Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Reviews

We are primarily using it for services, such as cloud infrastructure services, for our business. We are working with a Town Council in Bolivia. We provide the environment for deployed applications, and we are using it for the private cloud, Linux server, and applications developed within the company.

Mostly, we use version 7.0. We also have three servers with version 8.5. We are working with everything on-premise. We have a cloud, but most of the cloud is accessible from inside the company. It is not accessible from outside of the company.

Red Hat at present is the core, and we are also using Ansible, Horizon, OpenShift, and Kubernetes in our environment. They are a part of our environment. It is the best in terms of integration, and it is totally integrated with other solutions. With these integrations, all other solutions become a part of one big solution, which saves time. You can achieve the same results by building things from scratch with open source, but it would be very time-consuming. Deployments become easy and fast because everything is integrated. It is very good to have everything integrated, and we now have just two people working with the whole infrastructure. 

It has accelerated deployment. We are using OpenShift, and it is very easy to deploy new machines on our infrastructure. Like Ansible, we can deploy many machines with the same configuration or automatic configuration. It is really fast. 

With Ansible, we can easily create environments. Comparing the infrastructure that we had while using Windows 2012 with the tools that we now have with Red Hat, we have saved 80% of the time. Everything is automated with Ansible. We only check playbooks. It has accelerated the deployment of applications. Automation saves time and allows us to allocate people to other work. Previously, it was very time-consuming to create environments. We had to train people. We had to create maybe three or four virtual machines for load balancing according to the needs of the client, whereas now, OpenShift is creating them automatically and destroying them when they are no longer needed. It saves a lot of our time. People are doing more technical work. In the past, we had five people to work with the infrastructure, and now, we have only two people. Three people have been moved to another department.

We can run multiple versions of applications for deployment. OpenShift has Kubernetes inside. So, you can run one version, and immediately, you can deploy the next version and do a test of two versions. We test new solutions or patches in an application, and we run both versions at the same time just to have a benchmark and prove that some issues have been fixed. With Kubernetes, it is easy for us.

Its scalability and ease of setup and configuration are most valuable. When we have a hardware failure, we just save the configuration files, and in about half an hour, we have another server running with the same configuration. It is really easy to replace servers. This is the best feature.

It has very good integrations. The IPA feature is really awesome. We used this feature to integrate with Active Directory. Red Hat has many tools for integrations.

I would like training to be added to the subscription. It would be useful for when you have to train yourself or get a certification. There are many things that we are not using because we don't know how to use them. Having training included in the subscription would help us in learning more things and utilizing the full power of the solution.

I have been using this solution since 2000. I have been using Red Hat before it became Enterprise, but in our company, we adopted Red Hat about two years ago. We still have a few servers on Windows Server 2019, but most of our servers are on Red Hat.

It is very reliable. We didn't have any issues with services.

Its scalability is good. We can work with the same server and make it a load balancer. It is really easy. In one hour or one and a half hours, we can have another server working, and we can put it in the cluster. It is really easy.

We contacted them only twice, and we received good support from them. I would rate them a nine out of 10. The only thing that is missing is the training. If they can include training in the subscription, it would be awesome.

We mostly had Microsoft solutions, and we were using Windows 2012, and we had some issues with it. Working with Windows was really painful for us as administrators. For users, there was no issue. The servers were always working. We switched to Red Hat because it had the biggest offering. It is an enterprise solution, and it gives you all the things. With others, you have to do things on your own. It is a complete solution.

When we migrated from Windows 2012 to Red Hat, it was a game-changer. In the beginning, we were working with IIS for deploying applications. Most of the applications were developed in the company, and some of them were not PHP-native.

We also have four servers using Debian Linux, and we have another software that is open-source and built from scratch. It is like Red Hat, but you need to do most of the things from scratch. We're using Docker instead of Kubernetes for everything related to quality assurance for our developers.

It was complex at the beginning because we only knew the basics. We didn't know the purpose of many of the tools and how to implement them. We started training ourselves. It took us two years to implement or to make this change.

We first installed it on a few of our servers, but then we started working with OpenShift. We have a private cloud in our infrastructure, and it is me and one colleague doing this job.

We haven't measured it, but we would have got an ROI. It is doing many things for us, and it must be providing a big return on investment.

If you don't buy the Red Hat subscription, you don't get technical support, and you don't have all the updates. 

To have everything working like a charm, the cost that you pay for it is worth it. In Bolivia, we don't have the best internet connection. Therefore, we have a local service with all the packages, repositories, etc. We manage them locally, and because we have a subscription, we can update them. So, we have local repositories with all the packages and other things to make it easy for us to update all the servers. Without the Red Hat subscription, we cannot update anything.

