Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Reviews

The main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) at the bank involve internal applications, as we do a lot of internal applications not exposed to clients.

From my perspective, the best features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) lie in its ease of use, especially compared to AIX, which has a lot of functionalities requiring extensive learning. It was easy for me to shift from AIX to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps manage our hybrid cloud environment, but being a bank, we are highly regulated internally, so there is limited direct involvement with the cloud environment in Royal Bank cloud, which is Azure.

One area I see for improvement in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is in the documentation. I encountered some scarcity when looking for information regarding structure, commands, and administrative tasks.

I have dealt with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for around 10 years, even when it was not part of IBM.

My opinion of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)'s scalability is that it was very easy.

I would rate Red Hat's customer service or technical support as a 10, as my experience with all IBM products, including Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), has been very satisfactory all the time.

The initial setup of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is straightforward compared to AIX, which is more convoluted.

I have experience with platforms like Linux, and I am also working deeply with MongoDB and Node.js, tools that I use constantly every single day.

I am familiar with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), and here in RBC, we are a big IBM shop, currently using JBoss and Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as part of our environment.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is used for both cloud-based solutions and on-premises.

From a business value perspective, the business folks do not notice much difference between Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and other distributions, as long as their application functions well, they are satisfied.

We utilize two cloud providers for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) solutions, mainly Azure and also Amazon. I cannot answer how Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) was purchased, but I know we have it on both Amazon and Azure.

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a nine, as I find it satisfactory in various aspects.

I've been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for four or five years now because I had a business with my cousin. We are Red Hat Partners. Easier integration is important because most customers we work with already have Red Hat. We use Ansible for discovery, primarily for ServiceNow. We also wanted to expand into the field of Maximo asset management. One customer, a big Red Hat partner, uses IBM Maximo, but that didn't work out because I have a business with my cousin and one of his partners parted ways, so I stayed with ServiceNow.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps solve pain points related to user account servers and onboarding certain servers. It's easier to use in my opinion and less complicated, especially for Ansible discovery.

Organizations need to know what assets they have because sometimes they have assets on the network and don't know what they are. With the solution, it's easier to discover the assets, what OS is running on them, sometimes location, warranty information, and serial numbers.

Regarding security requirements and considerations in using it in the cloud, I've seen a lot of virtual machines on the network, and no one knows anything about them. As soon as you deploy Ansible, you can know exactly what servers the virtual machine is running on, whether there's a warranty, serial numbers, naming convention, and all that, which makes it easier.

For now, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) works fine for me. When I used it in the past, I don't see what I can improve now because it works the way I want it. There aren't any additional features that I think should be included in the future since you have AI now, and I think you are up to date.

I've been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for four or five years now.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped me mitigate downtime and lower risk. When it comes to downtime, there are no worries, for example, when there's an issue or something is down, the response time is solid.

Customer service is great, and there are several certifications and lots of certification options you can get for you and your team. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is also worldwide, and everyone knows it.

Positive

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is easy. Compared to other companies, everything is there and it's easy. When it comes to price, I can say it's cheaper than certain solutions out there in Asia or overseas.

This product is not purchased on the AWS Marketplace; we're helping sell our customers with our ServiceNow migrations, so we don't push or purchase anything from AWS Marketplace. Everything about Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is online and it's easy to become a Red Hat partner. It's not hard. My cousin had the business with us and was already a Red Hat partner. It's easy to get the certifications, and they make everything easier. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is what most companies use before selecting it, and it's mostly worldwide use for that. That's what my cousin and I thought when he had the business. I would say the solution is an easier option overall. My overall rating for this product is 5 out of 5.

From the start of my career, I started working on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

My work role is a network engineer and systems engineer. We manage customers' servers, which run the Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) operating system.

The servers are Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), and my job role involves troubleshooting and ensuring the servers are running properly.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is very good concerning security; it's much better than other Windows systems. RHEL is something I normally use command prompt with, and it's very easy to manage as a network engineer.

The Red Hat systems build in their own security features, which is unique, and it's better to use for enterprise-level customers. Most enterprise-level customers prefer RHEL to run their systems and applications.

I can work with less downtime, and if anything happens, it's very easy and direct to troubleshoot compared to other operating systems. The FAQ rules, details, and commands in the Red Hat FAQs are very helpful.

Currently, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) supports all types of integration using other systems, but it might be better if they had more documentation on the relevant integration with other apps or systems.

There can be some improvements in this area.

The solution has been in use for nine years.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is stable.

When it comes to cloud, it's easy to scale up using the AWS management tool; we can easily upgrade or downgrade the systems. However, when it comes to physical on-premises deployment, that is a different situation.

