Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Reviews

It's pretty much everything that we have. We don't have a lot of Windows in our environment.

I've been using it a lot for several years. In the past, I ran a small web hosting company, and we used it for web servers, mail servers, FTP servers, and other things like that. After that, I was in casinos, and those were mostly Windows, but here, it's a lot of Linux, and it's all Red Hat. In my team, we just build it and make sure it keeps running, and the application teams do what they do.

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux on-premises. We support the in-house server-based things, and we have another team that supports all the cloud-based things, so I don't have a lot of visibility into the cloud.

In terms of the version, we're trying to phase out version 7. We just brought in version 8. Our Satellite is a little bit behind. By the time that gets caught up, our version 8 should be a little bit more solid, and then they can start testing version 9.

I haven't been on this team for a very long time. I've only been on this team for a couple of years, and it was already in place. In the past, we used it to get the stability and the support that we needed because, for a web hosting company, it was either IIS or Apache, and that was back in the NT days, so obviously, we went with Apache. I find it a better server operating system, so that's what we use.

I don't use it in a hybrid cloud environment, but my organization does. I like its built-in security features when it comes to simplifying risk reduction and maintaining compliance. All the firewall features and iptables have been fine for me. SELinux has been great for me. With the hosting that we used to do, SELinux was great because we had to share files with customers. It made it easy to make sure that files stayed secure and only changed by whoever needed to touch them.

I just use it. I'm strictly into command lines, and they just do what I need them to do, and I know how to use them. Everything is just stable and works well. 

It works fine for me, and it does what I need already. It does everything I needed to do, and it has for so many years. The only change that stumped me was the networking in version 9. I preferred the ifconfig way of doing things, but the system changes of it have grown on me. I preferred the ifconfig way because of familiarity. I knew how to manipulate things. I knew how to get things running and stay running and script ways to keep them running and notify me if the thing went wrong. My only gripe has been the networking change and the inability to use ifconfig anymore. I talked to some people, and they did point out that it's good if you're moving from one environment to another environment—like a laptop, but for servers, I don't need that. I just put my config file where I can find it and make the changes that I need.

I've been in this organization for a couple of years, but I've been using Red Hat since version 3. It has been a long time.

The stability has been pretty great. There are some things that we're still working on, but once we solve them, I know they'll remain solved.

Scalability has been great too because when we need more, we just add more, and we're good.

They've been great. I've worked with them a lot lately. They've been a ten out of ten. They're always there for us, and they answer us quickly.

Positive

I've personally used everything from Slackware to OpenBSD, FreeBSD, Red Hat, Fedora, and Ubuntu. I've used everything.

I like the way that everything is predictable with Red Hat Enterprise Linux. You know what you're getting. You know where everything is, and you know that you can find support if you need it. When we're upgrading or if we're adding something, I always know where I could find what I need to find.

I would think that we have seen an ROI. Our licensing has been very fair, but I don't have a lot of visibility into that.

I like my developer account. The free sixteen licenses that they give with the developer account are great because that gives me the ability to keep using it at home instead of trying CentOS or something like that. Once CentOS went away or changed, I had the ability to just make a developer account and spin up my entire lab in Red Hat, which made it better anyway because that's what we use at work, and now I have a one-to-one instead of a clone-to-one.

I've been trying to find a reason to use containers, but I just can't. I know our company uses it a lot, and they love it. They love the ability to shift things around and bring down servers when they want, and all of that, but for my own use cases, I haven't had a reason.

Overall, I'd rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux a ten out of ten. Everything is great.

We use RHEL for high-performance computing. We host most of our production servers in our data center. Red Hat is a great package that helps us customize most of the data and dependent packages we receive from the Red Hat operating system. Most of our server requirements are being managed with Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

We mainly use Red Hat for our application deployments, standalone servers, and VMs.

We use this solution in a university. Most of the production servers and applications are required for the students.

We've seen a benefit in hosting servers and email security. RHEL provides excellent results and performance. It helps us achieve our goals for scalability and services.