We were thinking of SUSE because it also has enterprise solutions. We decided on Red Hat because of OpenShift. This was the key thing for us. 

Red Hats' open-source approach was also a factor while choosing the solution because there is a law in Bolivia that is forcing all public institutions to migrate to open source. By 2023, all public institutions must run on open-source solutions.

You cannot compare it with anything that is in the market because there is nothing that does the same. Amazon is doing something similar, but it is still a different service. Everything that they give us surprises us and changes the way we are doing things.

It hasn't simplified adoption for non-Linux users because we have mostly deployed servers, and they are not visible to the users. Users are just using the applications, and they don't know what is going on in the background. They don't know if they are using Linux or something else. They are using Windows on the client, but on servers, they don't know what is running.

We aren't using bare metal for servers. Everything is virtualized and working just fine. We have VMware, OpenShift, etc. Everything is deployed on our own cloud, and everything is on our server.

We use the dashboard of OpenShift to monitor the whole infrastructure, but we also have two solutions that are not by Red Hat. One is Zabbix, and the other one is Pandora. Both of them are open source. The dashboard of OpenShift doesn't significantly affect the performance of existing applications, but it is helpful because it can send triggers. It has triggers to send alerts and things like that. It is not really resource-consuming. It is really good.

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a 10 out of 10.

I am utilizing Red Hat Enterprise Linux for automated workloads.

Having prior experience with Ansible and its automation capabilities, I sought a centralized platform with a graphical interface. Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform seemed like the ideal solution, especially since I was already familiar with Red Hat Enterprise Linux. This familiarity made it a natural progression to explore containerization within the RHEL environment.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux helps to centralize development.

Choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux for our container environment provides a more secure and reliable platform for our applications.

I appreciate the robust security features in Red Hat Enterprise Linux, such as including security benchmarks like CIS security hardenings. These benchmarks offer a significant improvement over previous Red Hat Enterprise Linux versions and provide numerous valuable security enhancements.

The most crucial factor is arguably the availability of fast, reliable, and effective support, as this prevents isolation when managing Linux systems and significantly mitigates risk.

Open integration is beneficial because it enables the use of various benchmarks to strengthen Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

Integrating Ansible Automation offers benefits, while Red Hat Enterprise Linux provides robust security features, including benchmarks for security hardening.

I would like a more straightforward process for extending file systems without the need to write all the names of logical volumes, to simplify administration and automation.

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

Early versions of Red Hat Enterprise Linux had several issues, but up from RHEL 7 I have found it very stable.

The support is accessible and responsive. I have engaged with them almost every day for two weeks and opened many cases, receiving assistance with my challenges and issues.

Positive

The Red Hat Enterprise Linux subscriptions are quite expensive.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is considered an industry standard.

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

I recommend considering Red Hat Enterprise Linux if the budget allows, as it is widely used in the industry and offers superior software support.

We have RHEL running on our machines, which handle extensive computing tasks and data analysis. The team is responsible for managing the operating system and virtual machines that host various applications run by developers. My department doesn't use containerization, but other departments do.

Red Hat's security patches and standard compliance ensure risk management and continuity.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux helps us reduce risks in our environment through operating system patches. In my previous job, we ran baselines through Ansible to ensure every server was compliant with the company's standards based on CIS standards. Red Hat Enterprise Linux has contributed significantly to business continuity and compliance efforts.

We haven't encountered any critical vulnerabilities that required Red Hat Insights to resolve. They all had low CVE scores, so they could be handled with regular patching. We haven't had to use emergency procedures yet. Red Hat Insights has dashboards you can use to see your performance, what systems are critical or require patches and all that stuff. 

Red Hat could add some AI features. There's a lot of talk about AI nowadays, but I don't think will be in Red Enterprise Linux itself. The cloud applications benefit from AI, but I don't think that will be integrated into the OS yet. 

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for about seven years now.

We've hardly had any downtime. It goes down occasionally, but the system performs well overall. There aren't many problems, and when we do experience issues, Red Hat support resolves them quickly.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux can scale to meet the organization's needs as they evolve.

Customer service is rated eight out of ten.  Red Hat support has been instrumental. As an industry standard, it provides quick solutions to any technical problems that arise.

It is generally easy to initiate a support case with Red Hat, and there are clear escalation paths if needed. The support team responds based on the contract level.