We are not using only Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). As Lumen Technologies is the largest MNC, we have all types of systems. RHEL is one of the main systems which most customers use, but we currently use other solutions as well. We didn't switch to anything exclusively.

We host web applications and websites in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) servers.

RHEL is a reliable and best operating system for users to implement.

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

We run all of our servers on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), specifically RHEL 8, and that's the production OS for all the servers in our farm.

The features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) streamline many things for us. Everything feels streamlined, smooth to use, and easy to operate, making it almost invisible without stressing about issues on the OS level. As essentially a sysadmin level engineer, I really appreciate the package manager. It's simple and easy to use, being the most straightforward part of using Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

I don't know how Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) can be improved. As a sysadmin level worker, everything I need to do, RHEL has been able to perform for me. I don't have a specific use case where I wish I had additional features, so I can't provide feedback on that. I'm not sure about how Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) could maximize or enhance any features. I don't really know anything Red Hat specific that's positive or negative that I can speak on. I'm not certain if Red Hat could smooth out the migration process from CentOS to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). I think it's more internal stuff that needs to be ironed out rather than Red Hat having issues.

I've been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for around three to four years now.

There have been no issues with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) stability and reliability. We haven't experienced any OS level reliability issues.

The scalability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has been excellent. Our recent hurdle was getting off of CentOS, but the scalability hasn't been an issue for us. It's been smooth sailing, just requiring the bulk work of migrating thousands of servers.

I haven't engaged with customer support at Red Hat for any help.

Positive

I did not consider another solution before choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

I'm not entirely sure at the moment about Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) upgrade or migration plans for what's ahead of us. We're just looking into the short term right now.

Once our team got comfortable with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), we purchased Red Hat Learning on the side. After our team was trained on Red Hat through the Red Hat Learning subscription, the combined learning experience provided by Red Hat delivered many technical skills needed to be a comfortable sysadmin.

Everything has been running smoothly with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). I don't have any previous criticisms that RHEL specifically has solved in our use case. I'm not well-versed in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) built-in security features, so I can't comment on that aspect. I can't say if it has helped to mitigate downtime or lower risks specifically. Everything's so smooth with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that it's not something we really think about. We worry about other things rather than the OS level. I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 10 out of 10. I have not purchased Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) on the AWS marketplace.

We deploy it. We are a Red Hat partner and have been for 20 years. We help customers with all sorts of day-to-day Linux operations, and Red Hat is one of our partners for Linux.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the platform being used for running applications. Customers often have some sort of applications they need to run, and Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has been the go-to standard for running applications that need to run on top of Linux for many years.

The feature I appreciate the most about Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is its long lifecycle. The long lifecycle helps my company by allowing us to plan ahead; we don't have to redeploy everything every five years or so. It helps to plan ahead.

The support can be better. 

Satellite 5 was great at what it did. Satellite 6 is still a mismatch of different things. It's not really the optimal solution for many things yet. I hope they will release a new version soon that fixes this. I know it's been planned for three or four years, possibly five years.

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

The stability and reliability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are very good, even according to what my customers say. We have had very few bugs where the actual operating system was to blame for any problems. There might have been one or two bugs that I could name that influenced our Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) running. It is quite bug-free. It's not perfect, but usually bugs are fixed if you raise a support case.

I don't think I've ever seen downtime caused by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). I'm not sure if we have had any less downtime compared to other Linux distributions. We also see a lot of Ubuntu, and I don't see any less downtime on Red Hat than on other community Linux subscriptions.

Our use of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) internally is quite limited. We have some customers who run thousands of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) instances. It scales perfectly fine.

Their support isn't great, but it's good. It varies significantly depending on who you get hold of. It can be quite hard to get to someone who is actually able to answer the questions. We see instances where we have done all of the debugging ahead, but still are asked questions that we have already answered when we created the support ticket. We have to start all over again and use the first two or three days explaining exactly what we do, even though we have already written it. I have done this and they say, 'Have you done this?' And I respond, 'We have done that. We also wrote it when we created the case.' It can be difficult when the supporters don't always read what you have actually tried ahead of creating the support ticket.

Neutral

We also work with SUSE. The main differences between SUSE and Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) currently seem to be very political. Red Hat is an American company, and we are based in Europe, so we see that come up frequently.

It's easy to deploy. When it comes to managing the Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems for provisioning and patching, I see one of two things normally. We have many customers who just do cloning, having a golden template which they clone and then create new VMs from that. We also have many customers who use Satellite. Those are the two methods we see at scale.

I have been involved in upgrades or migrations of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for 20 years. The process of migration just works.

