Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Reviews

Our servers utilize Red Hat Enterprise Linux for production and development environments due to the application's strong performance on this platform. Additionally, some workstations also use Red Hat Enterprise Linux as their operating system.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has robust built-in security features that effectively mitigate risk and help maintain compliance.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux offers a comprehensive knowledge base that provides reliable support. When online searches fail to yield the necessary information, their resources consistently deliver the answers needed.

It also offers a positive management experience. Its monthly update patching, scheduled according to the number of users and their security profiles, facilitates efficient system maintenance and allows for the closure of inactive accounts.

I used the Red Hat LEAP feature when upgrading from Red Hat Enterprise Linux seven to eight, which simplified the upgrade process.

The Red Hat Enterprise Linux web console is user-friendly. Simply open a new terminal, log in, and enter our desired commands or searches.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has yielded cost savings compared to a Windows environment, offering better stability, ease of use, and maintenance. Unlike Windows servers, it eliminates the need for reboots during updates, enhancing operational efficiency.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has improved our uptime and security. 

I appreciate the simplicity of reporting in Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Running a command, tagging the log, and sending it to support is all it takes. The user-friendly interface has consistently improved from version four to eight, particularly in login and display features. Overall, the system is stable, easy to use, and maintain.

Red Hat should improve its support services, specifically the responsiveness and expertise of its India-based team. Response times need to be faster, and support staff should have access to more detailed procedures to address customer cases effectively.

I started using Red Hat Enterprise Linux in 2019. Specifically, I started with Red Hat four and then upgraded to version eight.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is very stable. I would rate its stability as nine out of ten.

Scalability is easy because Red Hat Enterprise Linux supports virtual machines. I would rate the scalability a nine out of ten.

Technical support is taking a long time to resolve our issues, and we must monitor the resolution time for each ticket.

The initial deployment is easy; follow the instructions and use the automatic setup. This straightforward process takes no more than 15 minutes, even for new users.

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

We have Red Hat Enterprise Linux deployed in one location with 15 users.

We have local maintenance for Red Hat Enterprise Linux by certified admins. 

I recommend Red Hat Enterprise Linux for enterprise production environments due to its stability and proven industry track record.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is a versatile operating system for many workloads, including databases, web applications, and infrastructure. It is a reliable and adaptable platform suitable for various computing needs.

When I started my current job 14 years ago, we used many different Linux distributions, which created management challenges. However, when we began deploying a hardened version of Linux, Red Hat Enterprise Linux was the best option due to its robust support, familiarity with our team, and overall suitability for our needs, making it an easy choice.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has performed well for our business critical applications.

It offers robust built-in security features that surpass those found in Windows. Its highly customizable environment allows for easy system hardening, eliminating the need for additional purchases as all necessary security components are integrated within the operating system. 

Red Hat Enterprise Linux enhances security and reduces risk. In a mixed environment with Windows, securing Windows systems is significantly more challenging and achieving a truly secure state is nearly impossible, whereas Red Hat Enterprise Linux offers robust security features that mitigate these concerns.

It contributes to risk reduction through its strong security features. With a mixed environment of Linux and Windows, making Windows secure is challenging, whereas RHEL does not have such issues. Furthermore, automation with RHEL reduces manual labor, allowing us to automate almost everything, which saves work.

The portfolio helps reduce our total cost of ownership by significantly decreasing employee work hours. Automation through ready-made images eliminates manual labor, allowing us to automate almost everything and ensure consistent accuracy, ultimately saving time and resources.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux's built-in security features are very good. Compared to other systems like Windows, it's on another level. With SE Linux and the customizable nature of Linux, creating a tightly-hardened environment is easy. Additionally, the knowledge bases and white papers provided by Red Hat support are very helpful.

While there are no specific features I would like added to the next version, there is always room for improvement.

The licensing cost of Red Hat Enterprise Linux is high and could be improved.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux since 1998.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux performs admirably, earning a nine-point five out of 10. While minor issues exist, they are not significant enough to substantially detract from its effectiveness.

The Red Hat support works well, though I haven't used it extensively. I appreciate the knowledge bases and articles provided by them. Consultancy services have been used, but not much of the support services itself.

Positive

At my current job, we started with a lot of different distros. Managing them was chaotic. When we began using hardened versions of Linux, Red Hat was selected because it was the best option for us. We have a support system in place and Red Hat Enterprise Linux is familiar to our team, making it the easy pick.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux licensing is expensive.

