Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Reviews

My main use cases involve using it to run our Ansible automation platform and various workloads, depending on what Development decides based on the project. We also use it for our Kubernetes clusters.

The features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that I appreciate the most are focused on stability. It is a reliable system that I can depend on more than anything else. That stability benefits my company by providing more uptime and more satisfied gamers.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps us solve pain points related to stability and documentation. It is very easy to find solutions to problems or access official documentation, whereas with other Debian-based distributions, one often finds themselves searching through random forums.

Regarding built-in security features for risk reduction and compliance maintenance, some features are straightforward when following standards and installation profiles. However, the development side frequently mentions challenges with SELinux, as it is more difficult to understand and somewhat esoteric. Some features are very well-developed and easily understood, while others are more complex to implement.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped to mitigate downtime and lower risks. While there is not much technical difference between RHEL and Oracle Linux, compared to other alternatives, it provides benefits.

We manage our systems for provisioning and patching using Ansible automation controller for patches and mirror repositories as needed.

What is lacking is better FS support natively in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). It has many nice features, however, XFS is becoming outdated. That is the major improvement that would be relatively easy to implement, perhaps around version 11. Fedora has already introduced it, so it is in the pipeline.

When it comes to its stability and reliability, it is great.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales fine with the growing needs of my company. I do not see much difference between RHEL and any other real distribution in those terms. 

As far as scalability, it is all Linux at the end of the day and will scale equally. The management tools and features on top of it provide the value-add, but regarding the base operating system, I do not see much difference.

We do not use customer service and technical support frequently. It is more about getting that checkbox for insurance, compliance, or whatever regulation we need to follow. 

If I had to rate the customer support, I would give it an eight as it is quite good. 

My experience deploying Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has evolved. In the past, it used to be more complicated, however, with current development tools and methodologies, it is far easier. Using Packer and initialization files that build every time, it functions smoothly.

My team deploys the solution on-premise, and we have varying departments and organizations for on-prem.

From my perspective, I have seen a return on investment while using this platform. It is beneficial to have that stability and reliable package repositories that we depend on, rather than using something more open-source and community-driven. There is definitely a good return.

My experience with the pricing, setup costs, and licensing has been satisfactory. It aligns with business expectations.

I consider all distributions before or while using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), however, the application team ultimately decides what fits their development cycle and needs best. For our on-premise workloads that need to be stable and operate over years, it is our default choice.

For upgrades or migrations, I recommend building new and migrating. My team operates both on-premise and in the cloud, and we have purchased Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) through AWS Marketplace. 

Overall rating: nine out of ten. To make it a ten, I would want to see more features. As someone who considers themselves an open-source zealot, the locking down of package repositories behind subscription paywalls was upsetting. It used to be a ten out of ten before that change.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is used within our organization to orchestrate a multitenant, microservice-based architecture. This supports a distributed system of predominantly web-based applications and frontends. A typical deployment involves around 60 to 70 Amazon EC2 instances working in concert.

The primary use cases involve running interconnected applications with requirements such as low latency and high availability, often achieved through redundant, multi-tenant, and load-balanced architectures. These applications may utilize read or write-optimized instances or be memory or processor-optimized, depending on their specific needs. Optimization is achieved through the processor, RAM, and connected protocols. The foundation for these applications is Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux facilitates seamless workload migration between diverse cloud environments and data centers. In DevOps, workload portability between cloud and data centers is crucial, so we prioritize operating systems supported by multiple cloud providers and available locally. Key considerations include stability, security hardening capabilities, and the ability to obtain government or compliance organization approvals, which are incredibly stringent in sectors like banking and securities exchange. Red Hat Enterprise Linux meets these requirements by providing a secure, reliable, and consistently delivered operating system that facilitates approvals and ensures seamless workload mobility.

Regarding Red Hat Enterprise Linux provisioning and patching, both processes are generally straightforward. Patching can be completed within a few hours. Once the automation pipelines are properly configured, tested, and operational, provisioning can be fully automated. This applies to any operating system, not just Red Hat. Setting up a correct pipeline ensures smooth provisioning regardless of the OS.