Our upgrade or migration plans to stay current involve knowing the lifecycle for a specific version. It's just a matter of planning ahead. The long lifecycle and predetermined lifecycle of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) make it easy.

The major cost of maintaining Linux is when you have to do reinstallations and upgrades. Having a long lifecycle really reduces the cost of maintaining an operating system. A long lifecycle is key to having a good return on investment.

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

I use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) primarily as a server. Most of our servers are running on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). Through Red Hat, we support all our functions and use it for automations and everything practical.

I have used Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in the past for coordination with Red Hat OpenShift, Grafana, Prometheus and some automation tools such as SaltStack and Python scripts.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) brings a robust operating system that has stable and solid versions. It gives you many tools to automate things. It is a secure system, so you need patching, but not as much as other operating systems. It also has very good user and access management with lists, privileges, and SELinux.

As an automation solution, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) solves a significant percentage of manual work, but I cannot measure it as my job position doesn't base on such measurements. I cannot give exact numbers about how much it has helped us, but it is substantial.

Automation with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has changed many things because manual tasks take time and can lead to mistakes. If you automate a task, the same process will run repeatedly without any mistakes. I cannot count the time we gained from automations because the position isn't responsible for keeping numbers and metrics.

I think the disk management of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) can become better with more efficient tools. The implementation of AI was a concern, but the newest version of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 10 has implemented an AI feature.

Regarding the disk management of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), physical disks, logical disks, and physical volumes could become much easier to manage.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for the last three to four years.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is one of the most stable operating systems. You don't have to restart servers often and its kernel is very stable. You don't need to have many issues fixed. It doesn't give many errors that require troubleshooting if you don't interfere with it. It has been very reliable.

With on-premise Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), scalability is not easy because I cannot deploy new machines. In my previous jobs, where Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) was running on virtualization, I could deploy more VMs easily.

If organizations are looking for a strong, stable, and robust solution for their environment, they should consider Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), but keep in mind to train their team and provide them with certifications and hands-on experience because it's not an easy operating system. I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) an eight out of ten.

Our main use cases for using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) revolve around building managed services, as all of our Linux workload runs on Red Hat, and there isn't a different Linux distribution in our company. For most customers, it really depends, as we handle all kinds of business applications basically.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps us solve pain points by allowing us to offer support for our managed services, including very high service-level agreements in terms of availability and everything around CVEs, which is also what most of our customers are interested in. The features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) will benefit our company by addressing certain customer use cases we haven't explored yet, particularly with functionality rollbacks and making patch management a bit easier. As we are moving a lot to cloud-native technology, having a similar approach for our Linux operating system as we have for cloud resource orchestration containers is very useful, especially since the German market is a bit slower than the US market.

To manage our Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems regarding provisioning and patching, we use Ansible and also Red Hat Satellite as we are a Red Hat partner, and we are very satisfied with that management experience.

I am really excited about the new Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 10 and the Image Builder, which are the features I most appreciate and am definitely going to check out.

We consider security requirements a top priority due to the highly regulated nature of the German market and the sectors we work with, including automotive and financial institutes, so it really depends on the customers, however, having a secure operating system is crucial.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) supports our hybrid cloud strategy by allowing us to deploy virtual machines in both clouds without really feeling the difference between a private or public cloud.

The knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is pretty good and we use it heavily. We also contribute to it by raising issues so that they may be solved and verified.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) could be improved slightly even though the new RHEL 10 just came out and there are many helpful features in it. For instance, while Image Builder is good, improving the image mode could be beneficial, although it might have already been improved in RHEL 10. 

Additionally, for using third-party software, such as security scanners or patch management systems not from the Red Hat family such as Azure Patch Management, sometimes there could be improvements regarding support, as it can take a year or one and a half years to receive support for certain RHEL major versions, so partnerships on the Red Hat side and collaborations with Microsoft would help.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) internally for our managed services functions and for our customers since it became available. We are a partner of Red Hat where we do consultancy and resell RHEL and Red Hat Ansible, making the answer to this question complicated since we have been using it for about five and a half years.

The stability and reliability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are very good.

Regarding scalability, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales very well for our company needs.

Customer service and technical support for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are very good, as we are a platinum partner with some benefits. That said, even the regular customer support is most of the time very sufficient.

Positive

I did not use another solution before Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in my company.

My overall experience when deploying Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is simple.

We deploy RHEL in both the cloud and on-premise, utilizing a hybrid cloud strategy.Security requirements are definitely a consideration when choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

I have been involved in upgrades or migrations of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), especially during the significant shift from RHEL 7 to 8, which included many upgrades and migrations.

We have many customer projects where customers use us as consultants to migrate from other Linux distributions.

