Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Reviews

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.

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.

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.

Neutral

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 main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) include application support.

Features benefit my company by allowing for cross-site administration, creating a solid baseline across our different environments and using Satellite for cross-site management.

One of the features I appreciate the most about Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the usability and satellite integration across multiple sites, which helps us significantly. 

Many of my current pain points are related to the automation portion with having Ansible building. I have been involved in upgrades or migrations for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), specifically for RHEL 7.

We manage our Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems using Satellite and Ansible combined, which automates all of our patches, meaning the server administrator doesn't necessarily have to do anything beyond checking online to ensure that automation is performing as expected.

For the compliance part in government environments, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is compliant with their cyber policies, and it has extensive integration for that. There are also Ansible templates being built up.

My upgrade or migration plans to stay current involve moving from RHEL 8 to RHEL 9, if not RHEL 10, as I know that RHEL 8 reached its end of support life a few years ago, so we do have some work to do while trying to stay on top of releases and upgrades.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped to mitigate downtime and lower risk in our environment; I've only been integrated with it for the last two years and we haven't seen any specific issues caused by Red Hat or Linux itself relating to downtime.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) could be improved by incorporating some of the third-party repositories, as different repos might show more options than one would get with a base builder for Red Hat, so having the choice to include those during install would be beneficial.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for the last six to seven years for the company, and personally, even longer.

I haven't seen any issues with the stability and reliability of the platform; we've been building up and tearing down our OpenShift environment frequently, and it consistently comes up and down and repairs itself.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales effectively with the growing needs of my company, as we're now utilizing OpenShift to deploy applications, databases, and other resources in a containerized environment, which reflects the direction the world is heading towards in terms of containerization.

I am not involved in pricing, setup costs, or licensing, but I can say the contract deal we have with Red Hat seems pretty fair, along with the support they provide.

Positive

We did consider other solutions in our journey, particularly looking into OpenShift, however, Red Hat is probably our number one choice.

The initial setup has been straightforward. We didn't have challenges. On top of that, you have the automation. It's getting easier. They continuously build in more tools and more automated processes so we can spin up the VMs easily.

We have been involved in migrations - specifically, RHEL 7 and Linux. The lead process is relatively straightforward.

For me, the biggest return on investment when using this product is automation.

While I am not involved in pricing or licensing, my understanding is that it's a pretty fair contract deal that we have with Red Hat and the support that they provide.

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

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.

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux as the operating system to host various applications developed by our application group. It has our test tools, web servers, and Java applications. We install it based on the requirements of the applications.

It is a good product. All Linux solutions are pretty solid. It carries a different business model than a lot of them, which fits more into our business model. That is where it excels. We do not prefer unsupported ones or buying third-party support.

The most valuable feature of Red Hat Enterprise Linux is its support. I primarily use the product because it offers a phone number for support when needed. 

It integrates well with our existing systems like SaltStack for patching and provisioning. However, its primary value is in having support when issues arise.

There is room for improvement in terms of pricing and its knowledge base. 

I consider the cost high. The knowledge base is extensive and deep but can be confusing due to outdated or non-applicable information that you have to sift through to find relevant answers.

I have had experience with the basic and extensive use of Red Hat Enterprise Linux for about 15 years.

Customer service varies. I would rate their support a five out of ten, as it depends on the person at the other end. Sometimes the support is good, and sometimes it is not so good. It is like any other support organization.

Neutral

I did not switch from any previous solution. Red Hat Enterprise Linux has been in use since before my tenure.

I work in the casino gaming industry. Most of our servers are in Windows. We have about 30 Linux instances. We install it based on the implementation requirements of an application. There is a justification for putting an application into our environment. It goes through a process at our company, and then where we install it or what we install it on is usually up to the requirements of the application.

We have on-premises and cloud-based environments. Red Hat Enterprise Linux is running in one of those environments. It has adequate features for security in cloud environments. 

We use SaltStack, and we built the patching mechanism ourselves. We are pretty satisfied with it. If we were not satisfied, we would change it.

The upgrades with Leapp used to be painful. It used to not work at all for us. When we went to Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9, it did work, but it was a fairly painful process. The advantage is we do not have to reinstall the apps on top of the new image of Red Hat. It is an in-place upgrade. The problem is that you can install Red Hat Enterprise Linux in 50 different ways, and in the past, Leapp assumed you did it the default way. They have added some flexibility so that we can work around some of the stuff, but it makes you install it a certain way, which is not necessarily the way we would do it, mainly because of our security standards and performance needs.

We have not experienced a noticeable return on investment with Red Hat Enterprise Linux itself, as the operating system serves its intended function without bringing additional advantages.

Pricing depends on the model used, costing about $3,000 per virtual host in the virtual environment. It varies depending on whether you get high availability. There are modules that are upsold such as kernel patching, which we do not use due to cost considerations.

In the cloud, we use their licensing. For on-premise, we use the subscription, so we have two different licensing models.

