Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Reviews

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux for VMs and physical servers. 

The containerized platform will help us use ROSA. 

The tool's most valuable feature is OpenShift. We plan to move all our applications to microservices. The container platform is integrated into one.

I opened a few cases, and the tool's support responded quickly. 

Positive

Deployment is simple if you have been using the solution for a long time. However, it can be complex if you are new to it. 

We use RHEL 7 and RHEL 8 on on-premises. RHEL 8 is on the AWS. There is a security policy like CIS when deploying the solution. You can embed it on the image. I am not sure if there is HIPAA compliance yet. 

Migration from RHEL 8 to RHEL 9 is easy. Upgrade depends on the application that is running on each instance. You need to check if it is compatible with the kernel. We need to plan things before migrating to the latest version. We need to stay current to ensure compliance. We plan to move from RHEL 7 to RHEL 9 and use RHEL 8 and RHEL 9. 

We use Red Hat insights but do not utilize them. It helps with the remediation. I use Image Builder to build AWS and GCP images. I haven't deployed them. 

I rate the product a nine out of ten. 

We run IT and telco workloads and applications on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

Red Hat Enterprise Linux helped us centralize development. We use a complete ecosystem of Red Hat for end-to-end development, deployment, and operations. 

Centralizing development is achieved as we have clearly defined platforms to host applications, like OpenShift. 

Additionally, the ACS on top of containers scans to ensure they are compliant, reducing vulnerabilities within our software.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux provides a standardized environment with Kubernetes and good support behind it. The end-to-end delivery for developing, testing, and deploying containers in the same ecosystem is a very valuable feature. 

The built-in security features are fine, we don't receive complaints about them.

One area for improvement is dealing with specifics developed by Red Hat Enterprise Linux that are now end of life. We have to remediate these changes, which is a disadvantage. 

Additionally, better comparisons between different stack providers in pricing and functionalities could help, especially since public clouds often appear less expensive during planning but are more costly in practice.

I have used Red Hat Enterprise Linux personally since joining my company ten years ago. Within the company, it has been used for more than 20 years.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux performs quite well for business-critical applications. Although we have some outages, it's not unusual, and I cannot blame RHEL entirely for it.

Scaling Red Hat Enterprise Linux OS is smooth and without complaints. We are planning to widen its use by moving from OpenStack to bare metal according to Red Hat's roadmap.

The customer service rating varies at around an eight or nine out of ten.

Positive

They conducted tests with Ubuntu. That said, it was less expensive and not as stable or developed as Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

There is a return on investment since we can host our applications on top of Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is quite expensive, yet the technical support, available roadmaps, and services justify the cost. We receive value for the price we pay, including technical support, which enables business continuity and compliance.

We evaluated Ubuntu, but it was less stable.

I would advise trying it out to see for yourself. Red Hat provides great technical support. That said, the pricing may need careful evaluation, especially when comparing with public cloud offerings.

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

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux for file transfers and changing file permissions. It is also used to check file spaces and for migration purposes. Our tools are hosted on the Linux environment, and our agent services run on it.

We use Red Hat Linux to start and stop our agent services during migration, install new agents, and transfer files. The primary benefit is that it's a widely used open-source solution with good support. Now that we've migrated from CentOS to Red Hat Enterprise Linux, we will realize some benefits. Red Hat Enterprise Linux has more features. 

I like Red Hat Enterprise Linux's clustering capabilities and high-level architecture. It has high availability, built-in disaster recovery, SSH features, and scripting. 

The documentation is excellent. Since it was acquired by IBM, the open-source tools and technologies hosted on the Linux environment have been updated with many new features. 

It would be great if Red Hat had its cloud instead of using AWS, Azure, or GCP. Red Hat Enterprise Linux should have a dedicated cloud. I would also like to see more Windows support. 

Red Hat Enterprise Linux could also be more user-friendly and use AI or machine learning to automate processes. That is the most dynamic feature in the information technology industry.

I have used Red Hat for five years.

We have intermittent issues with stability, but we're hoping they will improve in the latest version.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is quite scalable. We can place a lot of agents on Linux servers, some on the cloud, and a few on-prem. It can handle the workload. 

I rate Red Hat support eight out of 10. We have communicated with Red Hat support via email. 

Positive

Before Red Hat Enterprise Linux, we used CentOS. Another Linux flavor I've used is Ubuntu. 

The first deployment of Red Hat Enterprise Linux had a learning curve, but I've learned a lot since then. Once you know the process, then it's straightforward. It uses a command-based process, but if it were based on a GUI or a console, like a Windows installer, that would be a significant improvement. 