For the Red Hat internal migrations, we use the tool 'convert2rhel' all the time.

The biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is stability, which benefits both us and our customers, since we do not have to use as many human resources to administer those machines.

I don't have too much to complain about pricing, setup costs, and licensing since we handle everything via a distributor in Germany and we work closely with them on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

I did not consider another solution while using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a nine out of ten. To make it a ten, improving the ecosystem with more support from third-party software would help.

Our main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are running application servers, specifically database servers, and caching servers for our applications.

Many features benefit my company by ensuring the uptime is really great.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps us solve pain points. It is much more configurable, increases our performance, allows us more flexibility in management, and the automation for it is much greater. 

It is very stable.  

Flexibility and ease of use are great. I'm very familiar with it and I have a good team. It allows us to manage it with very little downtime. 

When we switched from Windows to Linux, we got about an instant 20% increase in performance, which was a very big deal. 

My favorite feature of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the way the disk management works. I appreciate the fact that it's all text-based.

My assessment of Red Hat Enterprise Linux's (RHEL) built-in security features is that the security is fine.

All of our systems are internal, so a breach would have to go through firewalls and other protections before reaching the system. We do patch them regularly and scan them for vulnerabilities, running the ADE product on them among others.

The improvements for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that I suggest are mainly around increasing reporting on how patches are applied as it all revolves around Satellite. Any product that Red Hat is developing to help with patch management would be awesome, and that's my biggest pain point. I would like to see better reporting on automated jobs, and once Red Hat Insights gets looped to Satellite and on-prem, I'd like to be able to take advantage of that.

At this company, we've been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for six years. I have personally been using it for 15 to 20 years.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has definitely helped to mitigate downtime and lower risks. As far as I know, we've not had a service outage with Red Hat in six years. We've had system outages if all systems fail, since we produce a high availability setup, Red Hat has been very stable, and there's been no unplanned downtime.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales with the growing needs of my company very well, as we've been able to maintain our footprint with an increase in performance. This allows us to actually do more work with the same amount of resources.

I haven't had to open very many cases with customer service and technical support. The documentation is excellent, and the few cases I've had were solved within a few minutes, with one exception regarding NFS, which wasn't their fault. 

I would rate the customer service and technical support a nine out of ten.

Positive

We switched from Windows to Linux.

Deploying is very easy. We run everything via virtual machines. We create a Red Hat template, and then we use Ansible to configure it from there. So we have a generic template we deploy and actually give the machine an identity to use Ansible. I can deploy a system from start to finish in about an hour.

The biggest return on investment for me when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the ability to get an increase in performance, which allows us to not have to scale our hardware so fast.

My experience with the pricing, setup costs, and licensing is that we get a very good deal through our third-party VAR or reseller.

I don't deal much with the pricing. I do know the price of some things, such as the AP platform, which allows us to migrate off other solutions that are substantially higher.

I have considered other solutions apart from Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), specifically evaluating Oracle Linux in the beginning. Between the price considerations, as they claim to be bug-for-bug compatible, it's questionable, however, the price of Red Hat Enterprise Linux was substantially lower than Oracle's, even though they claim it's free.

We generally don't use SELinux since it causes more problems for us than it solves. 

I actually recommend Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) to everybody. It's a solid product, and I stake my reputation on it. 

If anybody wants to learn Ansible next year, this is a good platform to use. 

Our upgrade or migration plans to stay current include rolling out Red Hat 10 as soon as it's available and once we get an antivirus product that's supported on Red Hat 10. My thought is that we'll probably try to test Image Mode to see if that works for us, as it may simplify our monthly process to keep things in sync. 

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

My main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are mostly just running applications, web servers, app servers, databases, etc.

I don't have a preference on features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), as I appreciate many of them. While just getting into cloud, I'd say the best feature is YUM, DNF, and related tools, which are simple and easy to use and manage. 

The simplicity of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) benefits my company in general since we're under many audits and regulations that allow us to track any discrepancies we may find in the reports, as to remediate those vulnerabilities and apply the necessary patches so that we can be compliant with our systems.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps me solve pain points through vulnerability management, and its Satellite has been a really good tool to help us track vulnerabilities as well as patching the server.

We are hybrid, so we deploy Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) both in the cloud and on-premise. For our cloud needs, we use both Azure and AWS. We have a good track record with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and security, due to their ability to produce Day 1 patches, quick responses, and great customer support when we face problems.