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

We will soon be using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for containerization projects.

For servers, Red Hat Enterprise Linux is the recommended choice due to its robust features, including comprehensive updates, ease of management, and excellent compatibility with tools like Ansible. While other distributions may be suitable for workstations, Red Hat Enterprise Linux excels in server environments with its stability and long-term support.

Our primary use case for Red Hat Enterprise Linux is to deploy OpenShift solutions on the cloud.

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux with AWS, GCP, Azure, and Oracle Cloud.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux offers easy migration between cloud platforms, a crucial advantage for businesses. For example, we recently helped one client move from AWS to Azure and another implement a VPN solution using both Oracle and Azure to leverage the strengths of each platform.

It offers a comprehensive knowledge base that can be accessed through the Red Hat portal.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux helps support our hybrid cloud strategy.

The upgrades and migrations are straightforward and typically performed when introducing new hardware.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux's most valuable feature is its seamless integration with Kubernetes, a powerful platform for automating the deployment, scaling, and management of containerized applications.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux should enhance its support for commonly used application servers such as JBoss, Tomcat, and Apache.

I have used Red Hat Enterprise Linux on the cloud for five years.

I have a Red Hat account for client support, and their technical support is excellent.

Positive

We have used other Linux solutions, such as Ubuntu, SUSE, and Debian, but the primary difference lies in the level of knowledge and support provided. Red Hat excels with a comprehensive support portal, while SUSE offers less extensive support, and Ubuntu provides no official support options.

The initial setup is complex. I rate the complexity as two out of ten, with one being the most complicated.

Our clients see a return on investment within the first year.

The licensing for Red Hat Enterprise Linux in Peru is very expensive. On a scale of one to ten, with ten being the most expensive, I would rate the cost an eight.

We leverage Red Hat's Hybrid Committed Spend program to procure and implement Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

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

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux for investment back-end applications.

The application's lack of readiness for a cloud environment has necessitated the repatriation of Red Hat Enterprise Linux to an on-premises infrastructure.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is the go-to standard within our organization because it is managed, supported, and automatically patched.

it helps us as the base layer to centralize our development.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has performed exceptionally well for our business-critical applications.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux provides a stable and secure platform, which helps reduce risk in our environment.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has enhanced our business continuity and compliance efforts by providing stability and security, allowing us to strengthen our servers.

It's a very stable and secure platform with support options. Third-party software vendors often require Red Hat.

Data migration issues during upgrades can sometimes arise from the layers above Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

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

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has performed well for our business-critical applications. Stability is essential for us.

Scaling Red Hat Enterprise Linux depends primarily on the underlying machine, and virtual machines enable on-demand scaling for effective performance.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux's stability, security, and predictability are significant returns on investment.

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

The current plan is to refrain from running AI workloads with Red Hat until its AI capabilities mature and we have complete confidence in its security and accuracy.

I would advise considering Red Hat Enterprise Linux because it is stable, secure, and supported by third-party software vendors.

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 this operating system for our on-prem servers because it is more secure and reliable. We can install whatever application we want.

I chose Red Hat Enterprise Linux because it is more secure and reliable than other operating systems. Red Hat has a feature called SELinux. I always use it because it is more secure than the other operating systems. I am using it with most of the applications. It is our baseline OS for any application.

The built-in security features are helpful when it comes to simplifying risk reduction and maintaining compliance.

Red Hat has very useful documentation. I always use it when I face an error or something like that. It is very reliable, and I use it all the time.

Over the last three to four years, I did not work in just one environment. I worked in two environments, but all the time we used Red Hat Enterprise Linux, we got more security and reliability. We have seen performance enhancement and less downtime for our main application. There is more reliability and better performance. It has improved our environment. We now have better performance, more reliability, and more security. There is about 30% to 50% improvement.

I have previously worked in the banking sector for one of the banks. We can now configure Red Hat Enterprise Linux for PCI-DSS Compliance. It has improved in that aspect.

SELinux is valuable. The main reasons for using Red Hat Enterprise Linux are security, reliability, and efficiency. The system is very reliable, and it is more efficient than others.

It is not very easy to manage because it has a command line interface, and it can be a little bit confusing from one version to another. For example, the administration of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 is a bit different than Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9. It is a little bit hard but not that much.

The GUI experience can be better. They can make it easier to access files and copy them. We should be able to do that without the command line. For example, if you compare it with Windows, Windows is easier to use. They can just simplify the user experience.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for three to four years.

