Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Reviews

Our main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are for our centralized O&M platform, while on the edge we use CoreOS.

My company benefits from RHEL features by avoiding drifts in our solution. If it gets out of engineering, we don't exactly know if the solution is going to drift if someone implemented manual configuration.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps me solve pain points such as security, upgrades, patching, and all that is related to long-term support. 

The feature I appreciate the most in the newest version is the image mode and the upgrade in an immutable way. 

Security requirements are a consideration when choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). It's the platform that really allows for longer-term support in terms of security patches, which is also one of the requirements from our customers; this is why we are on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for those services. 

When it comes to managing my Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems for provisioning and patching, I start from zero. We provide a golden image scenario, and we install based on that golden image while customizing the product through our software itself, providing new bundles and everything around there. Patching is very similar; we provide additional packages and everything around the upgrades, and I'm looking forward to the image mode so that we can provide steps and immutable AB upgrades.

They should try to converge all the different product lines, in both Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and CoreOS and OCP based on CoreOS, to get to a single point where it would be easier to move from one to the other. 

Sometimes we build products for one specific application or product, and it would be beneficial to move to CoreOS due to further requirements, however, it's not always straightforward. All the different teams working on the different Red Hat products are pretty much self-contained, which is understandable, but if there were more of a common baseline, it would be much easier to consider moving from one license to another, from one product to another.

In the company, I've been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) directly for three years. Before then, we have been partners and have also been using CentOS and Fedora for a longer time, approximately ten years.

The stability and reliability of the platform are top class.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales pretty transparently with the growing needs of my company. It scales effectively when we need to add additional resources or knowledge, and it's straightforward for people to gain those and for our structure to implement even more servers around these others. Both technically and knowledge-wise, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales effectively.

The customer service and technical support are excellent, especially through the partner program. It's easier to get support over specific issues, and I have noticed when we had bigger issues that could have prevented market problems, there was a good escalation path towards the right people to get answers.

I have considered other solutions rather than Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

When we were considering getting out of CentOS, we were evaluating everything, including other open solutions such as Rocky, as cutting-edge solutions such as Fedora. 

I personally pushed for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) since it was the best solution for us at that specific moment. I understand there are other solutions such as SUSE and Ubuntu that are all in the same market, however, with different approaches. I prefer the Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) approach.

The deployment is generally very easy.

The biggest return on investment while using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) from my technical point of view is the continuous patching and security fixes that are constantly being added and the support around it. If we are having an issue, we can directly reach the right people for support.

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as a product today at a solid eight out of ten, considering improvements already in place for the roadmap. With the features coming in RHEL 10, I could provide it an overall nine out of ten.

My experience is primarily on-premises. I work in the financial and banking area, which has about 2,000 VMs.

The benefits are reliability, stability, and good support.

I find Red Hat Enterprise Linux stable. 

The knowledge base offered by Red Hat is good. They also have good support for the business. The web console has been acceptable, but we don't really use those tools.

I don't find Red Hat Enterprise Linux's security features to be good. They have many vulnerabilities that haven't been fixed for many years. They have numerous vulnerabilities that remain unresolved. Just some security details could be fixed. They have many vulnerabilities left over from previous years, with not enough being fixed, and their commitment is only to fix the critical and important ones. For moderate and low severity issues, they don't have the commitment. The security part is weak. Based on all scan reports, they have many vulnerabilities that can't be fixed adequately. 

We will be involved with some Red Hat Enterprise Linux upgrades or migrations to other cloud platforms. It's not straightforward in my opinion; we have to create an image from Red Hat Virtualization Manager and convert the image to a format that can be recognized by other platforms, such as Microsoft Azure. We have to convert the image and then import it to the Azure cloud. It's not easy, as it requires manual work. There's no tool available for this process.

I have three years of experience with Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

The uptime is excellent as it's automated and stable. I would say the uptime is very good.

Overall, their support is good. I would rate their technical support an eight out of ten.

Positive

We didn't use any other Linux systems before. Initially, we used other operating systems such as AIX and Solaris, but Red Hat Enterprise Linux was the first Linux we introduced.

We also have SUSE Linux for one specific product.

When it comes to provisioning and patching, we use the satellite. It's acceptable when patching. I am satisfied with the provisioning and patching process as it's easy to manage. We don't use Insight, and I don't know about it. We don't use the Linux image builder or System Roles; we use our own Ansible Playbook to build a system.

We have all the automation set up for server provisioning and patching. We have the web console, but we don't really use its tools. We use our own Ansible Playbook, which allows us to manage and customize. We have many customizations. All the agents are installed for compliance, IP setup, file system creation - everything is automated.