We normally run crontab to keep our servers up-to-date. It works well with Red Hat Enterprise Linux because it has an advanced suite of features that can be effectively used for production servers. 

It also has RPM Package Manager, which includes most of the tools and utilities that every organization needs to have.

There is portability in the applications and containers built on Red Hat, which keeps our organization agile. Enterprise Linux offers flexibility in terms of dependent packages.

Red Hat Linux definitely enables us to achieve security standard certification. Most enterprise solutions need to comply with security standards. Many Linux-based operating systems fail to provide security because of open-source techniques.

Most of our production servers fail to deploy in Linux. When we deploy in RHEL we don't think about security because it has a lot of features like policy management. We can give specific access to specific users who require SSH or Telnet. It's more flexible because it can be altered easily.

We have used many Linux-based operating systems for production purposes, but this is the only solution that guarantees performance and scalability. When we run industry servers, they demand high performance.

It has great software support because it has a wide range of tools and utility products in the database. It's relatively easy to use enterprise products, and we don't need to add packages from other third-party sources. They definitely have a good database.

Red Hat's built-in security features simplify risk reduction and maintain compliance because Linux is mostly open source. We're running most of the production servers in this operating system, so we don't require a third-party solution because RHEL has a great range of security products with an inbuilt firewall. The inbuilt firewall is highly dependable and we can customize rules for outbound and inbound traffic, and specific accesses can be quickly returned in the script files. It has a great command line.

Red Hat allows us to build with confidence and ensure availability across physical, virtual, and cloud infrastructures. It already has a reliable operating system. Most companies rely on it for deployment on cloud and on-premise. With cloud, they prefer Red Hat because of the high-performance computing cluster.

It has great support for VMs and unlimited VM support. It's being deployed in our data centers and other large environments. It allows us to streamline the management of our infrastructure and makes it possible for more than one hundred servers and VMs to run, and it's up to date.

Red Hat Linux enables us to achieve security standards certification.

The graphical user interface should be more user-friendly. It's a concern because the command line is perfectly fine.

I have used this solution for five years.

It's very stable.

It's definitely scalable because we're deploying it in our VMs.

Technical support is satisfactory. There are forums that are also useful.

Positive

We used CentOS. It's a different setup than Red Hat. CentOS is also a Linux-based distribution. CentOS is open-source, so we don't need to pay for it. Compared to CentOS, Red Hat has advanced features but the cost is still high, so it's problematic for medium-level customers.

We switched to Red Hat because the service providers like high-performance computing. We mostly have high-performance computing deployed in our data center. We needed Enterprise Linux as a minimum requirement. Red Hat Enterprise Linux supports high-performance computing solutions, and packages have to be installed from their repositories. That's a must for any IT enterprise organization now.

CentOS is an open-source solution and provides 70% of the features that Red Hat provides. We pay Red Hat for the repository and application support.

It has a great set of dependable packages, software, and a collection of utilities embedded in that operating system. We don't need to get apps from the repositories. There aren't a lot of errors in the Red Hat operating system, which makes it useful for our system administrator.

The initial setup is very easy. It took about four or five hours.

The solution requires maintenance and constant updates.

Implementation was done in-house by a team of three people.

The pricing and licensing are a bit higher for Red Hat Enterprise because we're able to get 70% of its features with the CentOS version. For the 30% of features that Red Hat provides, I think they need to reduce the licensing fee.

I would rate this solution as nine out of ten.

My advice is if you're actually testing, you don't need to go with this solution. If you're an advanced Linux user or server administrator, you will definitely require Red Hat because many of the latest solutions require dependency-based repositories. It will be very easy if you're active with this operating system.

This has a set of repositories built into the database. We don't need to go anywhere to set up all of the databases and repositories. Everything is embedded into the solution.

If you're looking for HPC and NVIDIA clusters, most of the supercomputers need to have the solution, so it's better to have it equipped with that.

I use Red Hat to run applications like Apache, MySQL databases, etc. It is suitable for data storage and firewall. I can also measure performance with the SAR tools and do all I need with the Linux stack. I run several server farms, community applications, and more. Multiple teams use it. We have a hybrid setup, but we try to keep the use cases separate for each, so they're not transiting that much.

