Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Reviews

I use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) primarily as a server. Most of our servers are running on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). Through Red Hat, we support all our functions and use it for automations and everything practical.

I have used Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in the past for coordination with Red Hat OpenShift, Grafana, Prometheus and some automation tools such as SaltStack and Python scripts.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) brings a robust operating system that has stable and solid versions. It gives you many tools to automate things. It is a secure system, so you need patching, but not as much as other operating systems. It also has very good user and access management with lists, privileges, and SELinux.

As an automation solution, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) solves a significant percentage of manual work, but I cannot measure it as my job position doesn't base on such measurements. I cannot give exact numbers about how much it has helped us, but it is substantial.

Automation with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has changed many things because manual tasks take time and can lead to mistakes. If you automate a task, the same process will run repeatedly without any mistakes. I cannot count the time we gained from automations because the position isn't responsible for keeping numbers and metrics.

I think the disk management of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) can become better with more efficient tools. The implementation of AI was a concern, but the newest version of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 10 has implemented an AI feature.

Regarding the disk management of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), physical disks, logical disks, and physical volumes could become much easier to manage.

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

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is one of the most stable operating systems. You don't have to restart servers often and its kernel is very stable. You don't need to have many issues fixed. It doesn't give many errors that require troubleshooting if you don't interfere with it. It has been very reliable.

With on-premise Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), scalability is not easy because I cannot deploy new machines. In my previous jobs, where Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) was running on virtualization, I could deploy more VMs easily.

If organizations are looking for a strong, stable, and robust solution for their environment, they should consider Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), but keep in mind to train their team and provide them with certifications and hands-on experience because it's not an easy operating system. I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) an eight out of ten.

I use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) to manage applications and for system administration. The latest version is Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 10, which has AI with Red Hat Lightspeed inside the operating system, where you can write natural language in the terminal. I am using artificial intelligence inside Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). I am working with Ansible, which is an automation tool from Red Hat. I install Ansible inside Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and make many automations.

Red Hat Insights helps in monitoring Linux servers, providing CVEs that need updating in the operating system, and giving information about server security.

In the latest release, there are three important new features: Red Hat Lightspeed with AI integration, image mode capability allowing Red Hat Enterprise Linux to be imaged and transferred to another VM, and Quench-key cryptography for enhanced security. The AI integration through Red Hat Lightspeed is particularly significant as it differentiates it from other operating systems.

SELinux is valuable for security purposes. SELinux is very good because we can give the correct permissions to the employees. 

Red Hat Lightspeed, added in the latest version, and image mode features are also significant features.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is already good and perfect. They can continue to improve the AI features.

I have 10 years of experience working with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). I worked as an operating system specialist for five years, performing administration tasks such as managing LVMs, users, groups, disks, and performing troubleshooting inside the operating system.

Their support is very good.

Positive

I worked with SUSE and changed to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) because I worked at IBM for five years, and IBM bought Red Hat. All systems were integrated into Red Hat solutions. 

SUSE is very similar to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), but I prefer Red Hat solutions because their support is much better. I believe that the support and updates from Red Hat are superior. For example, Red Hat has a feature called Red Hat Insights, which allows me to proactively manage incidents and identify vulnerabilities. SUSE does not offer these features.

The deployment is easy.

Red Hat saves time with integration with tools such as Ansible for automation. 

I am not involved in the pricing, but it is not very expensive.

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

Our main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are running application servers, specifically database servers, and caching servers for our applications.

Many features benefit my company by ensuring the uptime is really great.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps us solve pain points. It is much more configurable, increases our performance, allows us more flexibility in management, and the automation for it is much greater. 

It is very stable.  

Flexibility and ease of use are great. I'm very familiar with it and I have a good team. It allows us to manage it with very little downtime. 

When we switched from Windows to Linux, we got about an instant 20% increase in performance, which was a very big deal. 

My favorite feature of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the way the disk management works. I appreciate the fact that it's all text-based.

My assessment of Red Hat Enterprise Linux's (RHEL) built-in security features is that the security is fine.

All of our systems are internal, so a breach would have to go through firewalls and other protections before reaching the system. We do patch them regularly and scan them for vulnerabilities, running the ADE product on them among others.

The improvements for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that I suggest are mainly around increasing reporting on how patches are applied as it all revolves around Satellite. Any product that Red Hat is developing to help with patch management would be awesome, and that's my biggest pain point. I would like to see better reporting on automated jobs, and once Red Hat Insights gets looped to Satellite and on-prem, I'd like to be able to take advantage of that.