It is stable. I would rate it an eight out of ten for stability.

I did not face any issue with scalability, so I would rate it a nine out of ten.

We implemented it at the HQ and the DR site. We used it at two locations. We had 100 to 200 users using these servers.

I have experience with Windows Server. From a security perspective, Red Hat Enterprise Linux is more secure. From a performance perspective, Red Hat Enterprise Linux has better performance, but from the ease of management perspective, Windows is better.

The installation at the application layer is a little bit complex. The duration depends on the application, but most of the application takes months. Implementing an easy application or service, such as a web service, takes two to three days.

When it comes to the management, I manage it locally. I go through SSH on the command line and manage it. For security patching and updates, most of the time, I use Red Hat Satellite. It is a product from Red Hat for managing updates. Red Hat Satellite is easy to use and very helpful. I have upgraded from Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 to Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.

When it comes to security patches, they require a restart. That can cause some downtime.

I do not have much knowledge of licensing. That is handled by the procurement team, but I know that it is expensive. If they can provide more licensing options, it will be much easier for companies to buy.

I would recommend Red Hat Enterprise Linux because it is more secure, reliable, and scalable.

I used System Roles two years ago. It was simple to use System Roles. I succeeded in implementing them, so it was simple. They can be managed, but I used them only one time, so I do not have this much experience with them. 

I also used a service called Cockpit. It was easy to use. It was very helpful and easy.

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

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 Red Hat Enterprise Linux to create directories and files and configure security settings for the Red Hat Certified System Administrator exam.

The knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux comprehensively covers the fundamental knowledge required for the Red Hat Certified System Administrator and Red Hat Certified Engineer certifications. My experience taking the Red Hat examination was positive, and I am satisfied with their product.

I can easily work with Red Hat OS because it is user-friendly, even for manual tasks. While it may be as expensive as Windows, they offer a four-month trial and provide cloud access. This is valuable for understanding Linux concepts and working within the Linux environment. Overall, it's a great learning experience.

We prefer not to install the Linux OS manually, so we opt to work in the cloud instead. The cloud platform provides a real-time experience, enabling us to practice for exams easily and enhance our Linux knowledge. This proves highly beneficial for students pursuing Red Hat certification.

While preparing for the Red Hat administrator examination, I worked with the cloud platform, which was generally good but occasionally experienced some lag. Sometimes, the platform would be very slow, making it difficult to open labs. It could take around 30 minutes to start a lab, and there were limitations on data persistence. Any work or files created would only be available for one week before disappearing, requiring recreation. This lack of long-term storage is a disadvantage of the Red Hat Cloud platform.

I am currently using Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

I would rate the stability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux seven out of ten because of the lagging.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is scalable.

The support team was helpful in addressing the lag in the cloud.

Neutral

I used UNIX before switching to Red Hat Enterprise Linux. UNIX did not provide adequate support for developers, making it challenging to work with. Though it's open source, UNIX lacked the features that we needed. So, I transitioned to Red Hat. Red Hat offers developers extensive support and access to technologies like OpenShift and Kubernetes. This makes it easier for developers and large companies to manage workloads and adopt new technologies.

I installed UNIX on my laptop and experienced no lag, unlike the lag I've encountered in the cloud with Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

Installing Red Hat is easy. We download the file and run it in our labs.

One Red Hat license costs USD 131, which I find reasonable.

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

We have 15 members in our group that use Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

I recommend Red Hat Enterprise Linux. It's much faster than UNIX and offers extensive management support, making it valuable for startups and engineering developers.

We are mostly using it for application servers, infrastructure servers, and database servers.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux lends itself to a lot of automation. We are able to manage many more servers with less staff and by using other Red Hat products such as Ansible. Those are the things that I like.

We are using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for containerization projects. Their Podman product has made it easier. It comes with a lot of security. It is a drop-in product or replacement for Docker. I have used Docker before and switching to Podman was very easy. I just saw the demo for the Podman desktop, and I am looking forward to using that. It will hopefully help me streamline container usage and container deployment in Kubernetes or OpenShift.

It inherently has a lot of functions built in for risk reduction, business continuity, and maintaining compliance. For example, it has SELinux, certain firewalls, logging, and all those things. It has all the built-in features required to meet the needs. We can plug in other third-party tools to have it gather information, or we can send logs to centralized locations to track activity and do audits and things like that.

