Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Reviews

I don't directly use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). I advise our clients to select this kind of technology for their hybrid cloud requirements.

When looking at hybrid cloud, the entire ecosystem is very complex; public cloud, private cloud, everything comes together and becomes very difficult to manage. The best use case I can see when Linux systems are involved is to use one common platform to manage all the infrastructure and the platforms on top of that. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) would be the best choice for that particular use case.

The ability to manage complex environments, especially when it comes to hybrid cloud, helps us significantly, along with the Linux environments which are natively in-built into Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). The reduction in complexity, ease of use, and managing the entire hybrid cloud landscape was easier with this software. Service mesh and Kubernetes support contribute significantly, allowing better handling of complex cloud-native applications efficiently.

We use third-party platforms to manage the risks and put the security guardrails in place, and Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has its own native security guardrails as well, so we use both.

Indirectly, we help other enterprises implement this solution, and I can tell how other enterprises are benefiting. They reduce complexity and achieve faster time to market as they improve efficiency and use these tools to improve their development process. This helps them move faster and release their software as soon as possible.

We are trying to move most of our workloads to public cloud environments; however, not everything will go to the public cloud. We are trying to find a balance between on-premise, private cloud, and public cloud. Currently, the split is 50% on public cloud, 40% on private, and 10% on on-premise.

Since we started recommending and our clients started using it, I can see the cost-to-performance ratio go up by over 50%.

I would suggest focusing more on the cloud-native aspect. Kubernetes and microservices are built in natively; however, it would help to bring the service mesh and service mesh handling. That would be one of the improvement areas.

Most importantly, since we deal with mostly Fortune 500 clients who are global in nature, as the data is siloed from multiple sources and has to be pulled in, it's very important that the data is secure and all the security guardrails are in place.

Since Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 10 was recently launched, there were some bugs that needed to be fixed and performance issues. If those are cleared, then it would be a good fit for everyone.

There has not been much downtime with the system.

The scalability is above average. It has scaled up and created its portfolio in line with market demands.

The customer service was good. 

We did not use any previous solutions.

Deployment is fairly easy. The support that is required is appropriate for both full-fledged full stack developers and starting developers. The support overall is good.

We implement mostly through service integrators who help to do the groundwork.

Since IBM's acquisition, we thought there might be some changes, yet surprisingly, it was kept aside. IBM was kind enough to let them operate on their own, which is a plus sign. The stability has been good, and we have no complaints.

The pricing was good and did not affect much of the decision-making. It was appropriate, though I would suggest the team improve upon offering higher discounts on bulk purchases.

There are not many options available besides Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

I am a principal catalyst who works with AWS, Azure, Google Cloud, the hyperscalers, public cloud, and private cloud, both on the client side and on-premise.

The ability to manage complex environments, especially regarding hybrid cloud, helps us significantly, along with the Linux environments which are natively in-built into Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

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

In my particular case, we have some development and testing environments that we run on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), and we currently produce specific software for financial entities that is developed and certified for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), with clients running it in production and us delivering support to those clients.

Stability and performance are what I appreciate the most about it. 

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) makes it easier to manage hybrid environments because it is widely compatible with all kinds of platforms and protocols, allowing integration with various systems. It is very convenient for me since I have both on-premises installations and cloud installations. A few years ago, we transitioned several machines from baremetal systems to the cloud, and the process was very smooth. One of the advantages of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is that it operates consistently across different platforms, meaning you don’t have to change your processes or tools when working with various environments. This reliability is particularly beneficial for my operations.

One improvement could be more radical removal or disabling of obsolete, non-secure features, specifically regarding hardening the system. While I'm not sure if this is different on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 10, my team has installed the first one today.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for 10 years now, and I have been working with Red Hat as an older brand for about 25 years.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is very stable, and I don't recall the last time we had an issue that was not caused by a user.

The scalability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is very good because it allows changes to be introduced on the fly without having to reboot machines, and it is very stable. We have reached a maturity level in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that is very efficient, giving us a lot of confidence in the product.

I haven't contacted technical support or customer support regarding Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in the last few years.

Neutral

While not exactly comparable, we also work with AIX from IBM as another platform, which is currently provided by the same group because IBM owns Red Hat. I have worked in previous years with other Linux distributions, such as Debian, Ubuntu, and Slackware, although I haven't worked with them for a while.

I have a very strong empathy for open-source systems, and Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) runs on an open-source kernel, which I appreciate because it allows for innovation and development of the system itself based on collaboration from different inputs. AIX is more closed with its own benefits, and Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) runs on more platforms, while AIX is IBM-based.