When we create a VM, it only takes running the playbook and clicking a button. It takes about two minutes of work, and the automation handles the rest. In about two hours, the VM is up and running. If we use their tools, there are many limitations for customization, and we can only build an OS, but for the rest, we still have to run the automation. That's why we don't use those tools.

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux a six out of ten.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) serves as the operating system for virtual machines that our applications run on. I use RHEL as an operating system, and overall it is a quality product.

I use Satellite in RHEL to be able to download the packages inside our network because it is a closed environment.

I have tried using the Red Hat Enterprise Linux Image Builder or system roles.

RHEL plays a role in my company's implementation of the Zero Trust model for Application and Workloads.

We do use Ansible, but not much.

We went from RHEL 7 to RHEL 8, and now I am looking to go to RHEL 10.

RHEL helps solve our pain points by providing the benefit of having the Enterprise edition so we can get support when we need it. The support is probably the biggest thing, being able to get the repos and download the latest packages and security.

Satellite in RHEL is a big benefit in navigating our security risks.

I have a dedicated team that supports our account with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). I email them questions, and they get me support really quickly.

The availability of training for people to find information and work through and solve problems with their online documentation is valuable.

I would like to see improvements in RHEL for closed environments, as it is not straightforward to go from RHEL 8 to RHEL 10 without a seamless upgrade.

I have been using RHEL for the last 20 years.

I have not experienced any downtime or crashes with the stability and reliability of the platform.

Scalability is smooth.

I have a dedicated team that supports our account with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). I email them questions, and they get me support really quickly.

Prior to adopting RHEL, we were using proprietary solutions from vendors that addressed similar needs.

The deployment experience with RHEL is straightforward.

We have not used RHEL to do AI workloads as we are just starting that.

The biggest return on investment when using RHEL is the availability of training for people to find information and work through and solve problems with their online documentation.

The pricing for RHEL is fine. I get an enterprise discount, so our pricing is quite good.

I did not consider switching to another solution.

My experience with the upgrade was seamless with no issues.

It is straightforward to start up a new VM within minutes.

Somebody else manages that.

We use some playbooks. We do not really use Ansible too much, but there is a lot of information available.

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a 10 overall. There is a cost factor to it, but you get what you pay for. I would recommend Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) over a lot of other open-source products. I would rate the overall experience a 10.

My main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are mostly development at first, and then after that, it's actually running full production loads on it.

One of the nice pain points that Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) addresses compared to other distributions is the polished applications within it. 

Their repository tends to be more foolproof. The SELinux feature in RHEL is pretty strong. 

SELinux is not something that I was ever using before in the open source community, and it was very confusing at first; however, after a while, it made sense why that layer exists. The SELinux feature and other features of RHEL benefit my company by allowing us to lock in the server more traditionally than we would be able to with special permissions. 

It's about getting very granular versus just putting an umbrella on some things, and security-wise, it's very effective.

The security features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), including SELinux and its features, make it easier to be aware of compromises.

The Insights tool is very good at providing CVEs to alert us about vulnerabilities quickly. I can't quantify the impact in percentage terms since I haven't faced specific situations. However, the outlook compared to other distributions looks good.

To improve Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), it would be helpful to have a step-by-step process to make setup easier. Cockpit needs more features to manage complex tasks such as RAID configurations, as most of that is reserved for the command line.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for about a year and a half.

I find Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) to be super stable and super reliable.

I have not scaled Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) outside of using templates and cloning features. I haven't scaled it out with OpenShift yet; it's something I want to explore, as I now understand what tools OpenShift can offer to scale out RHEL machines effectively.

My experience with customer service and technical support for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is mixed. On a professional level, they are very responsive, which is part of the contract, but on a personal level, responses can take forever, and I often get pointed to community posts.

Positive

We did not consider any other OS solutions while using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), although there have been discussions about using Ubuntu. I don't think it will go that way because we are very satisfied with what RHEL offers overall.

The biggest return on investment with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is that every time I put an application or tool in there, it's going to work. I don't have to second-guess it or go back; I know it will be a polished application.

Regarding the experience with pricing, setup costs, and licensing for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I would say it's beyond my pay grade. That said, it's not cheap at all. While it could always be cheaper, they provide substantial value for the money, and they consistently introduce new features that add value.

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

It's a great OS that has grown on me over time, and the more I use it, the more I understand its value and why it costs what it does.

My main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) today include developing applications and managing server environments efficiently. I use Red Hat Satellite and Red Hat Lightspeed overall, which streamline our operations significantly.

