Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Reviews

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is used primarily to build AWS servers. A specific example of how RHEL is used to build AWS servers involves purchasing licenses from third-party vendors like REL and also from AWS. Once an AMI is obtained from the Marketplace, the AMI is customized by injecting all organization standards.

After internal tools have been built on the AMI, that AMI is used to build AWS servers.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has positively impacted the organization by helping track everything, such as how many users have access to the server, which is easy to monitor. RHEL also offers better options for downloading repositories easily, and the ability to stripe the EBS volumes has allowed for pulling more IOPS and throughput.

The impact on the team and organization has been significant, as it has helped improve application performance and backup performance. Since AWS backend is used for backups, RHEL striping has proven very useful.

By using RHEL striping, throughput and IOPS have increased, which reduced the backup completion time from fifteen to sixteen hours to just fifteen to sixteen minutes. The main reason is the backend and the striping implemented for EC2 instances.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) offers several valuable features, including being secure and standard, and making whatever commands are executed easier to manage. When security and standardization are considered, no other person can access those RHEL servers.

Another good aspect is that whatever is downloaded comes from the repository, and every command is tracked, including the person who entered the command. Tracking on RHEL AMIs and OS standardization is very effective.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps mitigate downtime and lower risks by using the Pacemaker role for high availability. The primary and secondary systems are managed by the Pacemaker role, which helps reduce downtime for applications.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) could be improved by including a better app stream module experience or simply phasing out modules in favor of straightforward version repos. Red Hat could also integrate more common tools directly or integrate EPEL more seamlessly. Additionally, enabling AI-based operational tuning for kernel parameters, file system parameters, and network stack optimization could enhance the experience.

Regarding needed improvements, simplifying the subscription and licensing would help reduce complexity in subscription management. Clear visibility of consumption and unused subscriptions and compliance is also important.

Seven years of experience have been accumulated in the current field.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is stable.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) offers great scalability and supports very large memory.

The customer support received is good.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has been the only solution used, and no switch from any other solution has occurred.

In comparing the business value of RHEL to other Linux distributions, no other Linux distributions have been used; only Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has been utilized.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems are managed with a dedicated cloud support team that handles provisioning and monthly patching. Additionally, focus is placed on security hardening and optimizing it with cloud-init, instance tuning, and subscription activation.

Image Builder has been used, but the AMIs are not built personally. A dedicated support team handles the building of the AMIs.

A return on investment has been seen, as it has saved a tremendous amount of time.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps save time; for example, the Pacemaker role facilitates faster task completion, and it optimizes backup processes.

Regarding pricing, setup cost, and licensing, the pricing is good; however, licensing is a bit confusing.

My advice for others looking into using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is to be aware that subscriptions can be challenging to manage. When a server reboots, the subscription goes to open, which can lead to others consuming the subscription, creating a challenge regarding the subscription and licensing part.

Security requirements were a significant consideration in choosing RHEL in the cloud because it is not open source and is highly secure.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is assessed as having a better knowledge base offered through its tuning capabilities. By better tuning, the documentation is referred to, which helps in day-to-day work.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) entitlement management can be confusing, as converting systems between subscription modes is not straightforward.

I would rate this review a nine out of ten.

My main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are Virtual Desktop Interface (VDI) for the server, supporting Telco work workflows, manufacturing software for manufacturing, and travel software. I have a huge base for what we're targeting around AWS or Red Hat solutions.

I favor the network manager feature of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL); I appreciate the versatility and flexibility of network manager. I appreciate that we can make super-fast modifications to networking solutions, and I value the support for IPv6. 

I also value the support for working with the community very specifically. Bringing the solutions we need for customer problems to reality tends to result from our conversations with Red Hat. Normally, if I need help making a customer experience better, I can have a conversation with the business teams at Red Hat, and then we can find a collaborative solution.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped to mitigate downtime and lower risk; although it's hard for me to say that I really understand it outside of an analyst report, I can say that I truly believe it has increased uptime based on my experience. 

There's a consistency, and my example is that I trust the kernel and the quality engineering, which leads me to more favorable results in places where other distributions might make changes that slow down my networking or storage network in unpredictable ways.