Deploying Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is easy. It isn't a complex process right now, and there is a lot of documentation and information available to support them during that process.

The patching process is currently stable and very efficient, with frequent and scheduled releases that allow us to plan how we roll them out on our side. We have a scheduled patching process every month, even if there isn't anything to do. There are usually updates available, and we also have monitoring features that ensure the system is healthy and working properly, so we don't require live monitoring by a user, just some occasional cleanup in terms of logs and environment since it's mainly a development and test setup.

When you have your own systems on-premises, defining a lifecycle means needing to replace hardware, storage, and acquire equipment beforehand, whereas in the cloud, you don't have to do that because you pay as you use. This makes it easier to acquire new VMs on the cloud and install new images, moving from old machines to new ones without needing to get rid of old physical machines, thus making the cloud more flexible in the lifecycle perspective.

The business value of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) compared to other Linux distributions lies in the full set of systems and services it offers. While I haven't used the service support in recent years due to having a mature team that can solve problems, the support from Red Hat gives us great confidence in the software's quality, patching, and continuous development.

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a 9 out of 10.

My main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are on the infrastructure side, including patching, building, engineering, administration, and a little bit of everything.

The feature I appreciate the most about Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is its installation, which includes numerous capabilities. The installation process, especially when automating tasks, provides great satisfaction when it works. These features benefit my company because they enable tasks to be completed quickly.

I cannot identify specific improvements needed for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) at this time. We are currently using version 9.6, and it is performing satisfactorily. I would need to work with it daily to provide specific feedback. However, the documentation could be more user-friendly and comprehensive. Instead of simply stating procedures, it should provide more detailed explanations through multiple layers of implementation. The documentation could be simplified for beginners who are unfamiliar with the system. In our organization, we write our own documentation to address these needs.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) along with CentOS throughout this period.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps me address vulnerabilities, particularly high CVEs with scores of 10 and nine. The build-out capabilities are beneficial, and Ansible integration works effectively with RHEL.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales very effectively to meet my company's needs.

The customer service and technical support are good, though they have declined in quality compared to previous standards. Currently, support often responds by sending PDF documentation, and scheduling direct calls can be challenging.

Security requirements were a key consideration in choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) due to its ease of use, robust security features, and comprehensive experience and support. Support availability was particularly important among these factors.

From my perspective, the biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has been its excellent performance and issue resolution capabilities.

I am not considering alternative solutions to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) at this time due to our current three-year contract commitment.

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a 9 out of 10 and advise other companies considering RHEL to proceed with implementation. They should complete their customer assessment and work with Red Hat representatives. The solution is highly recommended, despite minor support-related concerns.

I was working on Azure cloud migrations using Azure Discovery tool and AWS Endeavor tool. 

I worked with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Azure discovery migration tool. I have worked on-premises for 16 years and on the cloud for four years.

I like that there is no downtime during operations. We work to mitigate downtime, but it typically ranges from two to three hours for upgrades and up to four hours for migration work.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) now uses satellite servers, though we are not getting many materials or awareness about that aspect. Containers have also been implemented in Red Hat Enterprise Linux, but we need more materials and documentation for these features, based on my work experience. 

I have used Red Hat Enterprise Linux in hybrid environments including physical, virtual, and cloud deployments.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is now integrated with RAN engineering, supporting telecom applications. Features such as Ansible and container applications come built-in since RHEL 8.

I find information through seminar websites and seminar links. With satellite servers, I receive links through which I share and gain knowledge, including online resources, PDF materials, and Udemy courses.

For telecom products and technical platforms that support RAN engineering, we expect more features to be added to satellite, as it is currently quite complicated.

I have been working with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for 16 to 17 years. The upgrades and materials have been consistently good.

Initial container deployment is difficult because the application matters more than the Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) server.

I would rate the scalability at eight out of ten.

Technical support from Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has been very good.

Positive

The implementation took approximately six months because it was a RAN application.

Using the framework, I can upgrade directly from 7.9 to 8.1. I have completed upgrades for approximately 2,000 servers using Leap.

I perform server migrations, including physical to physical and physical to virtual transfers. I work on application upgrades and Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) server upgrades. 

I rate this product 8 out of 10. I expect more Ansible features and container features in future releases.

My main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are patching and automation.

The features of RHEL that I like the most are Satellite and Ansible, as those are the only ones I really work with so far.

They benefit our company by providing solutions that are quicker and save money overall, which reduces time spent overall and saves us resources.

I use Satellite for patch management of our Linux devices, including our Red Hat devices, which helps my company navigate security risks.