Implementing Red Hat Enterprise Linux has resulted in significant resource savings due to its efficient usage of minimal resources. Compared to other operating systems, Red Hat Enterprise Linux requires less RAM and CPU allocation, which translates to cost savings. Additionally, its stability and minimal downtime contribute to operational efficiency.

The Red Hat command line interface is more user-friendly than the Windows command line interface. Red Hat makes it easier to perform tasks like reviewing logs, checking network connectivity, checking DNS, and setting up a proxy. Additionally, searching for specific characters within numerous log files is simpler in a Red Hat Enterprise Linux instance compared to other operating systems.

The implementation and limitations of SELinux should be re-evaluated. Its current configuration presents numerous challenges and restricts certain functionalities, hindering the overall usability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Addressing these limitations would significantly enhance the operating system's flexibility and efficiency.

I've been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for six years.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is almost perfect in terms of stability. It works consistently with minimal downtime and very few bugs or glitches, deserving a high rating for stability.

There are no issues with scalability when it comes to Red Hat Enterprise Linux. It scales efficiently, fulfilling our needs without difficulty.

My experience contacting Red Hat technical support was positive, with knowledgeable and supportive staff, particularly during early hours. However, I found more detailed knowledge through community interactions on platforms like Stack Overflow.

Positive

Before adopting Red Hat Enterprise Linux for production applications, other Linux operating systems like Ubuntu and Windows servers were used for monitoring and testing purposes. Red Hat Enterprise Linux became the choice for critical server applications.

The initial setup of Red Hat Enterprise Linux is straightforward. Once the images and database information are available, the automation process is simple and efficient, taking only a couple of hours to complete.

Using Red Hat Enterprise Linux can yield resource savings of 200 percent to 300 percent compared to Windows Server instances. Its minimal RAM and CPU usage allows for smaller instances, resulting in significant cost reductions.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is a more cost-effective solution than Windows Servers. Windows Servers base their cost on the number of users and have high licensing fees, while Red Hat Enterprise Linux offers free versions alongside its paid, supported versions. This makes Red Hat Enterprise Linux a good option for startups and organizations with limited budgets. While the free versions may lack direct vendor support, the availability of paid support options and the robust Red Hat Enterprise Linux ecosystem provides flexibility for growing businesses. Additionally, the presence of compatible open-source alternatives further enhances cost-effectiveness and choice. Overall, Red Hat Enterprise Linux presents a compelling advantage in terms of cost compared to other operating systems, especially for nascent organizations.

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

While Red Hat offers free license versions and CentOS provides a similar platform, the official Red Hat documentation may not be the most helpful resource. More valuable support can often be found in community-driven platforms like Stack Overflow, where users share their knowledge and experiences through questions and answers. This user-generated content often proves more practical and supportive than the official Red Hat resources.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is deployed in a multi-region configuration with three availability zones per region. Data is replicated from region one to region two, which serves as a read-only replica. Traffic is load-balanced across all availability zones within a region, ensuring automatic failover to the remaining zones in case of an outage. Similarly, if an entire region fails, traffic is redirected to the other available region. This setup provides high availability and disaster recovery capabilities. We have a couple of thousand users in our organization.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux requires periodic updates. To manage logs, a retrieval and deletion method is necessary, which can be achieved using built-in features like cron jobs. Red Hat supports these features. Additionally, security patches should be applied as they become available.

I recommend Red Hat Enterprise Linux, particularly for enterprise implementation, due to its lightweight and secure design. Its robust community support and extensive availability of solutions in forums and unofficial resources make it preferable to other operating systems.

The solution is used for on-premises data centers. Multiple private data centers run workloads on VMware Cloud solutions, and Red Hat Enterprise Linux is deployed on critical systems. We use KVM virtualization technology to host various virtual machines on Red Hat Enterprise Linux that run workloads and applications.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux improved our compliance by working with third-party security providers, like CIS Enterprise Internet Security. It's a nonprofit organization that provides many security solutions and benchmarking for each operating system. CIS and Red Hat jointly developed a CIS-approved operating system. They work with various public cloud providers like App Engine, Google, and AWS to provide comprehensive CIS-approved images in Red Hat Enterprise Linux. 

