Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Reviews

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.

I use Red Hat Enterprise Linux to manage pre-configured web servers, troubleshooting issues such as "524 errors" and missing configurations in EMV files. Furthermore, I constructed an on-premises Kubernetes cluster on Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9 and configured it for ELK.

The Red Hat Enterprise Linux knowledge base is excellent. When I encountered an error, they were able to quickly identify the issue and guide me through the necessary steps to resolve it.

The Red Hat Enterprise Linux Web Console functioned properly throughout the lab courses.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is excellent for commercial use and enterprise tools. It's best to use Red Hat for enterprises because it provides robust support available twenty-four by seven, which I have experienced.

To start working with Red Hat Linux was straightforward and user-friendly. I didn't encounter any complexities.

The most valuable feature of Red Hat Enterprise Linux is its comprehensive ecosystem. The detailed documentation eliminates the need to consult external resources, and the knowledgeable support team provides expert assistance with both technical issues and site navigation.

Improvement is needed for supporting Kubernetes clusters because it is less supported by Red Hat according to my experience. There are also some gaps in documentation which affect configuring Kubernetes clusters.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for four to six months.

I have not faced any downtime or stability issues with Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

I have not encountered any scalability issues with Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

The technical support is excellent. They promptly addressed my concerns regarding permission issues when I contacted them.

Positive

I used CentOS for non-enterprise purposes but switched to Red Hat for enterprise applications due to its superior support and stability. However, Ubuntu is generally preferred for Kubernetes deployments.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is nine out of ten.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux does not require maintenance.

Our mid-size organization has between 20 and 50 employees, including our DevOps team, who use Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

I recommend Red Hat Enterprise Linux due to its support and strategy.

I have used Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for most of my career. It is primarily used as the base operating system on which various applications run. Currently, I am attempting to transition away from RHEL due to changes in the organization following IBM's acquisition.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is still considered better than Microsoft's offerings due to its superior handling of virtualization and faster performance. Microsoft often incorporates parts of RHEL's code, such as the networking stack, into its own products. The LEAP functionality for upgrades between versions is well-written and satisfactory.

RHEL has experienced a change in approach after being acquired by IBM, and the company has shifted away from open-source principles. The knowledge base is now outdated and lacks documentation for features in RHEL 9, relying instead on old documentation from RHEL 7. The introduction of unstable and undocumented products also detracts from the product's reliability.

I have used RHEL since it existed, so since 1991 or 1992.

RHEL has become less reliable due to undocumented updates and the release of unstable packages, which detracts from the product's stability.

Within the same vendor, moving workloads is easy. However, switching between vendors requires a significant migration effort.

The quality of Red Hat's support has declined in the past five to six years after outsourcing support to India. Complex issues are difficult to resolve due to communication challenges.

Negative

I have not switched from RHEL, but I am exploring alternatives such as Rocky Linux and Debian, which offer similar features without the high costs.

Setting up RHEL is quite straightforward, especially for someone familiar with it. The software asks the necessary questions for configuration, and the documentation generally explains these well.

The return on investment with RHEL is challenging to calculate but involves paying more upfront compared to Microsoft solutions for better reliability and stability, avoiding potential downtime costs.

The setup and licensing costs for RHEL are high, especially concerning support and associated applications. Red Hat charges high prices for support solutions like Ansible Tower, which can deter companies from using their products.

Other solutions evaluated include Ubuntu, Rocky Linux, and Debian. These alternatives offer similar functionality at a lower cost, especially concerning support.

Overall, I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a seven out of ten. People are now turning to other Linux distributions due to RHEL's declining quality and high costs. I suggest caution when considering Red Hat due to the divergence from its original open-source model.

Our primary use case for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is hosting enterprise applications that rely heavily on databases and middleware technologies. 

The platform supports both application hosting and large-scale data collection, enabling us to manage and process significant volumes of data efficiently. RHEL provides the stability and reliability required for running these critical workloads in our environment.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has significantly improved our organization by providing a stable, secure, and standardized operating environment for our applications. 

Its reliability has reduced downtime and improved performance consistency across workloads. 

The strong security features and regular patching process have enhanced our compliance posture and reduced operational risk. 

In addition, the scalability of RHEL allows us to support growing data collection and application hosting needs without major infrastructure challenges. 

Overall, RHEL has helped streamline system management, improve efficiency, and provide a solid foundation for our critical business operations.

The most valuable features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for us are its robust security capabilities, stability, and enterprise-grade support. These features ensure that our production environment remains secure and reliable, which directly reduces operational risks. 