RHEL has made it easier to create, view, and update pools. We spin up a new one when necessary. We can quickly bring one down and move the traffic over, and it's a lot simpler to keep, update, and manage our application.

The solution has helped us achieve security standard certifications. Having the reporting on Ansible and other management components helps. We have a dashboard we can use and a blueprint to assist with the container. RHEL's toolkit helps us see which versions are running, so we can keep it lightweight. Also, having a newer base image ensures we have a standard. We always get what we're expecting. 

It helps us centralize development and move DevOps forward. They have a lot of support from multiple providers. I like having that standard. It makes it more straightforward for our developers to do troubleshooting here and there. The pipeline and support from the Red Hat team made a difference.

Red Hat support is pretty good. They're online, so you can look up things once you have support. Their AB integration has improved. It's easy to manage storage for moving, syncing LBM, etc.  

Red Hat excels at built-in security. There are lots of new security features in terms of profiles, email, using satellite, and disabling root login. They've got modules and built-in Ansible features. You can customize how it remediates, and Ansible will tell you what's out of compliance as you add rules.

Their container platforms are among the easiest to manage. Once you're done pre-testing, it is easy to migrate after you deploy in a sandbox. They have their inbox IDE and the like. 

I also think it's great that you can use one payment management system if it works correctly. You can see your overall footprint from both sides together on one screen.

I would like Insight to include some features from OpenSCAP, which they offer for compliance services. I played with it a little bit, but haven't gotten the updated setup to get that. It creates excellent documentation.

I have been using RHEL for 10 to 15 years.

RHEL is one of the more stable Linux platforms. 

RHEL is pretty scalable and easily rentable.

I rate RHEL support a nine out of ten. We can do captures to easily show them the issues we're having, and their response times are above average.

Positive

We had some smaller setups with this where we had some room for development, but now we're trying to standardize everything using smaller footprints, and not having to manage more workspace stuff. Now we're pretty much in RHEL and working on that.

RHEL was already there when I joined the organization, so I inherited it. In terms of maintenance, we try to keep it up to date. 

RHEL's price seems to be consistently changing, depending on what you're after. We might need a more extended license to lock in a price if it keeps changing. It would be nicer if it stayed steady within a specific range, but it's negotiable. We try to negotiate, and maybe a more extended contract would be better. 

When comparing to other solutions, you must consider the reporting and security features. It's an expense that we need to pay in terms of compliance. When you talk with your partner companies or potential customers, they need to know that we're on the ball and keeping up.

We have considered other solutions, but we see the added value from Red Hat, and there are many more features, so we must have support. I'd say we didn't do too much evaluation. We liked Red Hat from the get-go because they've got backing from IBM now. Also, they have started their own server- or container-oriented stuff. It helps to consider if we'll ever work with just Red Hat on AWS, given the ease of spinning things up.

I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux a nine out of ten overall. I don't think RHEL is exactly perfect, but it's a trusted, easy and well-supported solution. They are constantly improving and trying to make it easier. 

We primarily use RHEL for LAMP stacks. Our deployment is currently on-premises, but if they change their licensing model on the cloud, we might start rolling it out in the GCP. It's used globally in VMware environments. We use it in APAC and AMEA, but the majority of the deployments are in the US. The major platforms that we run on it are PLM environment and digital asset management.

Our shop is what we call out of the box and if it doesn't run on a container out of the box, then we don't run it on a container. So none of our stuff is running containers right now.

RHEL has made our operations more reliable by giving us a more repeatable process. After we've built it once, we know it will work the same way the next time we build it. It has reduced the time I spend training my operations team, and the cost of ownership is low. 

The OSCAP scanner and Ansible help enforce company security standards, decreasing our exposure to attacks, data loss, ransomware, etc. From an operations point of view, managing the environment requires less overhead.

I like the Ansible automation and RHEL's backward compatibility with Script. It's also reliable. I also used the OSCAP stuff for a while for PCI/PI compliance. That was pretty handy and straightforward. I like the SE Linux for the LAMP stacks.

