Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Reviews

I am the backend support for RHEL. We develop the stage for the application user.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has benefited my company greatly because it is open source, making it very helpful to adopt.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps us solve pain points because every script and everything in RHEL is very human-friendly. We can automate processes, make changes according to our needs, edit files, add directories, and implement any modifications. Even in the RPMs, we can make changes according to our application needs, which is very helpful for us.

One of the features I appreciate most about Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is its user-friendly interface. We have been using it continuously for this reason. As they are automating processes and introducing new methods, especially in RHEL 9, I thoroughly enjoy using the platform.

The GUI mode of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) needs to be improved compared to the CLI mode.

I started using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) at the beginning of my career. I have worked with RHEL versions 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9. We will begin using RHEL 10 very soon.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has not helped me to mitigate downtime and lower risks.

I have experience with customer service and technical support from Red Hat. When we encounter issues, we open a ticket with Red Hat, and they provide very good solutions.

When it comes to provisioning and patching Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems in our environment, we use Red Hat Satellite to carve out the image. We build our own image from Red Hat Satellite.

I have been involved in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) upgrades and migrations from on-premises to the cloud. The migration process was straightforward without any difficulties. We performed both hot migration and cold migration successfully.

Reliability is key with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), and the backend support from Red Hat is awesome. It is much easier to develop our own environment through Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) compared to other platforms such as Windows or Ubuntu. It is very human-friendly and easy to manage.

My assessment of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)'s built-in security for simplifying risk reduction and maintaining compliance is that, compared to other vendors such as Ubuntu and Debian, Red Hat is more familiar with these aspects. We love to use RHEL.

Overall, I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a 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.

I'm supporting a client in North America, specifically in Canada, where they are using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) servers in their retail business. They utilize it for back office software service, specifically a software called BOSS (Back Office Software Service). We are using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) on almost 1,200 servers, but this year, we have started migrating to Rocky from Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

Vulnerability management and patch releases are done on time. There are no delays, and we are not leaving our environment vulnerable, which minimizes risks.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped us mitigate downtime and lower risk. With our current patching process using Kpatch, we frequently do not reboot the servers. We only reboot once a year during application downtime to upgrade to the next kernel level, while all security patches are applied live.

Some of the best features I noticed with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) include the LVM and the patching mechanism through the Satellite system. We do patching whenever there is a security vulnerability, and we are able to do it with the support of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). For me these two big features, LVM and patching, are essential. 

If I can resolve an issue myself, that would be ideal, as it means I wouldn’t need to raise a case at all. The KB articles should contain all the necessary information for reference.

It would be great if they're able to reduce the price. It will be easier to convince customers to use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) instead of open-source solutions. 

I have almost five years of experience with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

Scalability is fine; I don't have any challenges there. However, we are not using many of those features because our application is not ready to utilize them.

We use their knowledge base to find the solution.

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

Positive

The customer is moving to Rocky. It is not our decision; we still insist on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) due to its security and additional features. The customer is moving away primarily for cost-cutting on licensing. 

Compared to other Linux distributions such as openSUSE, SUSE, or Rocky, I believe Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) offers better features. In Rocky, we don't have a live patching mechanism.

Deployments or migrations are quite easy for us since we have been working with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for the last five or six years. It feels like a piece of cake. Whether it's a minor or major version update or a migration, we don’t face any significant challenges. The process is smooth.

Initially, it took us two days to spin up a VM with all the requirements when on-prem. Now, the code is in GitLab. We have set up a code to build the servers, so after submitting a request in ServiceNow, it can be ready the next day. It is all automated.

It was on-prem, but last year, all of the servers were migrated to GCP.

There isn't much difference whether it's on-prem or on cloud, because the patching mechanism we follow through the Satellite system remains the same. From an admin's perspective, there isn't much difference between cloud and on-prem support.

As we lift and shift, our application is not cloud-ready or digital-ready, so we are still working in legacy mode. Therefore, we need to recode the entire application stack to make it compatible with cloud features.

If Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) can reduce its pricing, then it would be easier to convince others that there is not much difference between open-source solutions while still receiving several features for a licensing cost.

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

Our main use case for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) at the moment is for our dev machines, as we do software engineering for automotive, and we have a lot of developers who need Linux. We had a bunch of systems and other things, and we are now rolling them all to be standardized on RHEL.

The management dashboard, RHEL satellites, Ansible, and all those integrations have been the most valuable features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that really help us. 

The features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) allow our company to standardize our fragmented ecosystem, which consists of a lot of Windows systems and different development environments, so that we can move away from the 'it works on my machine, it doesn't work on your machine' issues.

We are deploying workstations with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), and we also look at deploying on-prem. We already have some cloud deployments through third-party contractors, and we are trying to tie it all together into one system. We also have high-performance compute on-prem for doing GPUs, CPUs, and simulations, and we have workstations on-prem with potential cloud workstations as a migration area.

We are migrating some workloads, such as local development tasks, to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), but we haven't really started with the servers yet. Currently, we manage our Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems using the cloud portal to build a custom image for our machines, but we want to move toward satellites and use that as our comprehensive management and patching tool.

Utilizing all the security features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is really important for us as an enterprise with a lot of security focus in automotive and intellectual property, and we are easing into some features such as different security profiles to ensure a secure experience for our users.

We have been trialing on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 9.5. We are now looking at moving towards RHEL 10, which is going to be one of our migrations before we go full production launch on this, and we're looking at doing incremental upgrades as we go to have the latest stuff available.

With Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), there's a lot of fragmentation in the documentation across different versions, and ensuring that the right version is being read can be challenging. Features such as AI assistants would provide a more unified experience, which is really helpful for IT teams who may not be Linux-centric.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for just a couple of weeks as we are starting to deploy it. We originally did not have any Linux systems with us and are now moving forward with that whole process.

The stability and reliability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) seems to be rock solid from our perspective, as we have workloads running continuously 24/7, and the only reason we shut it off is to install a full reboot update or if the workload fails due to our own issues.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is definitely going to scale with our company's growing needs. Other elements of the company have been using RHEL in production, and from our perspective as a small R&D center, it provides the flexibility to manage multiple sites in California, Michigan, and keep them all synchronized, reducing the need to send IT individuals to California to fix problems.

I would rate the customer service and technical support of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a ten out of ten. We really felt that with our Red Hat partner, there's personal service that has helped us build better solutions for our team; it has been a truly awesome experience.

Positive

I have only been with the company for a year and a half, so I'm not aware of anything they've done with other Linux OS solutions, however, we have primarily been Windows from a developer perspective, and now we are starting to get into using Linux systems on a daily basis, focusing on workstations for now.

We purchase Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) through a roster indirectly, and that will be our deployment methodology for any AWS deployments of RHEL AMI images. My assessment of the pricing, setup costs, and licensing for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is that our finance team handles it, and I've been hearing good feedback; they find the licensing model much easier to understand.

For us, the biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has to do with standardization and the ability to manage a fleet of devices, whether on-prem, in the cloud, or servers, through unified portals using standard processes and reducing fragmentation among machines.

Before choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), we looked at Ubuntu Pro and a couple of other options, however, we decided that RHEL fits better into our ecosystem, particularly in our adoption of OpenShift for DevOps, as it's best for our developers to have the same development environments from end to end.

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

We use a lot of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for developing products for our customers. Since Red Hat is known as a popular option for many of our customers, it provides a standardized platform for us to deliver products on. 

Ansible has helped my company by managing disparate systems, allowing us to configure for specific use cases and providing common configurations, so it helps us wrangle all the disparate situations and configurations that we have across various different product teams in our labs.

When working with the Linux system, especially dealing with thousands of systems, Ansible is probably the most helpful tool. It has helped my company by managing the complexity of disparate systems, allowing us to configure for specific use cases and providing common configurations across various product teams in our labs.