The US federal government has already certified the OS for FIPS compliance. FIPS is the organization that designs cryptography algorithms for federal agencies, and they approved Red Hat Enterprise Linux. 

It takes some time to realize the benefits. Some customers cannot see a direct benefit because the licensing is a bit complex. In a huge enterprise environment, you could see an immediate effect, but a smaller or medium-sized organization may take a while to yield a return on investment.

The most significant advantage is that it is more stable and secure than other operating systems. Years ago, we worked on Windows-based systems with more challenges regarding patch management and vulnerabilities than Unix operating systems. We get more frequent patch releases from the vendor weekly, monthly, and quarterly. It also has strong security features, is OIS and FIPS certified, and has built-in Linux security configurations.

In addition to Linux's built-in security tools, it has Red Hat Enterprise Linux configuration features that provide robust security controls. We also have third-party solutions that provide more in-depth solutions for our cloud and on-premises infrastructure. We have to provide security at each layer of the OSI models. For example, on the application layer, we have to provide web solutions or application gateways, but it provides good security features for the OS layer. 

We use another Red Hat product called Ansible to automate patching tasks and infrastructure deployment. We don't have a large number of servers, so we manage patching and configuration through Ansible. For bigger deployments, they have solutions like Satellite, but we use Ansible. 

We use Image Builder to create a Golden Image for our CICD pipelines. We have a CIS-approved image that integrates their security controls for our automation tools and some of the ones specific to our organization. We added some of the controls from the Red Hat management framework that govern how an image should be created and what controls must be integrated into this base image. 

The web console is useful for people without Linux backgrounds who lack experience working with the command prompt. The web console helps them manage the system better without knowing all the commands.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux licensing is a bit complex. The solution operates on a subscription-based model, which may not provide immediate return on investment for small to medium-sized organizations. It also has a steep learning curve for employees unfamiliar with Linux, and it demands a skilled team or a dedicated service center to operate effectively.

I have used Red Hat Enterprise Linux for about four to six years.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux offers great stability and performance compared to other operating systems. It does not have issues with crashing or substantial downtime.

I rate Red Hat support seven out of 10. We have only opened one or two cases with technical support, but we've had good experiences. They respond immediately based on the SLA level. In the future, we plan to use Red Hat's OpenShift and Kubernetes solutions, so we expect to work with the support team more because we're new to those products. 

Red Hat's Knowledgebase is an excellent support resource. It stays updated about new things coming to our region and provides lots of articles about the products. It's a good starting point for troubleshooting without the need to call the support team. We use the knowledgebase to resolve issues as often as we can, but we contact support if we get stuck and can't find the solution. 

Neutral

We have physical systems running SUSE Linux and Windows, but we're gradually migrating them to Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Some systems are running Solaris, and we haven't decided whether we'll migrate to Red Hat Enterprise Linux or other operating systems.

Our operations team takes care of migrations and installations. We're primarily responsible for business impact assessments and helping the operations team do a POC to determine the effect on the application environment. We consider the licensing and give the operations team approval to do the migrations and install the new operating system. 

The team consists of two or three people. We cannot migrate directly from one system to another. We simulate everything in the POC environment and perform migrations in the development environment using our in-house tools. They will check the source machines and find out what applications are running. It will assess them and look into the destination systems. Using some replication technology, it will do a direct synchronous verification between one storage to the other.

We need some downtime to complete the migration, and most of the data is stored in SAN storage. That is called a long migration. Once the operating systems and associated patches and applications have been migrated, we have to migrate them manually for the storage side.

The subscription-based pricing can be costly, particularly for smaller deployments. The more subscriptions you have, the easier it is to see a return on investment because it helps larger organizations more. It may be considered expensive compared to other solutions like CentOS or Ubuntu, which offer some of the same features without additional costs.