Positive

I used Sun Solaris previously. It was nearly perfect, but it had some areas for improvement, similar to Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

The benefits of investing in Red Hat Enterprise Linux include stability, continuity, and robust support.

Other Linux operating systems like Debian are community-driven but lack the large company support that Red Hat offers.

I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux nine out of 10. Red Hat is a large organization with a solid community that can provide upstream and downstream support. I don't give it a 10 because operating systems always have room for improvement. It's almost there, but there are a few things that Red Hat could do better. 

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux for configuration management of on-premise servers within the bank, making it a bank-wide solution.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is hosted in the cloud, but the use cases are for on-premises.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux enabled centralized development by controlling deployments through features like sign-in, role-based access control, and Ansible Tower. The API integration enhanced control by standardizing deployments, providing oversight, and enabling management from a central location.

It facilitates easier environment management and performs well in that aspect, as we haven't encountered any issues.

Regarding the portability of applications for Red Hat Enterprise Linux, the only tool we utilize is Ansible Tower. Its ease of use on servers and local machines, consistent interface and debugging process ensure a streamlined workflow regardless of the platform.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux significantly enhances the bank's capacity to manage numerous deployments. Its integration with Ansible Tower provides exceptional scalability, which has proven invaluable. Furthermore, the seamless integration change simplifies deployment management, making it substantially more efficient.

API integration streamlines connections with other tools, simplifying data sharing and enhancing workflow efficiency. Features like sign-in, role-based access control, and API integration provide crucial control over deployments.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux packaging could be improved to simplify infrastructure maintenance and provisioning. While Red Hat Enterprise Linux is a robust operating system, managing it alongside external tools can present maintenance, provisioning, and compliance challenges. Streamlining the packaging process would enhance efficiency and ease of use for administrators.

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

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is a stable platform.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is highly scalable. By adding more hosts and doubling the number of VMs, it has successfully worked for our needs.

Technical support responds quickly to urgent issues, but minor bugs may take a considerable amount of time to resolve.

Neutral

Our projects utilized various solutions, including XLD and UCD, as well as some legacy technologies. Red Hat Enterprise Linux proved easier to configure than previous platforms, offering greater flexibility and alignment with current best practices.

While I lack direct deployment experience, I understand that Red Hat Enterprise Linux facilitates straightforward modifications, minimizing concerns about system disruptions.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux offers the greatest return on investment through its invaluable support, which is crucial for our critical applications. The comprehensive documentation and extensive resources, including Q&A and solutions to previous issues, are also essential.

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

Red Hat Enterprise Linux offers robust built-in security features that help with risk reduction, business continuity, and compliance. However, hosting external tools within a bank environment can create challenges in synchronizing policies and meeting security expectations. Ensuring the tool's security configurations align with the bank's server requirements can be complex, but this challenge is not unique to Ansible and is a common issue when integrating external tools into secure environments.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux offers greater control and a higher level of security compared to some open-source alternatives, which can be crucial for enterprise applications where stability and reliability are paramount. This focus on security is a key factor in choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux in the enterprise for production environments. We mostly use it on bare metal servers, which are dedicated. In terms of deployment, we use the on-premises version of Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has given us better insights and allowed us to manage the environment more effectively. In terms of overall performance improvements, it has provided us with increased visibility into security, which has been helpful for our cybersecurity team.

Its built-in security features seem pretty sufficient for our purposes, but we have other teams that manage the security and build aspects. I am more involved in the maintenance of it, but in terms of the built-in security features, I find it sufficient. The security team also takes care of the compliance aspect.

I mainly use the Red Hat database for vulnerabilities. It is pretty good for determining whether or not a vulnerability has been resolved. 

We use Red Hat Satellite for patching. I like Red Hat Satellite for patching and keeping us secure.

We have used Red Hat Enterprise Linux in hybrid environments. It seems to work fairly well. For hybrid environments, it is probably one of the easier ones to deploy because it allows us to scale.

We were able to realize the benefits of Red Hat Enterprise Linux immediately after the deployment.

In terms of the organization and structure, the support is on point. The reporting and other things are very standardized. It does not leave much room for error when working in production environments.

When we first deploy Red Hat Enterprise Linux, it is very challenging to determine which security features have been deployed. It would be beneficial to have more insight into this. Additionally, once it is built, there does not seem to be an option to retroactively change security features, which can make it difficult to ascertain which ones have been deployed.

Their knowledge base is very verbose. There is too much information. It can complicate things a little bit. It is very detailed. If they can shorten it, that might be helpful.

We have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for a few years now, approximately seven to eight years.