My company is not particularly happy with the current pricing models that are available. We have been starting to diversify so that we can deploy machines quickly onto Foxconn or other platforms. We will probably use Oracle Linux instead because we don't want to deal with the licensing issues of putting Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) up and then tearing it down a week later. Our management chain is not satisfied with the current pricing model.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for at least a decade.

There are always bugs in any software product, but it seems pretty stable.

The technology of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales greatly, but the pricing doesn't scale as effectively.

The customer service and technical support are outside of what I deal with as a system administrator. I use the Red Hat support through the website most often to look up technical issues, which works effectively. If I were to rate that support from the website on a scale of one to ten, I would give it an eight or nine.

Positive

We transitioned to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) from Fedora approximately a decade ago. More recently, we've decided to diversify so that lab compute loads that are internal, which are going to be kicked over repeatedly, are moving to Oracle Linux. We have also acquired several companies whose systems are set up to run on Ubuntu, so our environment is diverse.

We manage our Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems with our own internal Ansible playbooks for performing upgrades and patching, so it's all integrated for us.

Our upgrade and migration plans to stay current are a continual process. People in our labs prefer to maintain what they have because they want to stay at steady state indefinitely, but that isn't possible. We are continually working on eight to nine upgrades simultaneously.

I see a return on investment when using this product in general, as it helps us support our product development teams, which generates revenue.

I have not been involved in any cloud migrations because that's handled by a separate team. Regarding upgrades, transitioning from version six to seven was more complex. We are currently in the process of upgrading much of our version seven base to versions eight and nine, which is progressing more smoothly.

I haven't purchased Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) on AWS Marketplace, as that falls outside of my responsibilities and would be handled by the cloud team.

Regarding Red Hat management for security, we have dedicated security teams that assist with evaluations, and we partner with them for implementing solutions to security issues. 

Overall, I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) an eight or nine out of ten. The pricing structure is the main factor preventing it from receiving a perfect score, as improved pricing would enable more ubiquitous use.

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for engineering simulation activities.

The features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) benefit our company as we're able to run the simulation software without question.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps us solve pain points. We design our engineering products and need Linux systems to design the products. 

The feature I appreciate the most about Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is that it's supported by our vendors that support the applications we run. 

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is fine; I don't know how it can be improved. I don't think they could enhance one of their features. 

When we go from version seven to eight, and eight's a little slower, or certain things don't work, they should ensure there's 100% improvement or stability; I don't want anything broken.

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

The stability and reliability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are fine; I'd be surprised if it wasn't stable.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales to my needs just fine.

The customer service and technical support for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are okay; I would rate it a five out of ten. What could make it a ten are improvements in customer service to reach Dell quality. It might be an unfair advantage since Dell is all hardware, and the quality of their support is top-notch for hardware, while Red Hat's all software. It's a whole different situation; support is easier with hardware than it is with software. My only suggestion would be to get support to the right people. 

I don't want to go through two levels of support to get somebody who can solve my problem; I want to talk to somebody who can work with me around the globe. If I call and get someone who's in the UK on his shift when it's ending, give me someone in San Jose to pick up where he left off.

Neutral

I considered other solutions before choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). We were all open to CentOS, AlmaLinux, and similar options, which is why I've been using the open-source software for 15-20 years.

The deployment process of Red Hat is good. There were no problems.

The biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for me is just its compatibility. We have one source of truth that's generally accepted in the industry for application software.

I don't handle the pricing or setup costs for my company as we've got a big contract.

I chose Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) due to the fact that when Red Hat bought CentOS, they eliminated the model; otherwise, we would probably still be using CentOS.

Our upgrade or migration plans to stay current with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are limited by the applications we run, so I won't upgrade to version ten until the applications say they can run it; that's the number one thing. 

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped us mitigate downtime and lower risk as we have plenty of extra systems. I don't have an application that's a 24/7 application that I can't shut down. 

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

Our main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) include our shift from VMware Tanzu container platform to OpenShift container platform about three to four years ago. We are also starting to use the Ansible platform to automate some networking.

One of the main benefits was that we were able to integrate with Github and minimize deployment to minutes versus days. 