The cost could be lowered. We don't use RHEL in the cloud because Ubuntu is cheaper. Ubuntu factors support costs into the license when you're running it in the cloud, and it's a fraction of the cost of what RHEL is. I'm also not sure if RHEL supports open-source products. If they do, they don't advertise it. Adding stuff like Apache and other open-source tools like Tomcat to their support portfolio would help.

I have been using RHEL for 12 years

Linux is highly scalable in general, especially if you are using the container model, but unfortunately, we're not. I have no problem with scaling Linux or Red Hat's specific implementation of it.

I rate Red Hat support eight out of 10. Most of the support engineers are competent and helpful.

Positive

When I deployed RHEL initially, it was not very straightforward, but it's relatively easy today. The difference is the improvements to Satellite. Satellite Version 5 was kind of clunky. Version 6 seemed a little more straightforward and reliable. We don't use any kickstart, golden image, and roll and update, so there's not much to our strategy. 

The initial deployment took over a week, but it took about two days when we moved to RHEL 6. 

RHEL is competitive on-premises, but it's too expensive in the cloud. There are many cheap solutions for the cloud. In terms of upfront costs, open-source is more affordable and, in many cases, free. The long-term cost of support, staffing, and maintenance make it untenable. 

I have used Ubuntu and CentOS. I'm not a fan of Debian platforms. That's the main difference.

I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux nine out of 10. I've been pretty happy with RHEL over the years. That's 20 years of Unix right there. I tell anybody coming into Linux or Unix to learn the program. Scripting is your best friend, and you can't understand automation if you don't understand basic scripting. 

If you've never seen Unix or RHEL before, go to a class and learn how to do it in a lab so you don't have to screw up your job. Once you're comfortable with that,  start learning containers because I firmly believe containers will replace how we do most of what we do today.

We use Red Hat for all sorts of use cases. This includes everything from running applications and databases, or the combination thereof, to building software for products that we use for embedded design.

My company has several RHEL implementations deployed in the field, including versions 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.

RHEL allows us to run multiple versions of the same application with no problem. We have specific databases and specific versions of them running for the support team, even though some of them are not in support. It has lots of features for things like containerization.

We use a fair bit of Red Hat including other products such as Red Hat Satellite, Red Hat Insights, Red Hat Ansible, and Ansible Tower. We have also attempted to look at an OpenShift PoC. Red Hat seems to be doing a great job integrating their products. For instance, Satellite 7 will finally have all of the Puppet functionality Ansiblized. Overall, they're doing a great job integrating their stack to help make it better.

Having this integrated solution approach provides us with greater operational excellence because we can see what somebody is building. We have the environment captured and have visibility about what went into it for repeatability, reproducibility, scalability, and lots of other benefits.

The most valuable feature of RHEL is that it's well supported. It's a good Linux platform.

RHEL Smart Management gives you access to Satellite, which helps you do automated kickstart deployments. Satellite has a lot of control, giving you the ability to control content promotion, content YUM updates, caching, et cetera. You can have as much or as little overhead in compliance control as you want.

In terms of running and using applications, Red Hat is consistent regardless of the underlying infrastructure. It's implemented on VMware, Proxmox, KVM, and Hyper-V. Whatever underlying infrastructure you put it on, it's still Red Hat, which is great.

We use this product's built-in tracing and monitoring tools such as syslog and SAR (system activity reporter) to provide us with greater insight and visibility into what's going on.

I would like to see improvements made to the subscriptions and management of them.

I have been working with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) since 2013.

Red Hat is a super stable operating system.

RHEL is reliable across environments including bare metal, virtualized, hybrid cloud, and multi-cloud. I do not worry about things on Red Hat most of the time, at least not from an operating system perspective.

This is a very scalable product.

From an administrative point of view, we have a team of 10 Linux admins but as far as consumers of the environment, we probably have between several hundred and 1,000 users. It is difficult to estimate precisely.