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

In our environment, we primarily use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for managing customer environments and our own. The customer environments are mostly Apache web servers. Some customers have databases, like Postgres, running on Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Others run native Docker on it to manage application dependencies. 

We run containerization projects in the OpenShift environment based on Red Hat Enterprise Linux OS because that's more suitable for containerized workloads. You can do some machines on Red Hat Enterprise Linux, but not all of them. Your worker nodes need to be Red Hat CoreOS, but your master nodes can be Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

I was more experienced with other Linux distributions and Docker. It's open source, so you can fetch Docker and run it, but they don't have support if you have questions or if something isn't working as expected. Podman is similar to Docker. I don't primarily use Red Hat Enterprise Linux for containerization, but I set something up in Podman on Red Hat Enterprise Linux. It isn't used that much. Tinkering and development are the main reasons you would use Podman on a single centralized Red Hat Enterprise Linux machine. If you want to orchestrate on a larger scale, you use OpenShift.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has made significant contributions to our business continuity and compliance efforts. If a critical vulnerability is spotted in the wild, Red Hat fixes it most of the time. It's usually within a day if it's a zero-day vulnerability. Log4J was a bit more difficult because it was not a single package, but it was mostly shipped with other products. It's hard to analyze which application is vulnerable and whatnot. The solution lets us centralize development. We use Ansible to orchestrate the tooling deployment or to fetch a lot of information. 

Red Hat always clearly describes the vulnerability on its security pages as a CVE score. You can fix errors by patching or mitigating them. If the patch hasn't been released, you can mitigate it to prevent the vulnerability from being exploited. Red Hat Enterprise Linux helps us guide the data and ensure it is correctly placed. I was monitoring it daily, but it was a bit too frequently. Now, we get vulnerability notifications weekly or monthly about a vulnerability or exploit that's been discovered. I also look on Reddit directly to see if there's a fix or a mitigation we can implement.

Sometimes, when upgrading or migrating systems, there are differences in the repositories of the versions that aren't one-to-one replaceable. For example, there are significant differences in the repositories from version 7 to 8. We needed to upgrade Red Hat Enterprise Linux from version 7 to 8 because it had reached the end of its life. A Postgres database was running on it that used a Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 package, allowing some database or reporting features. When I upgraded to Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8, it was not in the repository. I needed to install it with some workaround. Of course, it was installed with some minor incompatible dependencies. 

I have mixed feelings about the built-in security features. SELinux must be configured correctly for the port and directory, or applications won't run, so we primarily disable it. Sometimes, we enable it and tinker with legacy systems deployed long before I joined the company. However, chances are it will break something if you enable it. 

We have been using RHEL for three years.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has performed very well for our business-critical applications, with minimal downtime.

We don't need to dynamically scale our application because of our workloads, as we mostly use Red Hat Enterprise Linux for our internal tools. We don't have much demand to scale out.  Containerization lets you quickly scale out your application with some bots if your hardware supports it, and you have enough resources. 

In VMs, we didn't need to dynamically hot plug some service to compensate for the load. It would be vertical scaling by adding more resources. Sometimes, we need to do that for databases that consume a lot of memory, CPU, power, etc.

I rate Red Hat support eight out of 10. It depends on the priority of the requests. We had to launch several P1 requests because something wasn't working in our OpenShift environment, and we were stuck. The support response was quick.

However, we were annoyed that most of the support was based in India. Sometimes, they don't know what the problem is and need to escalate it to an expert in the US or or Germany. It prolongs the ticket resolution, but once it gets to the expert, they fix the problem instantly because they know more. 

Positive

We previously used other Linux distributions with Docker. We prefer Red Hat Enterprise Linux because of its enterprise support capabilities, which open-source distributions like Debian or Ubuntu lack.

I'm unsure what the standard Red Hat Enterprise Linux license costs for one machine. We pay for premium support that guarantees a response in two hours. 

I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux eight out of 10. If applications and package installations work correctly, I would give it an 8.5. It's a pleasing OS to work with, especially Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 and 9, which are more polished than Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7. I briefly interacted with Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6, I'm 27, so I know I'm very young, but I know colleagues who worked with Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4, 5, and 3. 

Other open-source Linux distributions might work if they have high levels of community involvement so the community can identify and fix vulnerabilities quickly. Alma and Rocky Linux are all upstream from Red Hat Enterprise Linux. If you want to go with an open-source distribution, I will point you to Alma and Rocky because they are the one-to-one replacements from CentOS. You don't need a subscription. 

We are a big company with many customers, so we prefer a stable platform with support. You can't open a ticket for open-source distributions like Debian or Ubuntu if you have a problem, ticket. With Red Hat, you can open a ticket if you discover a bug. That's included in your support subscription. You also get regular patches, so we can show our customers we are compliant, etcetera. It's a no-brainer to use an enterprise distribution with support instead of something open source where you don't have a support subscription.

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. 

Positive

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.