our templates. I am a junior developer. I have been employed with my company for about five months. I don't know the initial issues that led to us choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux as our Linux solution. I speak from a developer’s perspective because I deal with Ansible.

The product has really good built-in security. The product provides good support, which helps us manage downtime and get the service back up and running, thus producing more money.

Overall, I rate the product a ten out of ten.

Our customers use the product primarily for application servers, authentication apps, and tool servers. If a feature is available in Red Hat Enterprise Linux, they're most likely using it. The product allows us to use applications that run on open-source software. The product also provides on-site support that helps us if we have any issues.

The solution is stable and reliable. Being able to move back and forth between systems, products, and middleware is a huge boon.

The solution lacks proper documentation. There have been times when I found a document that was supposed to fix an issue, but I realized it was wrong. Then, I would send it to support, and they would fix it.

Our customers have been using the solution for six or seven years.

The product’s stability is good. It has minimal downtime when it comes to generic deployments. Once you start adding complexity, there are other issues.

The product’s scalability is good. Our customers are able to scale out thousands of instances in minimal amounts of time.

The support team is great. I have friends that work on the support side. I can count on one hand the times I've been dissatisfied with support. Usually, when that happens, it's because it's something that either couldn't be fixed or something too old. I rate the support a nine and a half out of ten.

Positive

My involvement in deployment depends on which systems are being deployed. My organization constantly rolls out new systems via OpenStack, on-premise, or other cloud providers. I help build their base images.

The product’s deployment is pretty straightforward. Everything we build is automated and kicked out from there. Once the base image is built, there's really not much to do.

My customers have seen an ROI from the product. They have an on-site support team that is able to help them with issues. It is important to them to have a good team of people to reach back to and to be able to work together.

Our customers conduct market research before any purchase. Red Hat Enterprise Linux has consistently been a top contender for us and our customers. We usually support Red Hat Enterprise Linux because our customers choose it.

The biggest push towards Red Hat Enterprise Linux is the ability to have something that's supported and open-sourced. Having transparency is important to my customers. They want to see what they're putting into production, development, and testing. It is important to the customers to see what's going on and what workloads they're handling and to know that what they're putting the workloads on will be solid and secure.

Our customers use the solution on multiple cloud providers, mostly AWS and Azure. Our customers buy a yearly subscription for some equipment, and for short-lived instances, they do on-demand pricing within the cloud provider to buy the ones they offer.

I believe Red Hat Enterprise Linux has helped our organization avoid cloud vendor lock-in. We've been able to pretty reliably and easily lift, shift and redesign our application from on-prem to the cloud. It might not necessarily be a huge benefit for us. However, it is definitely a perk, especially in an environment where we have to go through a certain purchasing cycle and background reviews for everything. It does end up helping us.

As much as I've used Red Hat Image Builder, I really like it. Though, I've only had to build a handful of images out of it. We can't use something like Fedora, where you've got a nightly update. Red Hat Enterprise Linux is tested and reliable. Having something they can work on, develop, and use daily is helpful to our customers.

The sosreports and soscleaner developed in recent years are a huge improvement. My customers tend to be pretty fixed in their ways and what they use, so they continue to work and use things for longer than they should, but that's the beauty of Red Hat Enterprise Linux. It is supported, and we still have the necessary reach back.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is pretty solid. It's been tested. It has its upstream counterparts that ensure that most of the bugs get worked out, and what makes it down into the final testing is strong and resilient. We've been working on moving workloads between the cloud and data center with the customers. Instead of lift and shifts, we try to redevelop their applications instead of spending $10,000 to give 32 cores in the cloud because they had 32 cores in the system.

We have a fantastic team that works with us and supports us. The team goes out of its way to help find cost savings for both us and our customers.

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

I work in the financial industry in Brazil and my first job was to use Linux.

We deploy Red Hat Enterprise Linux on-prem and in the cloud. Our cloud provider is AWS. 

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux for web applications, including the JBoss data bridge. We also have some applications for prevention and risk. Red Hat Enterprise Linux is used for most of our applications in Brazil, so it is used for almost everything.

We run our workloads and applications on AWS.

There are many Linux-based operating systems. We wanted an operating system that was mature and reliable, and Red Hat Enterprise Linux was the best choice for us.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is a highly resilient operating system. It has a strong XFS file system, kernel, and package build.

Migrating workloads between the cloud and our data center is easy. There are no problems.

The knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux helps a lot. It is very useful and has helped me to resolve the issue by looking at the documentation.