I would rate the stability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux as seven out of ten. We do encounter problems, most of which can be resolved. Occasionally, we face issues that cannot be resolved until the kernel developers address them. These are typically dealt with through quarterly releases or major upgrades.

In terms of scalability, I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux about a nine out of ten. It is easy for us to make snapshots when we are patching. If we need to clone, we can do so, although they might not be full backups necessarily.

We use their portal for contacting support. The support from Red Hat is quite quick because it operates on a service-level agreement (SLA). For the paid support features, they are very responsive.

Positive

I am familiar with CentOS, and I have used OpenSUSE and SUSE Enterprise for testing and comparison purposes.

CentOS did not have as many security features. Of course, CentOS had the community support. CentOS was bought by Red Hat, and then the support started lacking. It was then discontinued to promote Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

We have done some physical to virtual migrations using VMware. We have been mostly involved in that. We have done a little bit of virtual-to-cloud migration but not as much as physical-to-virtual.

The migration is more on the complex side. There are quite a few players involved. We need to collaborate with different teams. We need to make sure that the database is there, and that the database team is always involved. It is not terribly simple. It requires quite a bit of project planning and coordination. We usually have a six-month project so that it can be planned and tested.

It does require maintenance on our end but not very frequently.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux licensing is quite costly, but I personally do not deal with pricing.

My advice to new users would be to focus more on the build aspect because it can be overlooked by many new users.

The Leapp utility works well when you do not have a much-customized environment. The more customized your environment is, the more complicated it gets to get Leapp to work to switch over to Red Hat Enterprise Linux. It is possible, but the more customized your environment is, the harder it is because it will require the kernel module. Convert2RHEL is pretty much the same as Leapp. The more customized the environment, the harder it is. It is feasible. It is just a matter of how much time you are willing to spend on it.

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

I use Red Hat Enterprise Linux to control my Docker systems and build and run containers on them. I also use it for a tokenization project I'm working on.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has improved the availability and security of our systems. The knowledge base, Wiki forums, and other resources are very helpful in simplifying my daily operations. We realized the benefits immediately after deployment. 

The most valuable features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux are the availability, file system performance, and overall system availability. The kernel is more secure than my previous operating systems, such as Windows.  Red Hat's knowledge base is helpful. I consult it several times in my daily work. I can ask questions on the forums and get help in my daily operations.

Using Red Hat Enterprise Linux's image builder is easy. I can use GitAI to pull any image I want to build on my system and reach into it using Red Hat. I use Convert2RHEL to publish my work on tokenization. I'm publishing more than 70 prints on my system daily, and saving this file. It's easy to use.

There are performance issues with the response time when accessing the console, but I'm unsure if that's Red Hat Enterprise Linux's fault or if it's due to the lack of CPU or memory on our machines. The enterprise interface could be improved. I can only use the keyboard to transfer files from one system to another. I want to use my mouse on the interface, not just scroll up and down. I would also like my logs archived as an RAR and sent to me. 

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

Stability is critical to us. Red Hat Enterprise Linux ensures our machine's availability and reduces the need for frequent restarts.

I have not contacted customer or technical support myself. Our infrastructure team handles any contacts with Red Hat support.

Positive

I have used Ubuntu before. Red Hat has a more robust knowledge base, and finding solutions to any problem is easier.

The infrastructure team handled the initial setup. I'm a software engineer working on my applications. The infrastructure team builds the machine, and I only use it. It was relatively easy, depending on the complexity of the deployment configuration. After deployment, we have maintenance on our machine if there are new patches to deploy. I have three machines, and each one is identical, with the same containers, so I don't need to do maintenance on our machines more than once monthly. 

It is important to use the knowledge base and familiarize oneself with key commands to gain more about Linux and ease its usage.

As an organization, we use Red Hat Enterprise Linux for its stability and security.

I have worked with it on the cloud as well as on-premises. We use it with AWS.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is great when it comes to provisioning and patching. I am satisfied with it.

The user base and the knowledge base of Red Hat are way better than those of others. They make the user install and solve the issues easily.

We have used Red Hat Enterprise Linux Image Builder. It is a great tool for managing multiple systems. It can copy an exact image of my existing server to multiple servers. It is a great way to save time.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has helped us a lot. After switching from Ubuntu to Red Hat Enterprise Linux, there has been a drastic difference. The stability and the efficiency have enhanced greatly.

At the moment, we only have AWS cloud, and Red Hat Enterprise Linux is working well. We have plans to switch to GCP.