For a new release of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), the main improvement could be in the pricing models, particularly understanding how to better present those pricing models in a more predictable manner. It is very difficult from a partner perspective to figure out how to position software to a customer when the pricing may or may not be competitive, so that's my biggest 'how could I fix this?' question.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for 25 years.

When assessing the stability and reliability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I can say that on every operating system, there are always exceptions and new issues to fix. 

However, if I have software validated for RHEL, I know I can expect a certain level of certainty that issues will be ones that have either never been seen before or are the result of our new approaches.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) by itself scales incredibly. However, the problem tends to arise where increased consumption raises total costs. 

As the total cost increases across the operating system distribution, my requirements for support decrease, making it difficult to gauge a return on investment, which complicates the situation for me as a representative of an entire fleet.

I would evaluate customer service and technical support as generally positive; I've never had a problem with my support. Sometimes, individual support agents might not know what they're discussing or misunderstand the question, possibly due to my clarity or other factors. I would say that it is at least at the same level or better than any support group I've ever engaged with in technology.

Positive

Prior to adopting Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I was using another solution within the RHEL family. I often test workloads using Fedora or CentOS as a foundation and then move those production workloads to Red Hat.

My experience with pricing, setup costs, and licensing has been confusing; it feels different every time. The complications often arise from being unable to predict exactly what is necessary for a deployment, as the build-out and sales cycles are significantly more complex.

I have most definitely seen a return on investment with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL); I don't think my job would exist if there wasn't a return on investment.

By policy, I am required to use Amazon Linux for everything, however, by necessity, I am replacing that with Red Hat solutions where we have space during my evaluation process.

My business relationship with Red Hat is that I am a Partner.

The knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is still hard to search, but I recognize that AI is probably making that easier during this period. I think Lightspeed is an important part of our structure for interacting with the knowledge base information, and I look forward to making that work better.

I typically advise other organizations considering Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) by asking how important their workload is to them. I question what happens if it goes down and how much time they have to spend fixing it. If they value that aspect, then it's their choice to determine their path. 

My biggest question often relates to how much they would pay to replace the community, and if they are willing to understand the significant number of partners and open-source champions contributing to Red Hat, they will see how that community cannot be replaced in terms of how software fits their business needs.

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

My main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) now are mostly traditional workflows, web applications, and web servers.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has benefited my company by offering great features such as Satellite and all the enterprise features that provide us value, which enables stability and maintainability.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped me solve pain points by providing significant maintainability compared to other Linux distros.

It is very stable and enterprise-ready, giving me substantial stability and manageability. 

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped mitigate downtime and lower risk significantly.

With Satellite and everything else, we can effectively control which patches go to specific servers and reduce risk with different CVEs and insights, providing us with substantial control.

We manage our Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems using Satellite, which works really effectively, and we also use Ansible Automation Platform.

My assessment of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)'s built-in security features shows many cool features in the new version. From what I have used in 8 and 9, there are good features such as built-in firewalls.

Although SELinux is complex as it does a lot. I cannot fully understand it, so that could be simplified. The only thing that I really have difficulty with is SELinux, so perhaps there is room to make it more accessible.

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

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has been able to scale to the growing needs of my company. We are not a huge company, so it works effectively.

The customer service and technical support for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is pretty good. We have used them extensively and they work effectively.

Positive

Before choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), we were using legacy systems running on AIX, but all new implementations are now on RHEL. The main difference between AIX and RHEL is the support from third-party applications. When installing third-party applications, there is always support for RHEL and almost never support for AIX.

I would describe the experience of deploying Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as really easy. It is similar to other systems, and I am really excited to explore Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 10 and try Image Builder.

The biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the manageability we receive, with numerous features in the packages that free up substantial time from the operations side of things.

The pricing, setup costs, and licensing for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are within normal operating system pricing ranges.

While using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I did consider other solutions. There are always many other options, such as another RHEL distribution, but RHEL is the only one that has extensive support for numerous other systems.

We have not fully implemented Ansible Automation Platform yet, but we are starting to integrate it and we really appreciate it. 

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) from one to ten overall as probably a nine.

My main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) include everything from apps to web servers to HPC.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps me solve pain points primarily because the ecosystem has already been approved for use with our customers. That's probably the main thing. It's a single, trusted source to get everything from. That's really our main thing.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped to mitigate downtime and lower risk using Satellite because I rarely have any outages on my RHEL boxes. They're pretty solid.