RHEL helps me solve various pain points, such as ensuring system stability and security across our infrastructure. I particularly appreciate the advanced security features of RHEL the most, as they enhance our overall protection.

RHEL plays a crucial role in my company's implementation of the zero trust model by ensuring secure identity and authentication measures. Using Ansible Automation Platform has been a smooth experience overall, enabling better automation in our workflows.

I use features in RHEL such as identity management and Satellite, which help my company maintain compliance and security. The stability and scalability of the platform are commendable, ensuring our systems can handle growth efficiently.

Regarding improvements, I think RHEL could benefit from better user interface enhancements for future releases.

I have been working in my current field for several years now and have gained valuable experience during this time.

RHEL helps mitigate downtime and lower risks thanks to its robust design.

On a scale of one to ten, I would rate the customer service and technical support as an eight, as they are responsive, but there is always room for improvement.

I would describe the deployment process of RHEL as mostly straightforward, although some challenges may arise.

From my perspective, I have seen a return on investment using RHEL, primarily through improved efficiency and system reliability.

My company is still working on artificial intelligence workloads, as we are in the early stages of exploring this technology. I would not say that RHEL has directly helped those customers yet, as we are still gathering data on effectiveness.

Regarding the knowledge base offered by RHEL, I find it very useful and assess it highly due to its comprehensive information. I do not specifically handle insights on pricing, setup costs, or licensing, as that is managed by another department in my company.

On a scale of one to ten, I would rate RHEL overall as a nine. I advise other companies to thoroughly assess their needs before implementation.

I work with both the cloud version and the on-premises version of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). I have worked with Red Hat Cloud and Red Hat Enterprise on-premises.

For the cloud-based products, the main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) include deploying websites and complex software for customers, such as SaaS software on the cloud, specifically Red Hat Cloud.

When choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in the cloud, security requirements were not a consideration for me because Red Hat provides us with the SLA regarding security compliance. I am more than satisfied to use Red Hat Cloud for security purposes, while I manage some other forms of security, such as my own keys and access in Red Hat Linux systems.

I really appreciate the zero trust networking that Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has, and it also provides the WAF, along with certified images from Red Hat. For my current work on containers, Red Hat provides certified images that minimize vulnerabilities of CVEs, improving security significantly.

Although I do not have much knowledge about virtualization technology, I can say that for the hybrid cloud on OpenShift with the operators provided by Red Hat, the ready-to-use operators take care of underlying security, patching, and updates, so I do not have to handle monitoring or security myself.

Security is highlighted as an advantage across various aspects, such as the zero trust networking feature and the availability of certified images, which are instrumental in minimizing vulnerabilities and enhancing security.

While there are good aspects, I would appreciate improvements in the command-line interface (CLI). Red Hat could do more on the CLI side instead of focusing so much on UI development.

I have been working with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for around five years.

Regarding stability, I have not experienced performance issues, crashes, or downtimes with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL); any problems usually arise from my applications, not from the Linux system.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is definitely scalable.

Whether I have expanded the usage of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) depends on the business requirements, as RHEL comes with a cost that my company can afford because IBM owns Red Hat, so everything scales on RHEL.

Regarding my experience with Red Hat's technical support team, I find that they come very quickly with answers. However, sometimes the first person who responds might be a technical support agent without in-depth knowledge, so for more complex issues, a specialized engineer comes to the rescue, depending on the criticality of the subject, especially if it is production or a staging environment. They answer according to the SLA and support terms.

Positive

Determining whether Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is cost-effective depends entirely on the business. If your business faces compromises leading to significant losses, then investing in Red Hat Enterprise is truly necessary. However, if your business is small or medium-sized, you can manage with the free versions.

Regarding the deployment aspect, my experience has been straightforward because it is all automated with Ansible; all I need to do is provide an IP address, and it takes care of all the variables and boots up automatically.

Regarding the pricing, setup costs, and licensing costs of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I have heard that the licensing cost is significant compared to free alternatives such as CentOS or AlmaLinux, which are managed by Red Hat. I previously used CentOS, which is free, but I had to manage everything, including security, patching, reboots, and storage.

The key differences between Red Hat and other Linux technologies I have used include the advantages of excellent technical support, good documentation, and a large community for problem-solving. A disadvantage is that it is not open source, meaning limited flexibility, and the high cost associated with Red Hat compared to others.

I would advise other organizations considering Red Hat to start using it as their applications grow larger, rather than waiting for their business to become huge, as delays can lead to complications.

Currently, I am working on bare-metal services where I install Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). Using AWS for Red Hat is indeed a good option, as you can get the image directly from AWS with a subscription cost per hour for Red Hat licensing.