The feature of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that I find most valuable is the Ansible automation platform, which is very user-intuitive, and there is abundant documentation and guidance available. 

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps us resolve many automation issues that we are facing now, as we attempt to automate setups and restore through Git and integrate with GitOps. It is working for us, and we are still in the deployment phase. We have been working closely with Red Hat, and it has been effective.

Currently, I don't have any specific improvements in mind for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). One of the tools I'm examining is the automation platform, and it appears there is still room for improvement since it is relatively new. Red Hat is working on this, and it will improve, though there are some bugs present. 

To make Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a perfect ten, improvements could come from newer features and software additions, such as Ansible. They are transitioning from Galaxy to the automation platform, which is new and has some issues, but this is expected. As the platform matures, it will continue to improve.

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

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is very stable. We have been running it for approximately three to four years as our main container platform, and support is excellent. We can get people on the phone, and the response time is great. We haven't had to address any major issues.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales excellently with the growing needs of my company. It is easy to scale. With our OpenShift platform, downtime is close to zero when it comes to upgrades or scaling, and it is very easy for us, especially when integrating with GitHub.

The customer service and technical support for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are very responsive. I would rate them a nine out of ten.

Positive

We are deploying Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) on-premises. I have been involved in many Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) upgrades or migrations to on-premises, and it is straightforward. The documentation and how-to guides make it very simple.

The biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) from a technical perspective is minimal downtime for end users.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is superior to other solutions I've used in the past, such as VMware, primarily due to cost savings, which was our main reason for migrating.

When managing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems regarding provisioning and patching, we use a cluster environment, so everything is cluster-based, and we use GitHub to perform upgrades and patches almost seamlessly with no downtime. 

Our upgrade and migration plans to stay current with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) involve upgrading our clusters. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped us to mitigate downtime and lower risk with zero downtime achievement. 

I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) an eight out of ten overall, as I am still relatively new to it on an enterprise level, having previously worked on standalone systems.

Our use case involves modernizing applications for our clients. We take the application, extract the main functions and features, and modernize them to have those features in the cloud with a new customer experience. One way to do this is to prepare a new platform or solution in the cloud. Then we get the data from their on-premise services and move this data to the cloud. 

We mainly have customers from the public sector, telecommunications, and fintech, and these customers require many systems to modernize because most of them are 15 or 20 years old, and that's why they need to modernize for a better customer experience and journey.

It's almost a standard for us because all of the infrastructure in the cloud is based on Red Hat Enterprise Linux. We are using OpenShift as an orchestration platform. We work with several orchestration platforms, such as Kubernetes and EKS from AWS. In the case of Red Hat, we are using OpenShift. The main feature of OpenShift for us is the continuous integration, continuous delivery, and security; the granularity of security is important for us. They have a lot of features on top of Kubernetes. 

Red Hat is a good partner for us, and the service and support guides are really valuable for understanding and improving our knowledge in this area.

The main benefit of Red Hat is the huge community. They are delivering better quality by constantly updating and adding features for different products. The stability and quality of their service are very good.

I believe they need to improve in terms of compatibility between services. I know that it's difficult to follow the different versions and maintain compatibility. For example, in OpenShift, they have several internal tools that are not completely compatible with the product, and that's an area they need to work on. Supporting different versions and ensuring compatibility between these versions is necessary for us to continue putting effort into this.

We started on-prem about 15 years ago, and we have been working with Red Hat Enterprise Linux on the cloud for five years.

The quality of their services is high because they have people internally working on improving features every day.

Red Hat is a good partner. I would rate their support an eight out of ten.

Positive

Two of our clients switched to Red Hat because they have support from the organization. The management of their products, in terms of documentation and processes for installation and configuration, is well-documented. It's not like other open-source products in the market that lack the full support of an organization. This is the main reason they pay for licenses or subscriptions; there's an organization behind the products supporting them.

Upgrades or migrations are pretty straightforward and not complex, according to our experience.