We have approximately 1,200 VMs with Red Hat Linux registered. We are going through divestitures so our company will be growing and shrinking our usage. We really don't know what next month will look like and whether these systems need to be replicated, duplicated, de-commissioned, et cetera.

I assume that in the future, we will maintain something close to 1,200 hosts.

Red Hat support is great, and I would rate them an eight out of ten.

We have vendor support for our platform that we support internally. We don't often use Red Hat support but it's nice to know that they're there when and in case we need it. It's a good product, so we hardly ever actually have to open support tickets for Red Hat Linux, specifically.

Positive

We also use SUSE Linux and have some implementations that come packaged as an appliance from various vendors. We also have some Ubuntu requirements but those are not managed by the internal Linux operations team.

The initial setup is straightforward. You start off by putting a disk in and specifying what partitions you want. Then, you can opt for a minimal OS or something with more features, such as a web server OS. Once you select what you need, it does some initial configuration and setup.

We always use a minimal configuration and build up from there. Our deployment process is a mix of legacy, where we do a manual install, versus a fully automated installation using Ansible.

For an end-to-end build, we normally take about 20 minutes. That's going from a bare minimum template to all of our security, InfoSec requirements, register to Satellite, register to Insights, etc. 

In summary, the installation is as straightforward as it can be for Linux OS.

We purchase our subscriptions directly from Red Hat and handle the deployment internally.

This is not a cheap solution but it gets you the support if you ever need it. That said, it's nice to know that having Red Hat support is there but it's always stable so I hardly ever use it.

The single subscription and install repository for all types of systems makes it simple to purchase and install Red Hat. We had Red Hat x86 before this, and when we wanted to purchase the newer version, their system made it easy to complete the purchasing and installation processes.

There are a lot of other architectures available that we don't use, such as RSCT. They can be obtained from the repository but aren't applicable to us.

In addition to the standard licensing fees, we pay for Smart Management. This gets the Satellite and Insights features, which I recommend.

Overall, their subscription, process, and repository make for a streamlined purchase and installation process.

We did not evaluate other options before choosing Red Hat. This has been the operating system in place since before I started with the company.

One of the new features in RHEL version 8 is AppStream. We're still doing our RHEL 8 deployments and although we've started using AppStream, we haven't gotten very deep into it. Its use is on a very limited scope. RHEL 8 is about halfway through its lifecycle and we're still trying to see how it works.

When it comes to the deployment of cloud-based workloads, this solution helps to automate activities. We are just starting our cloud journey and as such, we currently don't have any cloud-based workloads. However, we plan to, and my understanding is that it will be much easier using Red Hat Gold images for Azure, AWS, etc.

My advice to anybody who is implementing this solution is to automate as much as possible. Overall, I think that this is a good product. I'm a pretty big proponent of Red Hat and in fact, as we speak, I'm wearing a Red Hat RHEL 8 shirt. 

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

We have Red Hat Enterprise Linux for our staging and development environments. We are using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for our production servers. It is the only Linux operating system that we are using in our company. I do not think we will change it. We will stay with it.

We started with CentOS, so it is quite similar. We have various features, and it is stable. The updates and upgrades are stable. This is the most important thing for my company. We are a gambling company. Reliability and performance are the most important for us. We like to press the update button and have an updated operating system after one, two, three, or five minutes. The most important thing about Red Hat Enterprise Linux is that it is a stable operating system.

We are using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for containerization projects. Red Hat Enterprise Linux and Docker daemons have been running for years without any problems. It is very stable. We are happy with it.

Every time we did an update or upgrade for the operating system or some dependencies, it worked well. It was very fast and stable. We are not afraid to press the button. We are happy with it.

The portability of applications and containers built on Red Hat Enterprise Linux keeps our organization agile. We are running some Docker applications. They are not our production applications. We are running some containers. It is very quite easy.

We use Red Hat Insights, and we are happy with Red Hat Insights in urgent situations due to security issues, noncompliant settings, or unpatched systems.

Red Hat Insights provides us with vulnerability alerts and targeted guidance. We have not had any problems.

It is a very stable operating system. We are not afraid to upgrade it.