Red Hat Enterprise Linux requires some housekeeping. We have to restart and patch servers weekly or biweekly and check the CPU, memory size, file size, the database used, and whether the IP network protocols are defined. All this happens monthly, weekly, or fortnightly.

I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux eight out of 10. 

I use Red Hat in data routines for web, database, and container servers. Right now, I'm using three primary use cases.

Red Hat offers compliance consulting services. If we purchase hardware from companies like HP, Dell, or IBM, which also partner with Red Hat, they often guarantee compliance for their hardware. This compliance can extend to security regulations imposed by certain countries or governments, such as those based on NIST or CSSP standards. Red Hat's focus on compliance seems to center primarily around these hardware-related aspects and associated security requirements.

Red Hat's knowledge base requires an active subscription for full access, but developers can utilize a free, annually renewable option. With an activated developer subscription, users gain access to forums, documentation, the latest news, vulnerability reports, and other resources related to Red Hat Enterprise Linux and its associated packages. The knowledge base is now well-documented, and the active community quickly responds to forum inquiries, often within a few hours.

Leap is a feature designed by Red Hat to migrate its operating systems between versions. Introduced to address the end-of-life issue for distributions like CentOS seven, eight, and RHEL seven, eight, Leap allows users to upgrade from RHEL seven to eight, RHEL eight to nine, CentOS seven to eight, and CentOS eight to nine. However, Leap is specifically designed for Red Hat and works optimally only on Red Hat seven, eight, and nine. It does not function as intended on CentOS, Fedora, Oracle Linux, or other community distributions. Red Hat Insights is a complementary tool that provides valuable information to subscription holders about their licensed servers, including package installations, subscription validation, detected bugs, and vulnerabilities. It also offers alerts about new vulnerabilities and patches and facilitates license management and environment oversight.

I've used Convert2RHEL, a tool that simplifies transitioning from CentOS-based distributions like Leap to Red Hat Enterprise Linux. It supports converting only CentOS to RHEL by replacing binaries and installing Red Hat logos. Underlying Ansible scripts entirely handle this process. While I've had success with it, occasional minor issues arise but are easily resolved.

I have experienced minimal downtime while using RHEL. Some of our RHEL systems have operated uninterrupted for over 600 days. The only necessary reboots occur when applying kernel updates. Overall, RHEL has demonstrated reliable and resilient uptime and security.

Due to its built-in compliance features, RHEL is instrumental in achieving certifications for security standards. The system incorporates policies that align with regulations for governance and public institutions. When installing Red Hat Enterprise Linux in the cloud or on-premises, users must implement security policies that activate specific plugins and APIs to maintain compliance. Given its comprehensive coverage of contemporary compliance standards, Red Hat is the most valuable distribution.

Release updates are the most valued feature because Red Hat's rigorously tested release update pipeline sets it apart from other distributions. While many options are available, none match Red Hat's commitment to thorough package testing. Packages are initially delivered to Fedora, Red Hat's community distribution, for testing and validation. Proven packages then transition to CentOS, and after six months, the most stable and reliable packages are incorporated into the new Red Hat release. This well-defined pipeline ensures that Red Hat packages are stable and long-lasting. However, not all packages released in Fedora make it to Red Hat; some experimental or community-driven packages may not meet enterprise standards. Fedora serves as a testing ground, while Red Hat focuses on delivering a stable operational system.

Red Hat, known for its secure distribution, sometimes delays critical security patches for certain packages compared to other Linux communities like AlmaLinux or Rocky Linux. For instance, AlmaLinux addressed recent vulnerabilities in the SSH package within days, while Red Hat took over a week to release a patch. While Red Hat's rigorous testing ensures high-quality patches, the delay in releasing them can pose security risks.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is a highly regarded but expensive distribution known for its top-notch software. This high cost often precludes smaller companies from adopting it. There is potential to make Red Hat Enterprise Linux more accessible to a wider range of businesses by lowering the price.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for ten years.

I previously encountered instability with an assistant. While using a non-Red Hat graphical interface, KDE, I experienced a system crash following a kernel update. This desktop environment proved incompatible with the new kernel. Conversely, servers utilizing only the command line never suffered crashes or downtime. I've observed the opposite trend in my Red Hat infrastructure, demonstrating exceptional resilience. For instance, during a complete data center outage two or three years ago, Red Hat systems recovered within minutes, while Ubuntu servers required significant maintenance. This suggests that Red Hat offers greater stability and reliability in our environment.