We require a small team of between three and five people for upgrades or migrations. For such projects, we mainly have developers and cloud engineers. For the data itself, we also have data engineers.

Pricing is sometimes an issue for our clients because it's not a cheap solution. The different licenses have a high cost, and perhaps they could improve by offering different kinds of discounts or lowering the price to make this solution more appealing compared to other cloud providers.

Moving workloads between centers depends on the knowledge of the data and the frequency of synchronization. It depends on different factors, but normally, it is a matter of knowledge about the data structure and the different mechanisms and techniques for moving this data. It's not only a matter of tools; it's related to understanding how the data is structured and how often it changes.

We don't manage Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for provisioning and patching because we work with the cloud directly. These services are managed by AWS.

We move workloads between on-prem and the cloud using Red Hat Enterprise Linux. For this, we are using other tools, such as Divisio, which is also supported by Red Hat. We have Apache NiFi and Kafka for messaging delivery and integration between the services.

If you have a multi-cloud strategy, Red Hat is a better fit. However, if you only use one cloud service like Amazon or Google, I'm not sure if Red Hat provides great benefits compared to the cloud provider. Our clients have had only one cloud provider.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

We mainly use Red Hat Enterprise Linux for general applications. We have Red Hat Enterprise Linux for identity management. We use it for NTP services. Most of the bank services that run on Linux run on Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Our core applications include bank cards solutions.

It is a stable operating system, and that is why we use it. We have many team members who understand how to use Red Hat Enterprise Linux, so it's much easier to use this version of Linux to deploy services.

There is ease of use. A lot of resources are available online if the team wants to understand something. There is also the ability to use various automation tools to run multiple tasks.

For risk reduction and compliance, we have CIS benchmarks. There are various configuration files that we are able to update and change. Using the benchmarks available from CIS, I can have a template and automate that across multiple machines using automation features such as Ansible. When examining permissions for file systems, enabling login, and enabling file integrity, these are the items we would use for security.

The simplicity of patching Red Hat Enterprise Linux is most valuable. We just use the DNF update. We use the Red Hat satellite for our patch repositories, which is quite simple. I look at it at an infrastructure level because I'm in the infrastructure team, not in the application team.

The knowledge base is good. When we troubleshoot or have issues, we go to the Red Hat website. There are a lot of documented issues. They have a good knowledge base.

Identity management could be simpler. Red Hat Enterprise Linux has Identity Manager, but it is not as simple to use as Microsoft Windows Active Directory.

I have been working with Red Hat Enterprise Linux for a very long time, approximately 15 years.

It is stable. I would rate its stability a nine out of ten.

So far, I have not been affected by significant issues in terms of security.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is scalable, so I would rate its scalability a nine out of ten.

We are using it across two sites. We have 6,000 people.

I have contacted tech support of Red Hat Enterprise Linux for some questions. Their tech support is quite good compared to other companies.

Positive

Before working with Red Hat Enterprise Linux, I used CentOS and Microsoft Windows. While comparing CentOS with Red Hat Enterprise Linux, I see stability as an advantage; Red Hat Enterprise Linux is quite a stable operating system.

I have done cloud deployments and upgrades.

It does not require a lot of maintenance. For managing Red Hat Enterprise Linux systems, when it comes to provisioning and patching, we use Ansible, which allows us to patch multiple machines. We normally use Red Hat Insights. Once we configure our machines to talk to Red Hat Insights via Red Hat Satellite, it can tell us the vulnerability status of various machines in the environment. Then, we can decide which machines are most vulnerable and patch accordingly. We can use automation tools such as Ansible to run various patches across the environment.

We have used Leap to do the upgrades from Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 to Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8. Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 was going end of life. Upgrading from one version to another can be a bit complex. It is sometimes an issue because of multiple compatibilities. You need someone who is a bit skilled on the operating system.

We did the deployment ourselves, not through an integrator, reseller, or consultant.

We have four people involved in maintenance because we have many servers.

The cost of Red Hat Enterprise Linux is reasonable.

I would recommend it for mission-critical applications. It's a good operating system to run mission-critical applications.