If I want GUI, its GUI is better than other open-source operating systems. I prefer it for package management for sure. I am happy with it.

At the moment, I am happy with it. I cannot think of any areas for improvement. We have everything. The biggest challenge that we had was the migration from CentOS to Red Hat Enterprise Linux, but after some tests, it was easy.

We have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for almost two years.

It is stable.

It is scalable. We plan to increase its usage.

We are partners of Red Hat. We have support, so we are good. 

Positive

We were using CentOS. The architect in my company chose Red Hat Enterprise Linux because we were already partners with Red Hat.

We are mostly on-prem. We are trying to migrate our applications to the cloud. We are using Azure Cloud.

The main data center that we have is in Ireland, but we are serving a lot of countries. We have small data centers for some countries. We have 2,000 VMs in Ireland, and we also have VMs in other countries. We have almost five data centers. We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux in all of them.

Migration from CentOS to Red Hat Enterprise Linux was a big challenge, but Red Hat had software to migrate and convert all CentOS VMs to Red Hat Enterprise Linux. It was an adventure in the beginning, but after some tests, it was easy. We migrated and converted almost 2,000 VMs in two to three months, and we had only ten cases where the migration failed, but it was our fault. We were happy.

For migration to Red Hat Enterprise Linux, we created a template and made the changes that we wanted. We ran some Ansible Playbooks, and we created the VMs.

We used a consultant from Red Hat the first time.

We did not evaluate other solutions.

To a colleague who is looking at open-source, cloud-based operating systems for Linux instead of Red Hat Enterprise Linux, I would advise going for Red Hat Enterprise Linux because of support. There would be someone who already knows about your issue and can help you in a couple of hours. There is no need to spend time fixing the issue by yourself. Imagine running Ubuntu and having a production issue. You need someone to guide you.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has not enabled us to centralize development. Our company is based on the .NET language. Our developers do not care about our infrastructure. They develop their applications, and we deploy them in OpenShift. We are using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for other services, such as MongoDB, Postgres, and our logging infrastructure. We use it for Elasticsearch, Graylog, and Docker services. Our applications do not run on Red Hat Enterprise Linux systems. They are running on CoreOS for OpenShift.

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux a ten out of ten. It is stable. We are not afraid to upgrade it. We are happy to use it. This operating system is for us. 

We are doing image building. Our team focuses on the image of the platform and presenting it in a secure way for everybody to consume.

My organization had already been using it before I started, so I am not sure what benefits they got from Red Hat Enterprise Linux. They were already a Red Hat shop when I started.

We do not utilize Red Hat Insights as much as we would like, but we know that it is there. It provides the data, and we can act on that data, but we do not use Red Hat Insights the way we should. However, it does tell us when things are critical and need to be patched. If something is on there and it is critical, we can at least see that it is patched. The alerts and targeted guidance from Red Hat Insights have not affected our uptime so far.

It is open source. Most of the features are already there for you. They make solutions for challenges that we do not even think about sometimes, but we may consume them later.

I have not put in many feature requests. They have mainly been around small things such as monitoring with Ceph. I cannot remember the name, but monitoring was needed for a specific function. It was a pretty important function, but there was no monitoring set up. It took some extra effort. That was the only feature I asked for. I asked them if they could set up a monitor to make sure that the system was healthy or working correctly.

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

Its stability is fine. I have not seen too many issues with stability.

Its scalability is great. We can scale up or down.

I do not have any issues with the customer service or tech support. It is good. I would rate them a ten out of ten because they can usually resolve anything.

Positive

The deployment of Red Hat Enterprise Linux is pretty simple. There are not so many issues.

We are using it on the cloud and on-prem. We are trying to get to Azure. We are not using it in a hybrid cloud environment. I know we are setting up OpenShift in Azure and on-prem.

We have been using TerraForm to create images and Ansible to make sure everything is fine. We have some things on Azure, but we are trying to make it easier for people to consume Azure. We are trying to get that automation together so that it is a lot easier if anybody wants to spin anything up in Azure. They have a container to use that is secure. All of our business tools are on it.