I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux eight out of 10. I recommend new users get some training on the platform because installations and migrations can be complex. Setting up clusters can be challenging for new users who don't have hands-on Linux experience without vendor assistance. 

The main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) at the bank involve internal applications, as we do a lot of internal applications not exposed to clients.

From my perspective, the best features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) lie in its ease of use, especially compared to AIX, which has a lot of functionalities requiring extensive learning. It was easy for me to shift from AIX to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps manage our hybrid cloud environment, but being a bank, we are highly regulated internally, so there is limited direct involvement with the cloud environment in Royal Bank cloud, which is Azure.

One area I see for improvement in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is in the documentation. I encountered some scarcity when looking for information regarding structure, commands, and administrative tasks.

I have dealt with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for around 10 years, even when it was not part of IBM.

My opinion of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)'s scalability is that it was very easy.

I would rate Red Hat's customer service or technical support as a 10, as my experience with all IBM products, including Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), has been very satisfactory all the time.

Positive

The initial setup of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is straightforward compared to AIX, which is more convoluted.

I have experience with platforms like Linux, and I am also working deeply with MongoDB and Node.js, tools that I use constantly every single day.

I am familiar with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), and here in RBC, we are a big IBM shop, currently using JBoss and Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as part of our environment.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is used for both cloud-based solutions and on-premises.

From a business value perspective, the business folks do not notice much difference between Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and other distributions, as long as their application functions well, they are satisfied.

We utilize two cloud providers for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) solutions, mainly Azure and also Amazon. I cannot answer how Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) was purchased, but I know we have it on both Amazon and Azure.

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a nine, as I find it satisfactory in various aspects.

I've been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for four or five years now because I had a business with my cousin. We are Red Hat Partners. Easier integration is important because most customers we work with already have Red Hat. We use Ansible for discovery, primarily for ServiceNow. We also wanted to expand into the field of Maximo asset management. One customer, a big Red Hat partner, uses IBM Maximo, but that didn't work out because I have a business with my cousin and one of his partners parted ways, so I stayed with ServiceNow.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps solve pain points related to user account servers and onboarding certain servers. It's easier to use in my opinion and less complicated, especially for Ansible discovery.

Organizations need to know what assets they have because sometimes they have assets on the network and don't know what they are. With the solution, it's easier to discover the assets, what OS is running on them, sometimes location, warranty information, and serial numbers.

Regarding security requirements and considerations in using it in the cloud, I've seen a lot of virtual machines on the network, and no one knows anything about them. As soon as you deploy Ansible, you can know exactly what servers the virtual machine is running on, whether there's a warranty, serial numbers, naming convention, and all that, which makes it easier.

For now, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) works fine for me. When I used it in the past, I don't see what I can improve now because it works the way I want it. There aren't any additional features that I think should be included in the future since you have AI now, and I think you are up to date.

I've been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for four or five years now.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped me mitigate downtime and lower risk. When it comes to downtime, there are no worries, for example, when there's an issue or something is down, the response time is solid.

Customer service is great, and there are several certifications and lots of certification options you can get for you and your team. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is also worldwide, and everyone knows it.

Positive

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is easy. Compared to other companies, everything is there and it's easy. When it comes to price, I can say it's cheaper than certain solutions out there in Asia or overseas.

This product is not purchased on the AWS Marketplace; we're helping sell our customers with our ServiceNow migrations, so we don't push or purchase anything from AWS Marketplace. Everything about Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is online and it's easy to become a Red Hat partner. It's not hard. My cousin had the business with us and was already a Red Hat partner. It's easy to get the certifications, and they make everything easier. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is what most companies use before selecting it, and it's mostly worldwide use for that. That's what my cousin and I thought when he had the business. I would say the solution is an easier option overall. My overall rating for this product is 5 out of 5.

From the start of my career, I started working on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

My work role is a network engineer and systems engineer. We manage customers' servers, which run the Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) operating system.