I think RHEL could be made faster.

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

I have not experienced any downtime, crashes, or performance issues with RHEL, as everything runs smoothly, and we do not have many tickets regarding our RHEL products or RHEL VMs.

RHEL scales well with the growing needs of our company, as anything we add automatically gets pulled into Satellite.

I would rate the customer service and technical support a 10, because I have not used it much, but my coworkers who have opened tickets have not reported anything negative about their experience.

Before adopting RHEL, we mainly built the operating systems ourselves with a mixture of different Linux operating systems. For patching, we were using Ivanti before that.

The biggest difference between Ivanti and RHEL is that both have automation, but it is more seamless with Satellite, as it is owned by Red Hat and already integrated. We do not have to build out as many tasks and workflows inside Satellite, as it picks everything up and sends it out automatically.

From a technical point of view, the biggest return on investment when using RHEL is the time spent in work man-hours, as it has reduced our patching time by a very large amount in the Linux environment.

I would estimate that the patching time has been lowered by about 50 percent.

I have not considered switching to another platform that is not RHEL, as I am not part of those discussions.

We are using RHEL in the cloud.

RHEL supports our cloud environment mainly for patching right now, as we have not started using it for migrations yet, but we will probably start doing that eventually.

I have not done any AI workloads through RHEL.

RHEL does not play a role in our company's implementation of Zero Trust; it would be more for workloads and data running on our Linux VMs, as we do not use it for identity or access at this time.

I have used Ansible Automation Platform somewhat and am learning it. My experience with it is good; I do not use it that much, but other people on my team are using it a little more, and we have not used it in production yet, although it is definitely something we will be doing soon.

We do not use RHEL for auditing, as far as I know; my boss sends me a list of things to fix, and I fix them.

RHEL has definitely helped to mitigate downtime and lower risks at my company, especially with patching, as we do not have to manually patch or reboot our VMs as much while managing the patching process.

The knowledge base that RHEL offers is pretty good; I use it personally the most for the training platform while trying to learn all the different systems they have, and I use that a lot.

I would rate this review a 10 overall.

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for our workloads, DevOps and SRE workloads, to manage our application and CI/CD pipeline runs.

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in our DevOps and SRE workloads for DevOps and CI/CD pipeline runs and also for managing our infrastructure.

We mostly use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) to automate our infrastructure, and we use it to automate our image cataloging and all those things.

The best features Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) offers are that it is very easy to use, and the commanding is also straightforward. It's easy to install, easy to configure, and easy to manage all aspects.

When we need to install or upgrade our version of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), we have straightforward commands. Using the DNF command, we execute the commands. When we upgrade the OS version, it is without downtime. We can run that in minimal time.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has positively impacted our organization because all of our enterprise applications run on Red Hat RHEL only, which is the enterprise version. For our application runs and application connections, we use Red Hat, which is very helpful for managing our entire application.

We have very minimal downtime, which is beneficial for us. We can improvise our application connectivity and interconnection. Everything performs exceptionally well.

As of now, there are no notable things to advise, from my understanding. As per customer interaction, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) listens, every word is counted, and it is improved. At this point, everything performs as expected.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for almost five-plus years.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is always stable, and I definitely recommend choosing RHEL.

In terms of scalability, reliability, and application upgradation, I am satisfied with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

The customer support is very interactive and provides quick responses. It is very helpful for us to improve our system.

Positive

When we need to install or upgrade our version of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), we have straightforward commands. Using the DNF command, we execute the commands.

In terms of investment, we have saved both time and money.

In terms of hourly and weekly savings, we save almost six to seven hours per week with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). This is based on user experience, deployment, configuration, and high availability perspectives.

At the enterprise level, the pricing, setup cost, and licensing for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is as expected. It's quite standard - not very high, not very low. It's appropriate because the support is provided within and depends on our SLO and SLA.

Everything is set as expected, which is quite good. We are also expecting the same kind of support from Red Hat. All aspects look good.

On a scale of 1-10, I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a 9.5.

My main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are mostly as our platform, control plane, and for VMs.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped me mitigate downtime and lower risks. Anyone coming from security will tell you that more patches in a timely manner will save you a lot of time.

What I appreciate the most about Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the DNF feature. DNF benefits our company since it's my personal preference; that package manager makes sense to me. I've also used it longer than other ones, which contributes to my familiarity.

Package managers in general are a core component of our operations, keeping our platform clean and running smoothly, and it's essential.