The package manager of Red Hat is very convenient and efficient to use. With other Linux versions, such as Arch Linux and Ubuntu, package managers might not always be stable. When installing any software, the dependencies can vary, and there can be conflicts, whereas Red Hat has efficiently managed all of that so that users can install packages without any conflicts. We do not use the graphical interface, so the package manager and security features are mainly valuable to us.

After installation, the initial setup can be simplified or improved a little bit for new users coming from a distribution like Ubuntu or Windows. For example, for Arch, the user guide is very good. If a user does not have any experience, he or she can refer to the guide and install it successfully, whereas, for Red Hat Enterprise Linux, the user needs to have some understanding of Linux.

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

It is very stable for us. I would rate it a ten out of ten for stability.

It is quite scalable. I would rate it an eight out of ten for scalability.

Before using Red Hat Enterprise Linux, we were using Ubuntu as our main server. Ubuntu is more consumer-oriented, whereas Red Hat Enterprise Linux is more professional and work-oriented.

The main concern for us was how to get it installed perfectly. Before me, there was a fairly new person installing Red Hat, and he was not able to get it installed perfectly. The partitions were very differently implemented in Red Hat than in Ubuntu. That was one of the major issues for him.

My colleague was handling the main setup, but he was not able to figure out how to get everything to work. He was able to install it with the ISO, but he could not set up partitioning and Wi-Fi drivers. It was complicated for him because he knew Ubuntu, but Red Hat Enterprise Linux was complicated for him. We had to refer to the documentation for our network drivers and then we could get our Red Hat Enterprise Linux working. It took us around three to four hours.

In terms of maintenance, timely patching is required.

Overall, we have about 1,000 users of these servers, but we are the only ones who work with these servers. No one else in the company operates these servers because one mistake can bring down the entire server.

It saves us time. There are about 40% savings.

It is cost-efficient for the tasks it does and the improvements that it brings. For a professional environment, it is very cost-efficient. It was easy to purchase the subscription.

If a user is using it for commercial purposes, I would not recommend it. If a user is using it as a server or a workstation, I would recommend it.

We do not use the Red Hat Enterprise Linux Web Console much. We only use it for the initial steps to configure the users. Other than that, we do not use it much.

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

I use the solution in my company for regular servers with databases, load balancers, Apache, and so on.

The benefits of using the product revolve around the fact that it has made it easier to automate everything on it, which includes automating servers and so on.

The most valuable feature of the solution is that it is an upcoming, more stable product, like Oracle OS. The tool has everything that IBM Red Hat Redbooks has.

In terms of how I would assess the portability of applications and containers built on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for keeping our organization agile and flexible, I would say that since my company is a service provider, we get the containers from the customers, which we don't use for our own selves, but we use Red Hat Universal Base Images (UBI) 9 for some things like to to get our own containers and so on.

My company has not tried to use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 9 since we are still using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 8. In the future, I am expecting to see Podman 5.0 released for RHEL 9.

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

It is a nice and stable solution. Some problems may occur with the product if you don't patch it after a year or two.

There are no problems with the scalability of the product, as it works fine.

Previously, my company used to use a simple version of RHEL and other tools depending on the needs of our company's customers.

Regarding my experience related to the deployment process, I would say that everything is automated now. You just fill out the survey, and then you just deploy the tool. The product's deployment phase is easy.

The solution is deployed on an on-premises model.

The team members can deploy the solution in my company.

If the customer wants to pay for the support and so on, then we can go for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). Otherwise, one can go for any other open-source platform. With Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), you get the latest on everything. If you are running Oracle Linux, it gets hard to find some patches. It is easy to find new things like Podman or Red Hat Subscription-Manager, especially if you want to run something on Oracle OS, then you need to compile the patches yourself.

The product has helped centralize development in our company. In our company, we are mostly automating all the server installations on Red Hat template by filling in IP addresses with Postman.

We don't use the built-in features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for risk reduction, business continuity, and maintaining compliance since they are only available in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 9.

To a colleague who is looking at open-source cloud-based operating systems for Linux other than Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I would say that previously people preferred CentOS until Red Hat stripped it apart. At the moment, it is like, if you want an RHEL-based tool, it is either Rocky Linux or Oracle OS because I think Fedora is too lenient, while CentOS is somewhere in the middle.

I would be spending the same amount of time on some other solution if I was not using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) since everything is automated now, and in such a case, it will just be another image you use on some other product.

My company uses Ansible as a part of the deployment model.

The product is easy to use, and you can get support whenever you want. The solution also   the latest packages, which include Red Hat Subscription-Manager, Podman, Linux, and other such functionalities.

I rate the tool a nine out of ten.