Satellite helps reduce and mitigate risk through the quality of the packages that get put out and the dependencies that are already validated.

I've never really thought about how Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) could be improved, but the only thing I wish they had that I've asked Red Hat for so far is something resembling managed service accounts. Since we have to integrate with a lot of Active Directory, that would be beneficial.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) since RHEL 4.

I would assess the stability and reliability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as excellent because I've not had anything serious that couldn't be figured out.

Regarding scalability, I've never had a problem there. We run HPC on it, and it's pretty rock solid.

I don't really have an answer for the customer service and the technical support of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) because we have to handle most things in-house.

Before adopting Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), my company was using a lot of Solaris, other flavors of Unix, and other options, but I think we've pretty much standardized on RHEL.

I think the deployment process for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is straightforward.

If you're doing a network install, it's easy. It's easier than the Windows side.

I'm brand new to Ansible Automation Platform. We're just rolling it out.

From my point of view, the biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the fact that it's well-curated and it's a one-stop shop for most everything you need.

My experience with the pricing, the setup cost, and the licensing of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has been pretty good. I have no complaints.

Though there have been talks of going to other distros while using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), that's a big ask to switch everybody over.

The features I prefer most about Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) relate to my broader appreciation for Linux given all the history behind it and open source for all that it represents.

For navigating security risks, I use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Satellite for patch management and deployment. We don't use Insights. That's probably the main one we use.

Regarding the role Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) plays in my company's implementation of the zero-trust model, it's pretty new to us, so I can't really answer that yet. We're still in the learning process.

In terms of managing regulatory compliance, we do use Nessus and other tools for auditing in our applications. That's probably about it.

You can usually find a good answer on the knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

I've always been happy with Red Hat ecosystem, using it since before RHEL, and I just appreciate the flavor of it. I've tried other Linux distros and I just keep coming back because I'm so familiar with it. It's so helpful, and it's hard to beat. I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a nine out of ten.

My main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) involve a custom Linux security module, and I use RHEL as my upstream and repackage it as my own distro.

To navigate my security risks, I use features in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) such as Satellite, Ansible, IPA, or IDM, and I also perform STIGging with a lot of my requirements coming from the government telling me to ensure I have all these things done. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) makes it easy to do that, with the biggest thing being their documentation because I can find any question I type into Google and find a Red Hat link, log in, and see it.

I use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) on-premise.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps me solve pain points because it's open source, so it's easy to modify, and there's the support that I need, especially since I work with the public sector a lot where they want support provided, updates, and patches on CVEs almost immediately after a zero-day is released, and that's the big thing that Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps me with.

What I appreciate most about Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is that they're open source, and I take what they have and repackage it. I appreciate RPMs, Mock, and a lot of the tooling that's in that community, in the Fedora world, but Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) makes it easy to get to and work with.

The knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is something I love, and it's very helpful. That is probably the most useful part of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) can be improved by getting more upstream packages from Fedora because they don't have enough packages, and it's problematic that I have to maintain a separate repo from what comes from Fedora. I don't understand why Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) doesn't package it as the base, as Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) only has a subset of packages from upstream.

The desktop environment is another area that needs significant improvement because it is barely usable and meets just the bare minimum of what's needed. There are people from Red Hat giving presentations on Windows, Macs, and other distros, which to me would be embarrassing. If I was the CEO of Red Hat and my employees aren't using our own product, that should be a major red flag. Why would you present to customers of all people? Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is great as a server operating system distribution and the support is the number one thing that makes Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) stand out, but it really falls short as a client workstation.

I have not experienced any downtime, crashes, or performance issues with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). I've had servers run for three years straight without crashing, so Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is very reliable.

In terms of scalability, I get a lot of complaints from customers, and when I start getting a lot of machines running, I start to see problems in production, which my customers experience as well, so then I'm supporting it. I don't know how much to blame Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for that, but it does seem to become a headache once it gets larger.

I evaluate customer service and technical support from Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as pretty good.

Prior to adopting Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I was using another solution, specifically Solaris as my upstream. I think when Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 6 dropped, I switched from Solaris to Linux, and it was Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as the solution because of the support.

The deployment process of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has been straightforward and easy for me.