I have been involved in several Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) upgrades and migrations, both on-premises and in the cloud. In my experience, RHEL’s built-in security features greatly simplify risk reduction and compliance management. Our team works closely with the security group on daily scans and vulnerability reports, and RHEL enables us to address findings quickly by streamlining patching and updates. This process has proven reliable, allowing us to remediate vulnerabilities and apply fixes in a timely manner.

RHEL has also helped us mitigate downtime and reduce risks during system changes. While I personally prefer replacing production systems with thoroughly tested builds in lower environments rather than in-place upgrades, RHEL provides the flexibility and stability needed to support both approaches.

One of the key differences compared to other platforms is the reliance on command-line operations. While Windows environments tend to emphasize GUI-based management, RHEL encourages working directly in the CLI. This has been a positive shift for our team, as we continue to expand skills across both Linux commands and PowerShell.

RHEL consistently provides the stability, support, and knowledge base required to keep mission-critical systems running smoothly. With excellent vendor support and strong documentation, it fully meets our enterprise needs.

Additionally, RHEL has addressed key pain points related to security and usability, making it one of the strongest platforms from a service-level perspective. We have also recommended RHEL to clients, particularly in cases where migrations from CentOS are required, as it provides a trusted and stable foundation for critical workloads.

From a hands-on experience perspective, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) could be improved in terms of user experience and ease of adoption, especially for teams that are still building their knowledge of the platform. Enhanced usability tools, more intuitive configuration options, and improved documentation or guided workflows would help reduce the learning curve.

For future releases, additional features such as built-in automation templates, more advanced monitoring dashboards, and tighter integration with hybrid cloud environments would further increase productivity and make system management more efficient.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for approximately two years. Our adoption began with multiple environments, and it has since become the standard platform for our current operations.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is extremely stable and well-suited for production workloads. We have run hundreds of instances across a wide range of applications, and the operating system consistently delivers reliable performance with minimal downtime. Its predictable update and patching process, combined with strong vendor support, ensures that our critical systems remain secure and available. 

Overall, RHEL provides the stability we need to confidently support mission-critical operations.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales very effectively across both on-premises and cloud environments. We run hundreds of instances supporting diverse applications, and the platform has consistently handled growth without major performance issues. 

Its flexibility in supporting small workloads as well as large, mission-critical deployments makes it a reliable choice for enterprise scalability.

Our experience with Red Hat customer service and support has been excellent. Support teams are responsive, knowledgeable, and provide clear guidance for troubleshooting and resolving issues.

The initial setup of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) was moderately complex due to the need to configure multiple services, integrate with existing databases and middleware, and ensure security compliance from the start. However, the clear documentation, enterprise support, and guided best practices provided by Red Hat made the process manageable. 

Once the initial environment was established, ongoing configuration and scaling have been straightforward, allowing us to reliably deploy and manage production workloads.

The implementation of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) was carried out by our in-house team. Our staff handled the installation, configuration, and integration with existing systems, leveraging Red Hat’s documentation and support resources.

The ROI of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is reflected in reduced downtime, improved system security, and streamlined operations. By providing a stable, supported platform, RHEL minimizes operational risks and resource overhead while enabling faster deployments and easier maintenance.

The subscription model is cost-effective, as it provides enterprise licensing and also includes access to Red Hat support and training resources. This combination has improved our team’s knowledge of RHEL features and enabled us to adopt new capabilities with confidence.

I would confidently rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a ten out of ten for its reliability, security, and enterprise support.

I used it previously in environments for APIs, Apache Tomcat, and JBoss. 

The most valuable aspect of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is its reliability. The support is very good. 

The knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is excellent. It is very easy to search for solutions to problems and apply new features. 

The main concern is the price. 

I used Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for five years recently, and about ten to twelve years overall. The last time I used it was last year.

It's reliable. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) did not help much with our uptime or security.

The support with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is good, and it is similar to Oracle. 

Positive

In the bank, we use Oracle Linux, but previously we used CentOS.

It was easy to manage in terms of provisioning and patching. We used other products to update the systems, though I don't remember the name. I had other teams to manage the environment. I was satisfied with the management process and the management experience.

It's expensive.

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a ten out of ten. I would recommend it to others. It is very stable.

My main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) include working with applications such as Middleware and databases to provide services to different technologies, including Middleware, databases, and applications such as SAP, while managing these in my company.

The innovation benefits my company by providing good support through Insights, which offers comprehensive vulnerability scanning.

What I appreciate the most about Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the innovation; it constantly drives the need to go faster. 

The TAM support is excellent with weekly meetings where the representative has extensive knowledge, allowing us to resolve all questions. 

The software consistently releases new versions with features and ensures stability compared to other systems, such as Ubuntu.