Specific features such as path movement and load balancing must be enabled when running routes within a cluster. Pre-installed software simplifies the process for system administrators to implement smart clusters and scale servers. Among various distributions, Red Hat is considered the most proficient in these areas, excelling in scalability and cluster server management.

The deployment was challenging, not because of Red Enterprise Linux itself but because the application runs within this distribution. Certain legacy software required manual installation on this new system, which complicated the migration process. However, the operating system itself is straightforward and plug-and-play. The difficulties arose from configuring the necessary applications within the distribution. I've had no issues working with or migrating to this distribution.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is only affordable for large organizations.

If I had to choose alternatives to RHEL, I would consider Oracle Linux and AlmaLinux. Oracle Linux is an enterprise distribution based on Red Hat, offering binary compatibility, meaning applications built for Red Hat Linux will run identically on Oracle Linux. It is an enterprise-grade product without the associated costs, as the distribution itself is free, with charges only for optional support. While I believe AlmaLinux is more resilient and reliable than RockyLinux, my preferred alternatives would be Oracle Linux first, followed by AlmaLinux.

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux nine out of ten.

Cockpit is a technology offering a web-based console for server management. This web console can also perform any action achievable through the command line interface. However, I do not recommend it due to the inherent security risks of running a web server, especially when managing another web server. This introduces additional vulnerabilities and necessitates increased patching efforts. My preference is to maintain a minimalist system that runs only essential services. While Cockpit might be suitable for junior system administrators in the RHEL environment, as a senior administrator, I exclusively utilize the CLI, both on-premises via SSH and in cloud environments. I would only consider implementing Cockpit if we have junior staff and are willing to implement robust security measures such as firewalls, access control lists, and other protective strategies.

Most of our infrastructure is made up of Linux servers. All of the apps that we have published are running on a Linux system. That is the main functionality.

I am responsible for Ansible for automation, and I am also responsible for our Satellite server, which is for patching and things like that. We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux a lot. We have 80% Red Hat Enterprise Linux and 20% Windows.

The benefits have been in terms of the speed and how the operating system does not interfere with apps that are running on it. That is the best aspect, at least from a business point of view. Databases run smoother, and so do the applications we have. There is no latency or issues like that.

We have a small number of servers up in the cloud in AWS, and then most of our servers are on-prem. We have a data server. Red Hat Enterprise Linux has made the deployment of servers smoother. We can do that pretty much with the click of a button, especially using AWS's platform.

For security and compliance, we have to be in sync with our security team. We cannot leave anything open. In Ansible, we have set up an actual configuration management playbook where it keeps all of our systems security compliant. It is really cool. Right now, we only have it working on our Dev and QA environments. We have not moved past that because we still have Chef. We are trying to get off of Chef completely. As of now, we are a hybrid. We have Chef and Ansible. Eventually, we will be completely Red Hat Ansible.

When it comes to keeping our organization agile, it is easy to decommission servers. Most of it is on VM, so we can just delete and then rebuild. If we accidentally delete a server, we can always bring it back because of backups and things like that. That is possible because of VMs. We do not have OpenShift, so I cannot say that Red Hat is the one that is keeping us agile.

The feature that I am enjoying right now is the actual LEAP program that they created for the actual in-place upgrades. I am upgrading from Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 to Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8. We are in the process of that, so that is the best functionality right now. It never had that ability in the past. That addition has been an amazing aspect.

I am not too sure how it could be better. I have not yet used Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9, so I cannot say if there have been any changes or improvements. Honestly, I cannot see it getting any better. I like the way the operating system works now, and I do not really see any bad functionality with it.

The only thing I would say is getting rid of some aspects. That is the one part that a lot of admins probably get annoyed with. For example, we are now going to DNF from using YUM. At some point, YUM will be taken away completely, but right now, you can use both. There are those minor tweaks, and you just have to roll with the punches. Maybe it is just a better version of what was there prior. DNF is probably used at a simpler level, and it probably does not take up as much configuration and space as YUM. I am not sure exactly why they make those changes, but that is probably the only thing that is kind of annoying.

In my current company, we recently switched from CentOS to Red Hat Enterprise Linux. We are also working with CentOS. It has been around three years with this company, but I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux a lot longer. I am a Linux admin and I have been using it since 2006 or 2007.

It is definitely stable. We never have any issues. Everyone wants to blame the patching or some change in the OS, but it is never that. It is always the other side.

It has a lot of scalability. We have plans to increase its usage. We are in the process of getting off Oracle Linux, which is, again, another version of theirs, but we are going to be converting those over to Red Hat. All of our databases are going to be running on Red Hat.