Red Hat helps keep applications operational because it provides built-in monitoring tools that offer a good overview of all running services, including built-in agents that come with the Red Hat subscription to identify potential breakouts. Regarding reducing risks, Red Hat also provides secure images that indicate the latest security patches available worldwide.

The knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is excellent; the documentation is fantastic and is supported by a large community that answers questions effectively.

When comparing the business value of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) to other Linux distributions, I find that RHEL is more stringent with its security, requiring users to be careful not to trespass, whereas other Linux systems do not enforce such strict security measures, and users must manage security themselves.

On a scale of one to ten, I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) overall as a product and solution at eight, possibly eight and a half.

My main use case for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is as the operating system for all of our applications. I'm our Ansible SME, so we install on top of that and then use that application to manage the RHEL for the enterprise.

The features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that I most appreciate include the easy package management and the straightforward upgrades. The stability and support are also impressive.

The benefit that my company sees from these features is significant. In my particular applications, it's not allowed to be down for more than five minutes consecutively, so it's helping me meet my requirement.

When considering how Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) can be improved, I would say for the enterprise, having easier hooks for these air-gapped lab environments would be beneficial. The reason why these lab environments are air-gapped is we want to test new things, and we can't have it interact with the rest of our network until it's fully vetted. That's why we have these labs to fully vet those types of things. It's normally a hassle to get RHEL up in those environments until we work out the right treatment.

The improvement would be if there's an easy way to, through that air-gapped environment, entitle the RHEL images.

In terms of assessing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)'s built-in security features, I find that out of the box, we are able to manage golden images and that keeps us in compliance.

It is very easy to manage.

I haven't had experience with customer service and technical support for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) items, but I have on the Ansible side.

The portal is excellent. They integrated OpenShift AI, so sometimes when I'm filling out the ticket, it already has the solution there and I end up not opening the ticket. When I do have to open the ticket, I get a good response. That's on the Ansible side, but I'm sure it's the same on RHEL if I ran into something.

We have considered different solutions, not so much Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) itself. Our company started with mainframe way back and has been long time RHEL customers.

We have looked at different container solutions and things in the Red Hat ecosystem, and Red Hat came ahead in those.

From my point of view, the return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is definitely significant.

If we were not able to meet our regulatory impact, we would not be able to do business. It is table stakes.

The advice I would give to other companies that are considering Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) right now is to do a comparison and get feedback from their engineers.

They will see that this is a much more stable platform with a lot of support. I would rate RHEL a 10 out of 10 because it's how we do business.

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for applications. Our use case involves its very easy deployment and usability, along with substantial support from the community and open source resources. We are looking forward to using much more OpenShift applications and Red Hat Open as well. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps me solve pain points related to scalability, enabling us to deploy several servers in one.

The AI and automation features such as Ansible and Ansible Tower stand out to me. We build streams in our automation features, using playbooks in Ansible for patching the application servers in a timely manner. We are also using automations for fault detections and fixing configurations, as well as building pipelines to deploy new features such as Windows 2019.

The open source environment has positively impacted our organization due to the package feature with the satellite, allowing us to download open source codes, which has been very flexible, resulting in enormous savings. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has mitigated downtimes and lowered risks in our organization, especially with the latest features.

I would like to see smoother integration with the AI components that would use other Red Hat products such as OpenShift and Ansible in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). I think the support should be more concerned about the new standards of technology. Customer support could be a little bit better, but it is definitely very good overall.

I have been working for 26 years in the application management team.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is definitely stable, and we are very happy about it.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)'s scalability is very well configured and very straightforward.

Although my team is not responsible for patching and maintaining Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems, I hear from my colleagues that they are very satisfied with the features, stating that it is easy to maintain the Linux environment and flexible. I have a Red Hat account and look on the internet for knowledge bases.

Since I am not responsible for managing the Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) hardware in our environment, I cannot give a detailed explanation of how I access the knowledge base. However, I research on the internet and with my account, I try to go into labs and find the appropriate knowledge base.

We used a different solution primarily for automation, which was the main reason for our switch.

We have saved costs, but I cannot provide specific metrics at this time.

Since we are a big bank, the pricing, setup cost, and licensing were through an end-user master agreement, which made us really happy because it was beneficial for both sides.

We had some options, but we were very enthusiastic about Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), so we chose it.

We navigate our security risks using features such as identity management, which we fall in love with more every day because it is really key to organizing security. The most important security feature for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that stands out to me includes the accessible accounts groups.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is part of an open-source community, so I advise others to develop their own solutions within the environment and community while still being supported and free of enhancements. I would rate this product a 9 out of 10.