The servers are Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), and my job role involves troubleshooting and ensuring the servers are running properly.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is very good concerning security; it's much better than other Windows systems. RHEL is something I normally use command prompt with, and it's very easy to manage as a network engineer.

The Red Hat systems build in their own security features, which is unique, and it's better to use for enterprise-level customers. Most enterprise-level customers prefer RHEL to run their systems and applications.

I can work with less downtime, and if anything happens, it's very easy and direct to troubleshoot compared to other operating systems. The FAQ rules, details, and commands in the Red Hat FAQs are very helpful.

Currently, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) supports all types of integration using other systems, but it might be better if they had more documentation on the relevant integration with other apps or systems.

There can be some improvements in this area.

The solution has been in use for nine years.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is stable.

When it comes to cloud, it's easy to scale up using the AWS management tool; we can easily upgrade or downgrade the systems. However, when it comes to physical on-premises deployment, that is a different situation.

We are not using only Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). As Lumen Technologies is the largest MNC, we have all types of systems. RHEL is one of the main systems which most customers use, but we currently use other solutions as well. We didn't switch to anything exclusively.

We host web applications and websites in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) servers.

RHEL is a reliable and best operating system for users to implement.

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

I set up Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for my customers. The customers either install some middleware on top of it or manage it directly from my company, or the customer will manage the application on top of the server directly.

The most valuable feature is the support. The support from Red Hat is definitely valuable. Having a Technical Account Manager facilitates getting to the core of the issue and eventually tries to correct the behavior of the operating system in case something is not fitting what I expect.

The knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is definitely good. Most of the simple issues can be fixed by going through it, including sometimes third-party issues that happen. I can mention a couple of incidents that occurred, one with CrowdStrike and one with Qualys Cloud Agent. In both cases, the knowledge base was informative about the existing issues. If I was a customer of those partners, then I would have been affected by problems that came from third-party products. Generally speaking, the knowledge base is absolutely good for problems that come from Red Hat itself.

The most important security feature in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the readability and detail of the security report. From a security perspective itself, it is not a game-changer, but when it comes to communicating to the customer that something is not an issue, this is beneficial because I can reference an article that is easily readable by the customer.

Red Hat Insights is definitely helpful, providing information that I would not spot otherwise. However, there is room for improvement. Red Hat Insights needs to be able to manage in a detached environment, which is on the roadmap as far as I know, because we are working with big banks, and therefore, we cannot have too much direct connection, especially from the cloud to the server. Another open point is that from Red Hat Insights, I cannot make use of my own Ansible Automation Platform, unless I'm mistaken. 

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is derived from Fedora. Sometimes, we encounter features in a server environment that are more suitable for desktops, leading to unexpected complications. For instance, networking on a desktop is typically designed with different priorities compared to a server. We often find ourselves forced to use features originally intended for desktop use, even when simpler alternatives would be more effective and manageable. This complexity can be unnecessary, as it adds layers of functionality that do not provide any real value. Ultimately, users should be able to manage their connections without being overwhelmed by features that are irrelevant to their needs.

A downside is that it is sometimes difficult to agree on product modifications. For instance, one issue we encountered was that certain commands were not responding as we expected. Another example, which might be easier to understand, is during upgrades when certain directories are reverted to their original permission settings. This contradicts some hardening recommendations and makes it more difficult to advocate for a change to practices that have been in place for a decade, even when there are valid reasons for the change. It’s important to note that the resistance to change can be attributed to their collaboration with upstream developers, but that’s just our perspective.

I have been working with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for more than 12 years.

It is definitely a stable product. As I shared previously, my main concern is about desktop components that are coming into the newest release. If RHEL 6 was definitely a 10 out of 10, now with RHEL 9, I would rate it a 7 out of 10 because it no longer allows me to have a clear understanding of what is going on and a clear configuration that speaks for itself. The shift towards configuration as code has some drawbacks in this case.

With a Technical Account Manager, we have a very individual approach. I would rate the technical support from Red Hat a ten out of ten.