It is awesome. I just upgraded my Satellite server. I moved from Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 to Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 and then also upgraded to Satellite 6.14, which is almost the most recent version. I did that in the last month. Their support was awesome. I worked through what was said in the documentation on how to do the upgrade. I created my own spreadsheet for the upgrade and what I needed to do. I worked with their support. I had a meeting with them to check if it would work and if anything needs to be added or taken away. They worked with us that way. Their support is awesome.

Positive

We had CentOS. It is still based on Red Hat.

We are just now starting to use Podman. We were using Docker, and we are now moving over to Podman, which is the Red Hat Enterprise Linux-specific version of containers. It has been an easy transition. We do not necessarily work with Podman. Application owners are the ones who want us to install it, and then they utilize it the way they want to.

We have three data centers. We have a data center in the East in Pittsburgh, and then we have one in Arizona. We also have it in the cloud in AWS. Even there, there are two, so we have four data centers.

We do have a few Red Hat Enterprise Linux systems on the cloud. We are not sure if we are going into the cloud completely, but we do have some servers in the cloud. Our cloud provider is AWS. Our main app resides in the cloud. All the data, most of the data servers, and other applications are on prem. 

I was involved in the deployment of Red Hat Enterprise Linux. We were the ones who converted it. It was very simple. Red Hat's technical person gave us the conversion script and tools. We just utilized that conversion script to switch from CentOS.

We did not use a consultant or an integrator. Red Hat gave us the tools, and we did it.

I do not know what the impact is financially because I am not in that department. For compliance, it has been helpful. Especially the banks have to be compliant in terms of being patched and things like that. Red Hat has been beneficial.

The biggest return on investment has been the ease. I have been a Linux admin for many years. I have used Solaris, AIX, CentOS, etc. I have always liked Red Hat Enterprise Linux better. It is just a better OS.

I do not know the overall cost, but I know that Red Hat is cheaper than Windows.

We did not evaluate any other solution. We were going to Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

We just switched from open source, which was CentOS, to Red Hat. My advice is to stick with Red Hat only because with open source, you do not get the updates at the same time. The updates come later for vulnerabilities and things like that. I would not recommend open source for an organization. If you are at home, you can go ahead and easily use CentOS. It is free, so why not use it? For an organization, Red Hat Enterprise Linux is better.

Currently, we are not using Red Hat Insights the way they are meant to be used. We are planning to do so at some point in the future. Currently, we only use it as a tool to make sure that it keeps track of all of our servers, whether we delete or add servers. Red Hat Insights keeps track of that and lets us know what version it is and things like that, but we do not utilize Red Hat Insights the way they are meant to be. Red Hat Insights provides vulnerability alerts and targeted guidance, but we use Nexpose for vulnerability scanning. 

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has not yet enabled us to centralize development. That is because of the way the company is structured. Everything is fragmented. We have a separate networking team. We have a separate Linux team and we have a separate software team. Getting something done and centralized is pretty much impossible at this point. Any small tweaks are like pulling teeth at this point. I do not know if that is going to change. Hopefully, it will. We are planning on moving to OpenShift. I am hoping that it will make everything more centralized and it will bring the company to a less fragmented spot.

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

We are currently in the midst of a POC phase with a standalone cluster. This cluster consists of both coordinator and worker nodes, with a metadata store for storing various metadata. The entire setup is deployed on Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8, and we have established a connection to the OpenShift UI.

While using it, we encountered far fewer complexities, and the entire process is much smoother and streamlined. For patching purposes, we simply need to communicate with our system administrator. They take care of the patching process, so we don't have to get involved and we can easily connect to the artifact repository and download the necessary artifacts to install in our system. 

We have a set of JSON files containing YAML configurations where all the required image details are documented and this setup makes it very straightforward for us.As for the Web Console, if you're talking about the user interface for tasks like creating ports, deploying applications, managing secrets, and other functions, I haven't encountered any significant issues. 

The process is generally straightforward and quick, taking just a few minutes. OpenShift offers two types of interfaces: one where you can edit YAML files for more advanced customization, and the other where you can use forms for faster deployment, though with fewer features.

Continuous improvement is essential to enhance user experiences and address evolving needs.

I have been working with it for approximately six months.

Our experience with its customer support is very good. Whenever we encounter any issues, we receive prompt and comprehensive assistance. There's no need to wait or take any additional steps to get the help we require, which is highly appreciated. I would rate it nine out of ten.