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux a nine out of ten because of the support, stability, and ease of use.

I typically use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in my federal government contracts. Federal government customers are the only ones that use Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

Most government agencies use Red Hat Enterprise Linux because they have a requirement for commercial support. That is the only reason why Red Hat Enterprise Linux gets used over any other Linux distribution.

The only reason our clients use Red Hat Enterprise Linux is because Red Hat offers commercial support. 

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is a solid product. They have decent support, although not the best. They have a good knowledge base and a well-developed ecosystem.

Recently, Red Hat did a strange thing where they took over the CentOS project and changed several things in their pipeline. I don't believe that I, or the vast majority of Linux systems engineers out there, are fans of their development process for the operating system.

The way that Red Hat used to work was that they had a free version. It was the community version called CentOS. Everything that Red Hat developed, they backported to the CentOS community. About four or five years ago, they took over the CentOS community and they killed off CentOS. They were pushing the Red Hat Enterprise Linux stream variant, which was supposed to be the replacement. I wish they would just go back to the way it was before. I do not like the new development process and the new hierarchy. The vast majority of people in the Red Hat open-source community also do not care for it much.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux since its inception. I started using Red Hat Linux in 1999, but I do not remember what year it became Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

They are typically slow to respond. I feel their first-line support is lacking in knowledge.

Their knowledge base is pretty decent. It is pretty standard. Linux is such a mature product now that the knowledge bases for all the major distributions, even the open-source free ones, are so vast. I do not know if any Linux distribution offers any real advantage over others when it comes to the knowledge base.

Neutral

I have worked with all operating systems. I have been doing this for 30 years. In the military, I was a Windows and Linux systems administrator. I was using Solaris Unix back then. I have been using Windows for about 30 years, and then I have used all Linux distributions such as Ubuntu, Debian, Red Hat, Mandrake, Yellow Dog, etc. If there is a Linux distribution out there, I have probably used it in a project somewhere.

The only reason that I, or anybody else, uses Red Hat Enterprise Linux is because it offers commercial support. That is it.

The Red Hat package management system is inferior to most other package management systems in the Linux world, mostly to the Debian-based ones that used the App system versus the Red Hat RPM package management systems. Red Hat is also not as unified or as streamlined as other distributions.

The setup is pretty simple and very straightforward. I would rate it a seven out of ten for the ease of setup. Its upgrades are moderately straightforward.

The management depends on where those systems live. On-prem ones are managed differently than the cloud ones. Cloud-to-cloud ones are managed differently. Red Hat is slightly more work-intensive than other Linux distributions. I feel that Debian-based distributions, such as Ubuntu, Devuan, and AntiX, are easier to manage than the Red Hat-based distributions, and obviously, Red Hat Enterprise Linux is the flagship for all those distributions.

It is used just to meet requirements. Being government agencies, they do what they have to do to meet requirements. It helps them meet the requirements of having commercial support, and that is about the extent of it.

I am not a big fan of Red Hat Enterprise Linux. I use it because government customers have a requirement to use it, but outside of that, I would never voluntarily use it. In fact, I recommend against using it. 

We do not use features that are proprietary to Red Hat Enterprise Linux. We do our best to avoid proprietary tools. We stick to open-source tools. Typically, we use things like Ansible to achieve those goals.

I am a consultant, so I have worked with both on-premises and cloud deployments. I have used it in both Azure and AWS. It is client-defined. Our workloads are not hybrid workloads. They are usually dedicated. If we put a workload in the cloud, it is all in the cloud. If we put a workload on-prem, it is all on-prem. I do not know if Red Hat necessarily provides any special features to support hybrid workloads, and if it does, we certainly do not use them. We try to stay away from Red Hat-integrated tools and utilize industry-standard tools. We use Terraform and Ansible. Ansible is now owned by Red Hat, so it is technically a Red Hat tool, but it is also an open-source project.

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux an eight out of ten. It is good for commercial usage, but I would never use Red Hat Enterprise Linux in a startup environment.