The integrity of our operational systems is very stable. Red Hat Enterprise Linux has a good file system type and good kernels. It does not crash for any reason. This makes it a very stable platform for me. It is the best solution for our needs.

There was a reduction in the amount of detail provided in backlog messages between Red Hat Enterprise Linux versions six and seven, compared to versions eight and nine. This makes it more difficult to troubleshoot errors in versions eight and nine, as users must dig deeper into the operating system to find the source of the problem. Versions six and seven provided more detailed error messages, which made it easier to identify and fix problems. Deploying applications using Red Hat Enterprise Linux versions six and seven was seamless. However, there is a chance that something could be broken when deploying with versions eight and nine, and we may not know it.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux since versions four and five.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is extremely stable.

One of the reasons we adopted the Red Hat Enterprise Linux ecosystem is because of its ability to scale.

I have not had a good experience with Red Hat engineers. When we have an issue, it is very difficult to have it resolved in the first call. They always have to escalate the issue and involve multiple people. At a minimum, we have to escalate an issue three or four times before it is resolved. The support team in Brazil has helped me a lot because they work with me to resolve the problem, but if I have to open a ticket and follow the steps I never get proper service.

I give the technical support of Red Hat a zero out of ten.

Negative

The initial deployment is easy. I can deploy Red Hat Enterprise Linux myself using a base image within a few minutes both on-prem and in the cloud.

The implementation is completed in-house.

We purchased our license from Red Hat.

I give Red Hat Enterprise Linux an eight out of ten.

Cloud vendor lock-in is inevitable when we adopt the cloud. This is because once we adopt a cloud service, such as DynamoDB or AWS, we become dependent on that provider for support and maintenance. It is very difficult to work with multiple clouds 100 percent of the time, as this can lead to problems with failover and other issues in multiple cloud environments because the risk is high.

The Red Hat Enterprise Linux ecosystem is more attractive because we are not just buying an operating system. We are buying an ecosystem that helps, supports, and secures our platform. I believe this is the better option.

Applying patches in the new versions of Red Hat Enterprise Linux is more time-consuming than in Oracle Linux because Oracle Linux does not require legacy environments to be patched or changed through applications.

For someone looking for an open source cloud-based Linux OS instead of Red Hat Enterprise Linux, I recommend AWS Linux. It is a very stable version of Linux and does not require a subscription.

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux across different versions, from six to nine, to run various applications. Our main area of focus involves using Satellite support to manage and patch both the Red Hat Enterprise Linux OS and specific applications like OpenShift and other products supported by Red Hat. We have multiple environments, including Azure, AWS, and a standalone eXs host. 

Red Hat Enterprise Linux's patching process needs improvement, particularly in achieving consistency. Currently, when you patch, you might not have control over the timing, leading to different software packages ending up at different patch levels. This lack of consistency can make it challenging to manage and control the various components effectively. My background is in IBM AIX, so the patching is based on the technology level and the service pack level, so all the related patches stay at the same level.  

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for ten years.

I would rate the knowledge base offered by Red Hat as average. I would rate their support as a three out of ten.

Negative

We also use IBM AIX. I prefer AIX, but Red Hat Enterprise Linux is cheaper. However, IBM has real technical support. You can call a 1-800 number and get a technician on the line. That's real technical support. Red Hat requires you to email them and schedule a call. 

Overall, I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux as a five out of 10. 

I don't see Red Hat Enterprise Linux's built-in security features as effectively simplifying risk reduction and compliance. We use AIX, but still, we face a lot of vulnerabilities from Red Hat that need frequent patching, often monthly. This frequent need for updates, along with the rapid changes in Red Hat Enterprise Linux releases, can be frustrating and lead to instability. In the banking industry, where we take vulnerabilities seriously, these frequent releases and lack of stability can be problematic. 

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux for our on-prem VM infrastructure. Recently, we got the OpenShift platform to help with containerization on-prem.

Moreover, containerization is one way we're trying to get rid of any legacy. We don't patch. We try to have a fresh build with the newer version of the patch. We try to use those Red Glue deployment strategies and remove whatever we find in misconfiguration or vulnerability instances rather than fixing them. We redeploy it.

In terms of improvement within the Linux environment, especially for a non-IT company like ours, where we have a limited number of Linux administrators and specialists in Linux hardening and security, Red Hat Enterprise Linux plays a significant role. 

It eases the burden by restricting the use of open-source Linux and preventing the development community from obtaining their own images. This is crucial for maintaining a secure supply chain and ensuring the lockdown of live Linux packages.