At this company, we've been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for six years. I have personally been using it for 15 to 20 years.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has definitely helped to mitigate downtime and lower risks. As far as I know, we've not had a service outage with Red Hat in six years. We've had system outages if all systems fail, since we produce a high availability setup, Red Hat has been very stable, and there's been no unplanned downtime.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales with the growing needs of my company very well, as we've been able to maintain our footprint with an increase in performance. This allows us to actually do more work with the same amount of resources.

I haven't had to open very many cases with customer service and technical support. The documentation is excellent, and the few cases I've had were solved within a few minutes, with one exception regarding NFS, which wasn't their fault. 

I would rate the customer service and technical support a nine out of ten.

Positive

We switched from Windows to Linux.

Deploying is very easy. We run everything via virtual machines. We create a Red Hat template, and then we use Ansible to configure it from there. So we have a generic template we deploy and actually give the machine an identity to use Ansible. I can deploy a system from start to finish in about an hour.

The biggest return on investment for me when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the ability to get an increase in performance, which allows us to not have to scale our hardware so fast.

My experience with the pricing, setup costs, and licensing is that we get a very good deal through our third-party VAR or reseller.

I don't deal much with the pricing. I do know the price of some things, such as the AP platform, which allows us to migrate off other solutions that are substantially higher.

I have considered other solutions apart from Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), specifically evaluating Oracle Linux in the beginning. Between the price considerations, as they claim to be bug-for-bug compatible, it's questionable, however, the price of Red Hat Enterprise Linux was substantially lower than Oracle's, even though they claim it's free.

We generally don't use SELinux since it causes more problems for us than it solves. 

I actually recommend Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) to everybody. It's a solid product, and I stake my reputation on it. 

If anybody wants to learn Ansible next year, this is a good platform to use. 

Our upgrade or migration plans to stay current include rolling out Red Hat 10 as soon as it's available and once we get an antivirus product that's supported on Red Hat 10. My thought is that we'll probably try to test Image Mode to see if that works for us, as it may simplify our monthly process to keep things in sync. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Positive

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

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

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

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

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

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

A lot of our Red Hat operating systems run middle-tier applications. We are mostly a JBoss shop, so they are homegrown applications. They are Java-based. We have several types of applications. We have identity, security, Oracle database, etc.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux helps with standardization. A lot of middle-tier applications hosted in the data center or in the cloud are unified in one standard operating system, which is Red Hat Enterprise Linux. On the data center side, we only have Red Hat Enterprise Linux. We have one unified operating system.

For our containerization projects, we are looking into OpenShift. Our Ansible Automation Platform executioner uses container-based Red Hat Enterprise Linux. We use Podman. We have moved to the Red Hat Podman container. It is a lot easier. We can scale up easily and manage it. It reduces the security risk. We do not have to worry about patching. We can just image a new container that is up to date. That is great.

We had a situation where we had to create an image for Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9, and there were built-in playbooks for hardening the system. We were able to run that and create the image. It made the work much easier than it used to be in the past.

Red Hat Insights provides vulnerability alerts and targeted guidance. It has that capability. It has a lot of features built in that not only help with security but also with misconfigurations. If a system is misconfigured, it detects that. It gives you the solution for the problem it captured. It is a great tool, but we have been focusing on the security perspective. We have not been focusing on operating system configurations. I have not yet looked at the new version, but in my opinion, it would be better if Red Hat puts a lot of focus on Insights and take it to the next level where the company could use it for its OS compliance.

We have all types of different versions running in our environment except the obsolete ones. We are moving towards versions 8 and 9. We have had version 7, and it has been very stable until now. It is ending this year around June 30, so we are in the process of moving to version 8, and we have just released an image for version 9. So far, version 8 has also been very stable.

It is a Linux-based operating system. It integrates with our automation base. We have Red Hat Satellite and Red Hat Ansible. All the engineers who are a part of our infrastructure or operation on the Unix side are Red Hat Enterprise Linux certified, so it is a lot easier for us to manage and integrate with the tools that we have. It makes much more sense from the middleware perspective and management too.

The bootup time for Red Hat Enterprise Linux running on physical hardware in the data center can be improved. We have seen cloud-based Red Hat Enterprise Linux, and it is instantaneous. You wait for a few seconds, and the operating system is up and running. It is a lot faster, whereas it takes a very long time when running Red Hat Enterprise Linux on physical hardware.