When it comes to provisioning and patching, we usually manage our Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) patching in a monthly cycle, using Ansible to help update our monthly downloads from Red Hat Enterprise Linux, move it to our satellite, and then push it out to our servers.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) supports our hybrid cloud strategy. We mostly use both Windows and Red Hat, making it our primary Linux operating system for applications, and we've been using the Red Hat images that we've created for cloud, deploying them there with the necessary utilities and applications.

I assess the knowledge base offered by the Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) system fairly positively, especially for support questions, however, the only issue I have is that often, you have to log in with your provider ID; in some cases, I understand. That said, there are others that are not just generally support specific to Red Hat, which is a problem.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped to mitigate downtime and lower risk through our ability to patch quickly, with relatively fast reboot times, and the amount of changes applied that don't affect systems much, especially with patching, so everything works as designed with very little incompatibility issues.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) can be improved by offering more on the Ansible side, with more integration with Ansible Satellite and all their tools for a one-stop area that manages both vulnerabilities and image deployments in a workflow pipeline.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) since Red Hat 4, which was a long time ago.

Its stability and reliability are fair and stable, with not too many issues encountered as long as no one is messing with the kernel configuration.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales really well with the growing needs of my company, as long as we have licenses.

I find customer service and technical support for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) better than most; it's good.

Positive

Before Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), we were using SUSE Linux, starting originally with Red Hat, then switching to SUSE 10 and 11, and ultimately switching back to Red Hat 7.

My experience with deploying Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has gotten easier over the years, especially with Ansible, as it has become more automated, replacing a lot of the tasks we used to do by command-line interface with more Ansible playbooks and workflows.

From my point of view and a technical perspective, the biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the ease to spin up the instances and the fact that many people still prefer the command-line interface, which has significantly less overhead than a Windows system.

Regarding the pricing, setup costs, and licensing of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I'm not really involved with the budget, however, it seems to be okay for what we currently have.

A while ago, we considered SUSE and looked at Ubuntu before we ended up choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as our solution.

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

To make it a ten, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) would need to allow systems to remain operational even if licenses expire, especially on a virtualized platform, and perhaps also improve Ansible integration.

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) to run our web servers and application servers, and in some cases database servers. It is our primary operating system, and the majority of our servers run Unix, especially Linux.

The virtualization in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) benefits my company as the web servers and application servers allow us to grow and be elastic about our loads and costs.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps us solve everything, from security compliance to running the core infrastructure of the company. 

My favorite feature of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the virtualization. 

I have been involved in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) upgrades and migrations. We upgraded from version seven to nine recently, first from seven to eight, then to nine. Security requirements were a consideration when we were choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in the cloud.

The reason security was a consideration is that primarily we're dealing with the container section of Linux shops. The core of the OS cannot be touched or hacked, especially when it comes to financial transactions. When dealing with financial transactions, we need to keep certain aspects more secure, such as PCI compliance.

My team works directly with kernel patching on a monthly basis, and it's excellent; we always get the fixes for any vulnerabilities, which we have to keep up with based on the financial transactions. We need to keep up with the security patches.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped to mitigate downtime and lower risks. While I don't have a specific number, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has definitely helped in being more stable than other operating systems. When we had other operating systems, we experienced a lot of general panic with infrastructures such as older HP-UX. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is definitely more stable than that.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) can be improved by making it lighter. By making it lighter, there should be versions for specific cases, for customers or images.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) since 2003.

My experience with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in terms of stability and reliability is excellent. 

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales with the growing needs of my company excellently, and that is one of the reasons we use it. We scale on a day-to-day basis using the virtualization, which allows us to add resources if we have a new client tomorrow.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) supports our hybrid cloud strategy as we have some legacy systems that we maintain both on-premise and elsewhere. We offer services that are not for the area where we work, which allows us to offer a better response to our clients that are further away, using Azure and different regions for them, so our Red Hat Enterprise server is closer to them instead of having it here.

Every time we have to work on a case with customer service and technical support, the response is fast. Usually, I send the information, and they have something for me within hours, sometimes even minutes.

Positive

We have considered other solutions while using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). We have different kinds of operating systems for different clients or solutions, and while we still prefer Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), our goal is to standardize between AIX and IBM. 

We use Windows, which is challenging. We have AIX, which we run within the IBM Z environment. AIX is good, however, the hardware is not optimal, and there's a license for the hardware that is especially used for databases such as Oracle, where you need to license a whole mainframe just to run it.

From a technical point of view, the biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for me is interoperability and the ability to automate a lot of the processes, from scratch to day-to-day basis.

My experience with the pricing, setup costs, and licensing of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has been a journey. Licensing for on-premise was different; you have your license for the hardware you're using. When doing it for the cloud, it's more of a subscription-based system. It's been variable with different pricing; we still prefer the older way.

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