However, when it comes to security compliance, I have not been exposed to the Red Hat Enterprise Linux security; we got the advanced cluster security from OpenShift, which has some vulnerability tracking within the cluster. Within Red Hat Enterprise Linux, I have not experienced the security console yet.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has affected our systems and our security. It helps us achieve security standards. It's one of the hardening requirements so, it helps with that compliance requirement.

With standardization across the environment, we don't have to generate multiple artifacts for compliance, and having a single Linux platform management like Red Hat Enterprise Linux helps to satisfy auditors a little faster.

From a security perspective, the overall hardening of Red Hat Enterprise Linux is good. It has been effective in enhancing security.

Image management and hardening are essential, so we don't have to procure open-source Linux images that developers can get themselves. It adds a layer of security with signed images.

The knowledge base is pretty good.

From a cloud perspective, I'm looking for more integrations with native cloud services. For example, the ability to use native Azure Key Vault instead of Ansible Key Vault or Red Hat Key Vault. 

Additionally, integrating image services from Red Hat into native image repositories such as Azure, Google, or third-party image repositories like JFrog is crucial. The key focus is on integration. 

Red Hat should not become Microsoft and lock down functionalities within Red Hat. 

We have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for two years.

We have premium support, so it is pretty good.

Positive

We are a mix of some other cloud virtualization technologies. The overall cloud information will define how we look down the road.

With Linux management, the pros are that it makes management a little easier. Overall, it is just a single view of the images we deploy in the organization. 

The cons are that the integrations are a little tricky sometimes, and then we have to make exceptions to our policies. Better integration, more native service using more credentialless authentication, and authorization like using service principles or managing these over-store credentials would make it better.

Currently, the emphasis is on on-premises solutions.

Overall, I would rate the solution a seven out of ten because it needs more integrations.

In our organization, we use the solution as our internet banking platform.

Some of the solution's features include scalability, lower footprints, and the fact that licenses don't really cost us much. Also, the upgradeability is fantastic. With Windows, you can't upgrade to certain versions. I haven't found that issue with Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

Working at a bank, I can say that lack of scalability is a big no-no for us since we deal with people's money.

It would have been nice if we had the ability to do updates without rebooting. If we can update certain parts internally without having to remove them from the entire server, that would be fantastic since, else, there will be downtime, and we will need to reboot. We have to schedule downtime. If we can do so, we will patch it and continue running. Even though the downtime is minuscule, having as little as possible downtime could be great.

Speaking about the downtime caused due to the lack of the aforementioned feature, we reboot about 40 servers every time there's a patch, and they're not staged all at once. The whole process will take an hour or so.

I have been using the solution since I started using Red Hat Enterprise Linux version 7.

Regarding stability, it's good since we haven't had a major outage.

I rate the support an eight out of ten, considering the callback feature and rapid response compared with Windows, where you need to wait for a couple of hours to get support.

With Red Hat, the community is so robust. Most of the time, while waiting for a Red Hat engineer to call us back, the solution to the issue is already provided. This is because it's an open source platform. 

Positive

Previously, we used AIX. Now, we still use CentOS and Rocky for development.

Though the solution is deployed on a hybrid cloud, I would say that ninety-eight percent is on-premises, and two percent is on the cloud.

Also, I am running my workloads and applications on the cloud.

We transferred our license to the cloud because we were originally a VMware on-prem shop. We're transitioning some of our workloads to cloud licensing. Also, I have opted for a subscription. I don't know where we got it from because when I came to the company, it was already in place.

Comparing Red Hat Enterprise Linux to other operating systems, it is a nice solution, especially considering the support we get from Red Hat. Not a con, but on Windows, the GUI or navigation can be a little bit tricky.

By implementing the solution, my organization is trying to solve the agility issue. Using Red Hat Enterprise Linux, we are not tied to Windows patches. Windows patches break sometimes, and then the application goes down, which is a big issue. With Red Hat Enterprise Linux, we have that reliability and robustness.

I am very impressed with the solution's resiliency.

Regarding how easy or difficult it is for us to move workloads between the cloud and our data center using Red Hat Enterprise Linux, I have found it to be very easy.

Regarding portability, it is easy. I was speaking to someone over there who benefits from containers. I mentioned it to my manager, and we are going to have a discussion about it.

In terms of my assessment of the solution's built-in security features when it comes to simplifying your risk reduction and maintaining compliance, I feel it is good. We haven't ever had an issue ever with the solution.

As nothing is perfect, I rate the overall solution a nine out of ten.