We used Red Hat Insights, but we are more focused on compliance, patching of operating systems, and things like that. In the past, when we looked at Red Hat Insights, it was its own platform, and then it migrated to Satellite. Companies are struggling to be compliant from the security side. Everyone is focused on how to patch the systems, what the environment looks like, whether they are under 90-day CVE, how their environment is compliant, and where they can see it as a dashboard. I wish Red Hat Insights was focused on that. From the Red Hat perspective, I am not seeing any sessions. I do not see anyone talking about that, which is a huge deal for us. I would like Red Hat Insights to go to the next level where it is focused on patching and compliance.

I do not have any other areas of improvement. It has been stable for us. There is a lot we do in terms of automation and integration. I know Red Hat 8 now has Podman for containers. Cockpit has a UI, so that is good now. That helps with certain things.

We have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for close to 20 years.

We have not run into something that caused a huge problem to our environment. If something is happening, such as it is running an Oracle database and that system has kernel panic or something like that, it is usually the database or application software running on the operating system. It is not the operating system itself.

We have not run into any major infrastructure incident costing us because of the operating system. They have it integrated with all other products such as OpenShift, OpenStack, etc.

We have three data centers at different geographical locations. Two are in the state of Georgia and one is in Las Vegas. In all three data centers that we manage, the compute-based are all Red Hat-based. 

We have a Red Hat TAM, and that helps a lot in terms of the problems and things that we run into. He is the interface with Red Hat. He escalates our service tickets and things like that. That is a huge help from our perspective.

The support that we get directly from putting tickets in has always been great. Red Hat Enterprise Linux is probably the best and most stable product that Red Hat has especially in regards to getting support and getting things fixed. They are on top of that. It has been a great experience. I would rate them a ten out of ten.

Positive

We used to run Sun Solaris. We were a Sun Solaris shop in the beginning. This was 15 or 20 years ago. We moved because of the Intel-based hardware, licensing, and cost reduction. Moving away from Sun SPARC hardware to Red Hat was a lot of saving. It saved a lot for the company. We can now run Linux-based systems on Intel commodity hardware using Dell.

Its usage is growing. Our team is working with other business units within the enterprise to get them onboarded to the Red Hat-based operating system. We have multiple entities that are running CentOS and Ubuntu. We have to have a standard operating system, and that is Red Hat. Our portfolio is increasing. We are growing and migrating a lot of nonstandard ones to Red Hat.

We have an enterprise technology group that utilizes Oracle Linux. We have worked with OEM. Our team is managing that too.

We are using Red Hat Enterprise Linux on-prem. We also have a cloud environment, but other teams are using it on the cloud. The cloud provider is AWS. The database team also uses Red Hat Enterprise Linux in AWS.

We use Red Hat Satellite and Ansible for Red Hat Enterprise Linux deployment across all three data centers.

My first deployment experience was almost 30 years ago. I started with Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4 or something like that back in 1993 or 1994. There has been a tremendous change in the way you install it and utilize it now. It is night and day. It has come a long way.

We implement it on our own.

Our costs are reduced. We can allocate that OpEx and focus on some other project. We do not have to struggle and say that this is how much we are going to pay licensing just on the operating system cost. We now have a model that works for us.

We are a huge VMware shop. Our licensing cost works well with Red Hat. We license based on the data center. The way our license works is that we can run as many Red Hat VMs as we want and pay for a single license. On the VMware side, we gain a lot, and it makes much more sense.

We did not evaluate other operating systems and compared them with Red Hat Enterprise Linux. We just went from Solaris to Red Hat.

We are an agile environment. We practice agile methodology. Anything we manage and deploy has to go through a sprint phase. We do not have a fully containerized environment. In the future, once we adopt OpenShift, it is going to increase our productivity because of how we manage things through agile. It is going to help us a lot.

To a colleague who is looking at open-source, cloud-based operating systems for Linux instead of Red Hat Enterprise Linux, I would say that it all comes down to the company and how a company foresees security. Anything we support and manage has to have a support base. If something gets impacted from the security side, we know that we have Red Hat support, and it is reliable. We can get the patch we want. If you install an application that needs a bug fix, you can reach out to Red Hat and open a ticket. If you want to have a stable environment, then I would highly recommend getting the support and running Red Hat.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Positive

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

I have done cloud deployments and upgrades.

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

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

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

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

The cost of Red Hat Enterprise Linux is reasonable.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neutral

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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