Positive

In the past, our work primarily involved Hadoop, and we also dealt with Solid Cloud for security and other purposes, but we found that this setup was slow and not open source. On the other hand, the DLP solution we're currently using is not only cost-effective but also significantly faster. 

I also used a Linux browser, specifically the KCL browser which required me to go through the process of installing packages and various components, while in the current setup, everything is seamlessly connected. We simply use the OC command with a private key to connect to OpenShift. There are no extra or additional steps required, making the whole process exceptionally fast and efficient. It's quite remarkable and makes the workflow truly hassle-free.

The initial setup was easy.

The deployment process is straightforward. I simply had to deploy the images using OC commands, and the process of connecting to OpenShift was remarkably fast and smooth.

Overall, I would rate it nine out of ten.

The SAP solution subscriptions have made things a lot easier because it's a standard build. 

The solutions were premium and standard, which were not the same. They've combined those into just one standard version. Only the support hours are different. That is fantastic for us. It makes life easier.

For the standard subscriptions, in the past, updating the OS could increase your downtime. With the production ones, it did not. It got our non-production and production out of sync. Now, they've combined that all into one. It's just the support hours that are different. They're fantastic.

We use the SAP solution subscriptions only for SAP, which are great. 

We also use Ansible. Ansible is a wonderful tool for automation. We use it to automate our patching. We use Ansible to get playbooks to take care of anything that's manual.

We were able to achieve our security standard certifications.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has affected our HA systems in a negative way. We're working through some of those issues.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 came up with a new feature that's like a MOM API in our cluster. It goes out into the AWS side and it needs to be adjusted. It does a retry that causes a cluster to failover pretty quickly, so we turned that feature off. That's something that could be improved. 

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for a long time. It has been at least 10 to 15 years.

Support has been great. We get the right people for what we need.

Positive

The patching has been good, but we scan with Qualys all the time. It comes up with thousands of EIDs all the time, but putting on the patches seems to resolve that.

We're operating right now from 7.9 to 8.6. We have to go with the supported versions. We did qualify for RHEL 9. 

We used Unix in the past. We did have to come up with the SAP side. It was always Unix.

Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten. 

We use it for databases and applications. In the new model, we keep databases separate from applications. Currently, about 90% of our operations are running in Red Hat 8. Some systems are still on Red Hat 7, but those will be migrated off by the beginning of next year.

It's been great since we have it. It's been reliable and fast. We keep all the security agents, and we've been taken care of right away, and that's the improvement in our company. It's with the new RHEL. There's always something new, something good that works for us. 

Moreover, we might need to move workloads from the cloud in the US to China in the future.

As we're migrating and doing the Elite upgrade, which is an in-place upgrade, we find it great. We use it for databases, and we're testing it for applications. Some applications don't work, but some are functioning well. So far, it's been a positive experience.

Since I'm more focused on migrating, Leapp is awesome. We are able to do something that will work the way it's working.  There are no issues or breaks.

RHEL's knowledge base is great. It's very good. Especially when you try to open a case, it gives you all the options you need, so you don't have to wait for the case to be opened. You can get all the information you need right there.

Moreover, I am in the process of testing Leapp and Red Hat Insights. And then create our images from there rather than create MIs.

At the new company, we've been using it for three years. At my previous company,  we used it for over five years. Personally, I have been using it for almost eight to ten years.

We often have to go through people who have the same labels as us and who have the same knowledge base articles as us, which takes time. But they do it first; it's searching the knowledge way that I search. That I can do. That takes the time before. They do the payment. They sent me exactly what I had already found. And then we can go to the next level. That is taking a little bit more time that we can be a little bit better. So, the initial step of the support process could be improved. 

90% of people who open those bases are administrators who already look on the Internet for all these knowledge bases. So by the time we get there, we're gonna get the knowledge base back. And that's not helpful. 

Positive

I used to use HPUX and Solaris. We switched to RHEL because HPUX started looking like it was going away, so we started moving to Red Hat. We thought it was our best option. We tested different flavors of RHEL.

When it comes to provisioning and patching, we have a satellite server. We use a lot of Ansible. We are getting used to Ansible and Satellite servers. 

The initial setup wasn't complex, but since we wanted to make it easier to use, it became harder to make it work the way we wanted. Not out of the box, so we can just build a server that is ready to be deployed right away without any more interventions.

We use RHEL with AWS because it's easier for us to maintain since we create our own AMIs and we update that as we need it. So we don't need to follow their schedule until we get it more secure and more reliable for us.

Overall, I would rate the solution a ten out of ten.