Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Reviews

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.

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) 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.

My experience is primarily on-premises. I work in the financial and banking area, which has about 2,000 VMs.

The benefits are reliability, stability, and good support.

I find Red Hat Enterprise Linux stable. 

The knowledge base offered by Red Hat is good. They also have good support for the business. The web console has been acceptable, but we don't really use those tools.

I don't find Red Hat Enterprise Linux's security features to be good. They have many vulnerabilities that haven't been fixed for many years. They have numerous vulnerabilities that remain unresolved. Just some security details could be fixed. They have many vulnerabilities left over from previous years, with not enough being fixed, and their commitment is only to fix the critical and important ones. For moderate and low severity issues, they don't have the commitment. The security part is weak. Based on all scan reports, they have many vulnerabilities that can't be fixed adequately. 

We will be involved with some Red Hat Enterprise Linux upgrades or migrations to other cloud platforms. It's not straightforward in my opinion; we have to create an image from Red Hat Virtualization Manager and convert the image to a format that can be recognized by other platforms, such as Microsoft Azure. We have to convert the image and then import it to the Azure cloud. It's not easy, as it requires manual work. There's no tool available for this process.

I have three years of experience with Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

The uptime is excellent as it's automated and stable. I would say the uptime is very good.

Overall, their support is good. I would rate their technical support an eight out of ten.

Positive

We didn't use any other Linux systems before. Initially, we used other operating systems such as AIX and Solaris, but Red Hat Enterprise Linux was the first Linux we introduced.

We also have SUSE Linux for one specific product.

When it comes to provisioning and patching, we use the satellite. It's acceptable when patching. I am satisfied with the provisioning and patching process as it's easy to manage. We don't use Insight, and I don't know about it. We don't use the Linux image builder or System Roles; we use our own Ansible Playbook to build a system.

We have all the automation set up for server provisioning and patching. We have the web console, but we don't really use its tools. We use our own Ansible Playbook, which allows us to manage and customize. We have many customizations. All the agents are installed for compliance, IP setup, file system creation - everything is automated.

When we create a VM, it only takes running the playbook and clicking a button. It takes about two minutes of work, and the automation handles the rest. In about two hours, the VM is up and running. If we use their tools, there are many limitations for customization, and we can only build an OS, but for the rest, we still have to run the automation. That's why we don't use those tools.

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

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 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.

I have completed RHCSA and RHCE certifications. In my day-to-day work, I mainly use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for basic installation of Red Hat OS, configuration, MariaDB setup, Apache setup, and cluster management.

Regarding my main use case with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), it is an open source OS which allows us to modify the system as per our requirements. It is also secure and user-friendly.

The system is user-friendly because we can use it through both CLI and GUI interfaces, which provides flexibility, and the ability to modify the OS helps me in my daily work.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has positively impacted my organization because we can check for vulnerabilities, and when we have internet access, we can directly install packages. The system provides easy access to internet resources when needed.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has potential for improvement, though currently all features are working well based on my experience. Different versions have increased security measures, which is beneficial.

Regarding needed improvements for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), increasing its cloud capabilities would be beneficial. Additionally, it would be helpful if they provided direct RPM package downloads via the Red Hat site without requiring a Red Hat subscription.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for more than five to six years.

I used a different solution before Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) when I was working at SBI, where they had a Galera cluster. Sometimes servers would unexpectedly remove themselves from the cluster, which caused major issues requiring troubleshooting and node verification.

My advice to others considering Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is that compared to Windows and Mac, Red Hat is very comfortable to use.

I currently use both Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and CentOS as tech products.

I use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for the web server application. The application I refer to is the web server application. I use this product in the telecommunication industry. We use it mainly for web applications.

In my opinion, the best features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are security, which is the main feature, and stability, as it's a stable product. The security of RHEL is beneficial because it is pretty good, and we get regular patches if there's an issue. The best security feature of RHEL, in my opinion, is the kernel patches.

RHEL helps me save time since if the OS is stable, I spend less time troubleshooting and can focus on my application. It helps mitigate downtime for sure.

It would be nice if they could bring in more features fast enough. More features for Linux in general would be appreciated. I hope they can draw from the upstream Fedora for more features.

We have not switched from a different solution; we have been using it for many years.

We haven't seen downtime yet, as we don't have a comparison against other operating systems. RHEL helps solve pain points such as less outage and less time spent on stability of the operating system, allowing my team more time to work on our applications.

Scalability is not that significant because, nowadays, OS in general doesn't help in distributed computing; that is mainly done by technology like Kubernetes.

I would rate Red Hat's support around an eight; we have never had to call them as we could fix issues ourselves.

The object storage is with another vendor, and I cannot disclose it.

Setting up Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is fairly easy; we have automated that. The setup process is fairly easy. It takes maybe 15-20 minutes to set up RHEL.

I would say Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is definitely expensive. Compared to open-source Enterprise Linux like Rocky Linux or Alma, it's definitely very expensive. We use it mainly for web applications; it is very pricey for us, and I think they will be negotiating with Red Hat to lower the price.

I have experience with Red Hat solutions. I am familiar with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), specifically Enterprise Linux. I have more than 12 years of experience with Red Hat Linux. Currently, I use Red Hat on-premises. I use this product in the telecommunication industry. We use RHEL strictly on-prem. Overall, I would rate my experience with RHEL an eight.

My main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are extensive, but mostly we utilize it for our clients as a base operating system.Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) solves pain points related to security patching and support.Security requirements for choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in the cloud depend heavily on the client's business. For some clients, we don't have any special regulation, but for domains such as oil and gas, there are very strict security requirements that we must meet. In most of the current products, we can find the appropriate and certified product for our clients.

The features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) I appreciate most are centralized account management and SSO. The integration of SSO features, particularly with Azure Active Directory, benefits our organization greatly because it is very easy to grant appropriate access to the operating system.Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped to mitigate downtime and lower risk.

I don't believe there are any additional features that should be included in the next release.

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

What works well for me is that it is pretty stable over the years, and I don't face many challenges with it.I have not experienced any downtime, crashes, or performance issues.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales well with the growing needs of my organization.

I evaluate customer service and technical support as brilliant.I regard that support as pretty good.

Positive

While I sometimes use other solutions, we are not limited to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), and for some cases, we use Canonical products. A long time ago, we used SUSE, but not recently.

I would describe my experience with deploying Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as easy.Managing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems from a central management console is a form of centralized management.I am satisfied with that centralized management console.

I have seen ROI with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

When selecting Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), the other solution I considered was Canonical, which is direct competition at the operating system level. However, Red Hat provides a more complete integration between the operating system and platforms.What stood out to me in my evaluation process was how easy it is to integrate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) into the existing IT processes of our clients, which is the main driver for us as cost concerns are not my focus. Maintaining security patching and support over the long term is also crucial for enterprise clients.

I have expanded usage of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for myself and my clients.My advice for other organizations considering Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is that if you are talking about long-term solutions, you need to choose a base infrastructure that is supportable for a long time.I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) overall as a nine out of ten.

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.