I am probably not considering switching to another product while using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

I have tried neither Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Image Builder nor system roles, and I'm not a big fan of them because they're not part of my use case. They are useful in a sense for reproducibility if I'm going to create a golden image and deploy it, but that's not really my use case.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped me to mitigate downtime and lower risks.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is great on the server side and not as strong on the client side, with the workstation and desktop environment needing a lot of work. As far as adopting it, if you're willing to pay for all the licensing, then go for it because you'll get the support you want. On a scale from one to ten, I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) overall as a seven or eight.

I mainly use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as a financial application.

I appreciate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for its stable product and good support. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps me solve pain points through automation with tools such as Ansible. It helps mitigate downtime and lower risk because you can recover.

Regarding security requirements from my side, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is somewhat satisfactory, but in most organizations, they are asking for more enterprise solutions for security. If Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) can invest in monitoring, it would be great. For example, Instana is an IBM product, and since IBM owns Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), if they invest in Instana, it will be a great improvement.

I have been working with Red Hat Enterprise Linux for more than five years.

For Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) stability, I rate it a nine. It is really stable, with no issues. I found one server running for more than two years without any issue.

For scalability, it depends on the hypervisor you're using, and if you have a template, you can clone it. It doesn't matter which OS you are using, even in the cloud, it's the platform that can scale.

I am satisfied with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)'s knowledge base. They have one of the best knowledge bases for their products with good documentation and articles that help solve issues without needing to open a case.

The initial setup for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is simple.

I don't think Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is saving money because it is expensive, but saving time is a benefit because they have a lot of automation and good documentation, and it is a stable product.

I can say about pricing for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is maybe a two on a scale where ten is a high price.

I think of Ubuntu and SUSE Linux as the top in my mind competitors to RHEL.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) can run anywhere, everywhere, so it is easy to run on any platform. On RHEL, it is a more general OS, so I don't know if there's a particular feature to consider.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps mitigate downtime and lower risk because you can recover, but upgrades require downtime. We mostly do in-place upgrades and haven't used migration much.

We are involved in upgrading RHEL 7 because it has reached end of life; sometimes we upgrade to eight or nine. I am already a Red Hat Accelerator and a reference.

Overall, I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) eight to nine out of ten.

My main use case for it is that we just support the application.

In general, it benefits our organization because it's more cost-effective. We save money, that's it.

The main point it helps me solve is that it's just a web server.

I don't have specific feedback on what works well and what Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) needs to improve on.

I cannot think of any additional features that should be included in the next release.

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

I have not experienced any downtime, crashes, or performance issues.

I assess the stability and reliability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as stable.

So far, so good with how Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales with the growing needs of my organization. Everything is supported.

I expand usage of it every year.

I evaluate the customer service and technical support as very good.

On a scale of one to ten, I rate it a ten.

Every time we have an issue, someone is there to fix it and troubleshoot, which is why I say that.

Positive

When I joined, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) was already selected, so that's what was there.

In my role, I have not considered other solutions in the past.

I would describe my experience with deploying it as straightforward.

We use Azure as our cloud provider.

I have not seen ROI with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

I don't know the exact number, so that may be because I just am not in charge of that kind of thing.

My experience with the pricing and the cost of licenses is that if you compare it to the different operating systems, it's a little bit cheaper. The support is also good as well.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped to mitigate downtime and lower risk.

My assessment of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)'s built-in security features for simplifying risk reduction and maintaining compliance is a score of eight or nine.

Everything is clearly stated and listed in the documents, so it's easy for us to follow, which is what could make it better.

Security requirements and considerations were important in choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in the cloud because we are banks, so we have a lot of security regulations to follow.

When it comes to managing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems for provisioning and patching, that's our wonderful part of the day, as we use it as well. The issue we have is that it's not a fixed time that we need to patch, but when we patch, the system would just stop working. This is not a direct issue from Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), but from the line.

I have been involved in some Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) system upgrades or migrations.

The upgrade migration was straightforward.

I can talk about it a little bit more by saying we just upgrade it, patch it, and reboot it. That's all.

My upgrading or migration plans for the same product are that whenever we have new items that we assess, most likely we will get it.

I assess the knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as good.

I don't need more from it; it's good.

My advice for other organizations considering Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is that they should take into account the cost and support, especially when talking to someone in a different segment or an old colleague.

I rate this product a ten overall.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Positive

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

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

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