Insights is nice since I get information on my background and security matters, and it's been helpful to have it there as well.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) can be improved regarding security-side integrations that can be tightened with the releasing of images compliant with CIS controls or DISA STIGs, so they're built in and not an extra step.

To make Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a ten out of ten, the best Linux OS solution in the market, the only immediate change that comes to mind is security-related; releasing images available at different security levels would be helpful. If something is locked down to DISA STIG Level two or whatever environment, having that as a baked image to pull down and deploy would save a lot of time for many companies since building that pipeline is difficult and time-consuming.

There's also a limited number of those they'll have to deal with for Red Hat, so it's a lot of work. If they're doing those images for each level for STIG and then CIS, there will be a finite number to go through, and if anyone else needs to tailor them beyond that, then that's on them. It should be pretty small changes; it's kind of locked in.

I've been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for seven months.

My thoughts on the stability and reliability of the Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) platform are that it has been excellent. When I consider reliability problems we have had and how much relates to RHEL, most of the issues aren't Red Hat-related; something else fails, and the Red Hat side has been consistently reliable.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales with the growing needs of my company very effectively. My specific team is not on a huge scale right now, however, it's growing quickly, and we haven't had any issues with RHEL so far.

My experience with customer service and technical support for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) so far has been really good. I haven't encountered just a create-ticket-get-a-response type of interaction yet since we still have a consultancy going on for different pieces identity management and AAP. That remains to be seen in terms of what it will be when we don't have somebody readily available. So far, the response times and helpful responses have been good.

Positive

I've used other solutions. The main difference between Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and the other Linux solutions we use is a level of comfort. I sleep better knowing I have official support and can call someone, or there's probably a consultant or somebody on Red Hat's side ready to help me figure things out. If I'm running a Debian system, I'm really relying on the community, which can take time, and if I'm running something at work on that, then that can hurt.

Regarding usability, I've gravitated towards RPM-based Linux systems in general as I find them more intuitive.

The deployment is super straightforward. We do some environmental stuff, and that gets a little bit trickier based on the core running on top of it. 

From my point of view, the biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the number of things tied together in a somewhat neat package. There's something to be said for setting up Satellite or the other pieces of the infrastructure, AAP, or whatever it is I'm going to be using, however, all the tie-ins are there, and once I've done some initial footwork, having those things work in tandem and reliably with support on hand when they don't is really helpful.

We consider different solutions while using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). Actually, we use a few different Linux OS solutions. There's some Canonical in our environment through VMs, and there are tools particularly suited for deploying on bare metal that we use. So, we have a bit of a mixed environment within Linux.

My upgrade or migration plans to stay current depend on where it's at or the platform team; our stuff is going to be separate, and I'm unsure exactly what the cadence is for release and into the patching cycle. That'll be a pretty quick turnaround. We have situations where it needs to stay on older systems since the team using it needs that to prove out or test whatever they're working on. 

On a scale from one to ten, I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a nine out of ten.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) serves as the base operating system where all applications run. It is the platform I manage, and all applications run on top of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). I run IBM FileNet on top of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) offers excellent security, reliability, and stable security as a secured operating system. Security features have helped my organization because Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is already a locked down version of enterprise Linux distributions and is managed by Red Hat, with timely release of vulnerability fixes and patches that give a lot of security and peace of mind for enterprises.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has positively impacted my organization by ensuring that timely release of vulnerability fixes and patches keeps the system secure. All the latest versions and new features with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as an image and with AI capabilities add more value for enterprises using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

A specific outcome showing how Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has benefited my organization is improved security, and I am not aware of any downtime. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped to mitigate downtime and lower risk, as I have not heard of any server reboot or crash throughout my career when it comes to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), which speaks to its reliability.

SELinux is the most important security feature in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), as it is the most security-oriented feature. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps me solve pain points such as management of servers with Ansible automation, security capabilities, and timely release of vulnerabilities and security fixes, which combined create great value for enterprises.

An AI assistant specifically for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 10 or the latest version of Red Hat Enterprise, such as an AI-assisted tool to get assistance on commands and syntax, would be beneficial.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for almost 17 years.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is stable.

I have not seen any issues with the scalability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL); it is good or great.

Customer support for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is great.

I have only used Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and did not previously use a different solution.

I have not seen a return on investment, and I do not have that level of management information since I am an individual contributor.

All recent capabilities introduced in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 10, including the AI inference server, are already great. I use Ansible for the management of servers and patching, and I find that management experience quite satisfying. I have not used much of the knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), and I have not used much of the documentation recently, so I cannot speak to that with certainty. I would recommend making use of Ansible automation with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and automating as much as possible. I rate this review a 9.