The support has had a positive impact. I was able to go through a huge incident that required getting to the core of the problem, such as what happened with CrowdStrike. It involved an issue perceived on the LDAP server caused by a change performed in the code of Red Hat. My feedback is that the support is always great when addressing complex analysis, and that's the most important value-added aspect I will mention.

I used different solutions before Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), but not from an enterprise perspective, so without support. I used Debian and Slackware and other similar solutions. I decided to switch mainly because of the support. 

When I switched from my previous job to my current job, they were already using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). I am working with banks, which are highly regulated, and I need backend support from the vendor in order to work with the bank.

We have seen a return on investment from Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) so far. I don't have any specific metrics, but the penalty we would have faced if Red Hat had not helped us in identifying the problem would have been millions of euros.

Red Hat helps to mitigate downtime and lower risks through support, engaging them at the right time to promptly resolve issues. Red Hat Insights also assists in this regard.

I'm the one who's managing that. I find the pricing of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) affordable, but the subscription model is something that the business units of Red Hat need to revisit and fix.

I participated in a review to eventually switch to SUSE and to Oracle Linux as well. Oracle Linux is a definitive no, mainly because of the support. The support from Oracle's side is awful. I don't want to ever have a case with them because it's terrible. For SUSE, it was mainly a matter of cost-benefit since we didn't have the chance to go into depth on that because the cost was not a game-changer, and we would have had to reinstall the whole 7,000 servers, so it was too much to get the benefit from the reduced cost.

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

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) to run our web servers and application servers, and in some cases database servers. It is our primary operating system, and the majority of our servers run Unix, especially Linux.

The virtualization in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) benefits my company as the web servers and application servers allow us to grow and be elastic about our loads and costs.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps us solve everything, from security compliance to running the core infrastructure of the company. 

My favorite feature of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the virtualization. 

I have been involved in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) upgrades and migrations. We upgraded from version seven to nine recently, first from seven to eight, then to nine. Security requirements were a consideration when we were choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in the cloud.

The reason security was a consideration is that primarily we're dealing with the container section of Linux shops. The core of the OS cannot be touched or hacked, especially when it comes to financial transactions. When dealing with financial transactions, we need to keep certain aspects more secure, such as PCI compliance.

My team works directly with kernel patching on a monthly basis, and it's excellent; we always get the fixes for any vulnerabilities, which we have to keep up with based on the financial transactions. We need to keep up with the security patches.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped to mitigate downtime and lower risks. While I don't have a specific number, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has definitely helped in being more stable than other operating systems. When we had other operating systems, we experienced a lot of general panic with infrastructures such as older HP-UX. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is definitely more stable than that.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) can be improved by making it lighter. By making it lighter, there should be versions for specific cases, for customers or images.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) since 2003.

My experience with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in terms of stability and reliability is excellent. 

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales with the growing needs of my company excellently, and that is one of the reasons we use it. We scale on a day-to-day basis using the virtualization, which allows us to add resources if we have a new client tomorrow.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) supports our hybrid cloud strategy as we have some legacy systems that we maintain both on-premise and elsewhere. We offer services that are not for the area where we work, which allows us to offer a better response to our clients that are further away, using Azure and different regions for them, so our Red Hat Enterprise server is closer to them instead of having it here.

Every time we have to work on a case with customer service and technical support, the response is fast. Usually, I send the information, and they have something for me within hours, sometimes even minutes.

Positive

We have considered other solutions while using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). We have different kinds of operating systems for different clients or solutions, and while we still prefer Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), our goal is to standardize between AIX and IBM. 

We use Windows, which is challenging. We have AIX, which we run within the IBM Z environment. AIX is good, however, the hardware is not optimal, and there's a license for the hardware that is especially used for databases such as Oracle, where you need to license a whole mainframe just to run it.

From a technical point of view, the biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for me is interoperability and the ability to automate a lot of the processes, from scratch to day-to-day basis.

My experience with the pricing, setup costs, and licensing of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has been a journey. Licensing for on-premise was different; you have your license for the hardware you're using. When doing it for the cloud, it's more of a subscription-based system. It's been variable with different pricing; we still prefer the older way.

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