We have reduced downtime issues from patching by 30% over the past year, thanks to our TAM who provided a testing site where we can check patching in our test environment first, allowing us to find any issues before they reach production and thereby minimizing impact.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps me solve pain points due to their good support team, which usually has quick access to information, resulting in minimal downtime when problems arise. You only need to call, and they can provide a solution, often found in the Knowledge Base on the internet and web page.

I am not sure how Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) can be improved.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for 20 years.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales effectively with the growing needs of my company due to our global contract, which allows for more VMs than we initially anticipated, ensuring we receive the necessary licenses.

My experience with Red Hat's technical support and customer service is positive; they have good support, always trying to find solutions and understanding my requirements, which is important for me.

Positive

In the past, we considered other Linux OS solutions, specifically demoing with Canonical, however, it was not suitable for us.

I find the deployment of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) easy. We automate everything in one pipeline, so you only need to execute that pipeline and in a few minutes, you have your new server.

From my point of view, the biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the meantime to repair issues; with good support, our downtime is practically nothing, which is a significant return for us.

The innovation benefits my company by providing good support through Insights, which offers a good scan of vulnerabilities, and the TAM support is excellent with weekly meetings where the representative has extensive knowledge, allowing us to resolve all questions. 

I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) eight out of ten.

To achieve a perfect score, we need more focus on version management.

My main use cases are related to Ansible, mostly involving software automation, software installation automation, and data collection.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has less overhead compared to other operating systems for my company. The command line interface is much easier to use—there's not as much navigating around screens. The command line interface is much easier to instruct and manage in that sense.

There's less overhead than using Microsoft products in general, as is the case with the Linux operating systems. I enjoy the command line interfaces a lot more than the UI. For me, that's a plus, but it's also nice to have the GUI interface on top of that if I need to.

The seamless integration with Ansible is always a plus. I can just get it running. Podman, as well, is valuable. Having it just there and ready to use is such a quality of life increase. I don't have to mess around with dependencies. 

It's been good and reliable. I haven't dealt with it much, but I would say Podman and containerization could use a little more work, although I don't know exactly how that would proceed. 

The UI could use a little bit of work. The graphical interface could be improved. I'm not too big of a fan of it right now, but some of that can be customized. Right out of the box, I'm not the biggest fan of how it looks, but that's personal.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for about two years now. I've been dabbling in it on and off. I started with Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 and went all the way up to Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9 most recently.

It's very reliable. It's fairly robust. I haven't had many issues with it.

I haven't had any issues with customer service and technical support for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). Their customer service has been great.

Positive

It's seamless. When it comes to managing my Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems, I most often do manual patching, and it's not any more challenging than any other system I've dealt with, so it's standard in that sense. 

For me, the biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is ease of use and quality of life.

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

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) to run applications and databases related to the European Parliament's business. For example, we use SAP for financial operations. It's not my domain, but I know the leadership plans to implement AI workloads. We translate every document into 27 languages manually, but we plan to use AI and machine language translation. 

Using a Red Hat Enterprise Linux Cluster in the SAP environments gives us high availability and disaster recovery, so our data is safe. I think it's a geo-cluster for the whole SAP environment. Whenever something happens, it almost automatically shifts to the other.

The support for OpenShift and CoreOS is valuable, as we frequently use support services and rely heavily on Red Hat support for assistance.

When we started using Red Hat Enterprise Linux, it was a struggle to install CoreOS because we were used to using a Satellite server with Red Hat. The people in charge of setting up OpenShift and installing Red Hat Enterprise Linux on the nodes had a hard time. I don't know why, but I think it was because the OpenShift cluster included VMs and bare metal machines.

I joined the European Parliament in 2012, and we have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for 12 years. 

We do not have any issues with its performance. The system functions well.

Scaling the operating system is transparent. We work with VMware, so whenever there is a need for more RAM and memory, the process is seamless to the customer.

I rate Red Hat support eight out of 10. Customer service and support are excellent. Support is available depending on the priority and the support package. I am happy with the service. However, navigating through documentation can be challenging.

Positive

We started with Mini Solaris and gradually migrated to Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

Initially, setting up OpenShift and the installation was somewhat complicated, especially when dealing with bare metal machines.

As a nonprofit business, we do not focus on return on investment in monetary terms. However, a big community makes it easy to gather opinions and help from outside sources, which is a return on investment.

We compared Red Hat Enterprise Linux and SUSE. While SUSE is generally the preferred Linux distro for SAP, we chose Red Hat Enterprise Linux because we had more in-house knowledge of the platform and better support. 

I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux eight out of 10. I used to be an AIX system admin, and I still prefer that operating system. I would recommend considering Red Hat's benefits, such as support. I used to work in IBM support, and Red Hat has a significant advantage in this realm. Also, many corporations merge firms and combine workforces, and RHEL can adapt to these changes.