I use Red Hat Insights for different things. I do not use it much to look at security risks. I know that it has those features, but I use a different tool like a Satellite server to take care of patching and things like that. Red Hat Insights provides us with vulnerability alerts and targeted guidance, but it has not affected our uptime much. It is good to see that information. I can see those vulnerabilities, and I can see action steps or remediation steps that I can take. All my servers are patched on a cycle, so as the cycle goes through, each server gets patched based on its own cycle. It does not really affect the uptime.

I like the stability that comes with Red Hat. That has always been the feature that I like. They do not always have the newest features, but they prioritize stability, which is important in the production environment.

Red Hat should keep doing what they have always done. They should continue to be a leader in the open-source space. They should keep innovating and keep creating great products. They can allow more access to their training and their products' testing. There are ways to do it now. You might have to get a certain type of account to test their products. It might be easier if you can just download the product and test it out.

In a production environment, I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for about five years. I have used Red Hat Enterprise Linux clones such as Fedora and CentOS for about 15 years or maybe longer.

It is absolutely stable. It is 100% stable.

It is good. It scales well. With the tools that Red Hat provides, it does not matter if you have 10 servers, 100 servers, or 1,000 servers. They make it simpler with Ansible. Ansible is your friend.

They are top-tier. Support is probably their number one selling point. As long as you give the Red Hat engineers what they need, they are very good at providing new solutions. I would rate them a ten out of ten.

Positive

I have used Red Hat clones in other positions. I might as well just say it is Red Hat because it is a clone, so I have been using Red Hat all along if we look at different products.

I have worked with CentOS, Rocky Linux, etc. The main difference is that Red Hat's support is top-tier. There is also stability. With the ecosystem that they have built, there are a lot of tools to help me manage. They have Ansible and other great tools to help manage the product. You cannot say the same about Windows. They might have a different way of doing things.

We have deployed Red Hat Enterprise Linux on-premises. We have a hybrid cloud environment, but we run other types of servers there. They are mostly Windows, and they are run on Azure cloud. We do not run Red Hat Enterprise Linux in a hybrid cloud environment, but there is always an opportunity to do that in the future.

The Red Hat servers that we have are on-prem. We use VMware and the tools that they provide to deploy Red Hat.

Its initial deployment was done a long time ago. It is a straightforward process to install it as long as you are not trying to do anything complicated.

We do not have a deployment strategy. We install it based on the requirements. If it is a web server or database server, there are different things that you need to do, but it is pretty straightforward. It is a good process.

We took help for deploying Red Hat and purchasing the license and maybe the hardware. We probably used CDW and Advizex. They are probably based in Pittsburgh.

Time savings is the biggest return on investment. I can do more in less or a shorter amount of time. The time savings depend on what you are working on, but you can potentially have about 75% time savings.

I have very little experience with pricing and getting quotes. The whole VMware thing happened, and everybody is looking at different alternatives. At this point, any competitor is probably a good choice based on the cost.

Everyone should evaluate what their needs are, test out different products, and pick the product that is best for their needs. I know that the Red Hat Enterprise Linux is a very good solid product. One thing I would say is that their support is top-tier, so from that aspect, I would recommend Red Hat.

At this time, I am trying to develop a platform that facilitates developer workflows. We may adopt more of a GitHub mindset and use Red Hat tools, such as OpenShift and Ansible.

We are currently not using containers as much as we would like to. We are working on setting standards. That is going to come down the road. Our workloads right now are mostly virtual machines and monolithic applications built on VMs. We will use them more. We will make more microservices and use pods to contain the applications. We will use more Red Hat tools.

Overall, I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux a nine out of ten. There are many things to take into account. From a production perspective, it is a ten out of ten. From the innovation and latest features perspective, it is probably a seven. That is not necessarily a bad thing because that is their unique point. They prioritize stability, but if you want something with your features, you can use Fedora.

The use of the solution keeps varying, considering that we have web apps and a lot of homegrown stuff as we build a lot of our own apps. My company also uses Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for the operating systems for a lot of our other applications that we use for authentication purposes and so on.

I can't really talk much about how the product has benefited the organization since it is not in my wheelhouse, and I mostly deal with the area of configuration management and the automation of configuring it. In my company, we have a Unix team I work with, and when they want to automate processes, then they come to me and I help direct them.

The solution's most valuable feature revolves around its simplicity, especially when maintaining it, which is an easy process.

I have not seen anything in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that causes any queries or doubts in my mind, so I am not really sure if I see any need for improvements in the product at this point, especially when I have good communication with the sales teams and support. I have also recommended the changes I want to see in Ansible, an area where my company sees progress. There is nothing my company is disappointed about regarding Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

I would like to see a better way to organize the jobs within Ansible, specifically with the automation platform. Right now, in Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform, everything is just flat as there are no directory structures or folders and no ways to designate specific jobs for specific things as everything is in one big pile.

With Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), my company has not seen anything requiring improvements. My company is really happy with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). My company is still in the migration process right now since, from all of our seven boxes, we are moving on to the eight and Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 9. The aforementioned process has been really smooth and slick. My company likes the speed and simplicity of the OS.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for twelve years. My company has been using the product since before I joined.

It is a stable solution.

It is a scalable solution.

I went to have dinner with my sales team the previous night, and we just had a chat, after which I got to know some professional services offered by some people willing to come and help our company with the solution if required. Based on the aforementioned area, I can rate support as ten out of ten.

Positive

My company has experience with AIX, Solaris, and Windows. My company switched over to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) because people wanted it, specifically the app developers. My company uses Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) based on supply and demand factors. You just build what is needed for the infrastructure side or when you are in the operations.

The product's deployment phase was simple.

There is a different group in my company that has built up a strategy to deploy the product, so I don't have to do anything in its deployment phase. To request a new system is just a matter of filling out the ticket and submitting it easily, after which the box is built, which is great.

The solution is deployed on an on-premises model.

The deployment phase for the tool was carried out with the help of our company's in-house team. The product was deployed with the help of vRealize Orchestrator Appliance.

In terms of the ROI associated with the product, I would say that with a lot of stuff I do in the company, I also get involved with the patching side, especially the patching of servers. I can patch 1,500 Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) boxes in the time it takes me to patch ten boxes from Windows. Patching in Windows is bad. Being able to patch Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is simple since I think the most I have ever seen it takes is around 35 minutes to patch a box. When our company started to move towards a more containerized approach, we saw that being able to have your container or your OS can open a whole new world. Being able to spin up systems and have multiple systems that are already pre-patched, I don't have to have downtime for the enterprise.

There were a couple of operating systems, including CentOS, which my company looked at before choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as it offered a strong support model. The consistency offered by the Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) was also one of the other reasons why my company chose it over other tools.

Though my company does not currently have a hybrid cloud environment with the tool, we are working on it since regulatory compliances in the banking sector require us to stay compliant. My company is not in a place where we can just jump into cloud infrastructure, but we do hope to do so in the future. Presently, the product is on an on-premises model.

As I am not required to deal with the developers in our company, I don't know if the product has helped centralize developments.

My company uses Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for containerization projects. The product has made dealing with containerization projects easy for my company since we get to use a lot of Kubernetes and Docker platforms that snap right into Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and works.

Considering the built-in security features offered by the tool for risk reduction, business continuity, and maintaining compliance, I prefer Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) over a lot of other products. Our company is like an Active Directory shop, so we are doing a lot of tying to it, which is a little bit disappointing, but it is just business. I like the security end of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). I also like the way the file handling takes place along with its management part, so I have no issues with the tool.

Speaking about the portability of applications and containers built on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) to keep our organization agile, I would say that it is something that will happen in the future as my company is a slow adopter. I am not really sure why it has been slow. My company does have a new organization that is really focusing on opening up new avenues so that we can actually be more agile and have the ability to move to things like OpenShift and having our containers offer more high availability while not having any downtime.

I don't use Red Hat Insights.

If I have to speak to a colleague who is looking at open-source cloud-based operating systems for Linux, I would say that CentOS or Fedora are good options since both products have had an association with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for a long time. I personally like and prefer CentOS.

I would not be able to comment on whether the Red Hat portfolio has affected our total cost of ownership across our enterprise landscape because we just spin them up and keep building them. My company was primarily an AIX house, using Solaris and a lot of Windows boxes from Windows. Right now, my company has gotten rid of the AIX and Solaris systems, and now we are down to about a 50-50 split when it comes to Windows and Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). There have been times when we have had more Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) boxes in our company over the ones from Windows. I can see that in the near future, my company is going to be more of a Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) shop than an organization that has boxes from Windows.

In terms of the deployment model, I would say that my company has three data centers, mostly where VMware is used.

I rate the tool a ten out of ten.