We just use Red Hat. We do not use any integrator or consultant.

Our team does not use a lot of containerization, but we probably will be doing that soon with VMware changes. We are trying to get more of the monolithic stuff down to containerized workloads. We will hopefully see some return on investment after we get our VMware stuff out and get more things containerized. We are working with the OpenShift team, and we will be able to see some ROI.

That has been mostly handled by Red Hat. As we are a Red Hat shop, we have a lot of people around that already.

We do not use the security features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux. There are so many scanners out there. We do not use what is on Red Hat Enterprise Linux, but we do set it up. They are at least available to consume. We do not use them because we have so many security compliance tools. As a bank, we have to use those for auditing and other things like that.

To a colleague who is looking at open-source, cloud-based operating systems for Linux instead of Red Hat Enterprise Linux, I would say to get something that is close to Red Hat. Red Hat is killing a lot of the downstream stuff. All my Linux is Rocky Linux because it is based on Red Hat Enterprise Linux. I would suggest getting something that is close to Red Hat Enterprise Linux so that if they or their company does not want to go for Red Hat, they would still have the same tooling and the same infrastructure.

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux a ten out of ten. I have not seen a lot of issues with Red Hat Enterprise Linux. I am overall satisfied with it.

We use Red Hat for everything or we have a Red Hat derivative.

We use it on-prem and on the cloud. We use it in a hybrid cloud environment. We see it everywhere. We have a more consistent view. We do not have the same churn that we have with other operating systems. The longevity of Red Hat Enterprise Linux is pretty cool.

We see it being used a lot for containerization projects. A lot of the things that I am involved in involve Red Hat Enterprise Linux. It is a great experience. It is something that we know we can come into and have a good outcome. It is very reliable.

They are at the forefront in terms of built-in security features. I have seen a lot of things that they are doing. We would like to see more of that because security is something that is impacting everyone. 

The portability of applications and containers built on Red Hat Enterprise Linux is great for keeping our organization agile. It is consistent. When I build an image with Red Hat Enterprise Linux, I know what is in it. I know it is trusted. I do not have the same churn that I would have with others. The way they support it and the way they communicate are well-known.

It is the number one Linux operating system that we've run in to, and the way it does things is the way I prefer. I do not know if it is because they did it first, or they just read my mind.

The number one feature we like is that it is a very reliable platform. It is a very consistent platform. There is very little that we cannot do with Red Hat Enterprise Linux, and there is very little that we worry about when we are running a Red Hat distribution.

Red Hat started as a very open and outwardly focused release, but recently, some of the changes that were made have affected that reputation. From the standpoint of what they can add to the product, the product is pretty stable. 

They continue to push the ecosystem forward, but as a consumer, what was most important for me was the reputation of openness that Red Hat has fostered. I would like that back. I wish they did not care about CentOS and things like that. I have seen my customers push away from Red Hat as a result of that perception, which is weird because it does not change anything. I wish they would value that. Because of new owners too, the perception has changed suddenly.

I started with Red Hat before Enterprise Linux. I started in the nineties when Red Hat first went on floppy disks. They had a bunch of floppy disks. That was my first release, and then they started doing it via CD-ROMs. The first Red Hat Enterprise Linux release that I used was 2 or 2.1 in early 2000. I remember the Red Hat person coming to where I was working at the time and saying that they are going to start this enterprise distribution. We were really skeptical. We were like, "We have Red Hat. We love Red Hat. Why are you messing with a good thing?" It is kind of funny.

It is stable.

It is scalable.

It has always been solid. It is getting a little worse than it was before. When you get to the right people, you always get amazing support. It is just a bit harder to get to the right people. I would rate their support a ten out of ten. I love it when we get there.

Positive

It has been very long since I started working with these types of solutions. I have used them all.

We use it in the cloud. We use it on-prem. We use it in a hybrid situation. We use all cloud providers.

Its deployment has always been simple.

I am a consultant and integrator.

For us, our ROI is the predictability of Red Hat. We know what is coming. It is well-communicated. We could see the upstreams. We know how it is supported. We know how they communicate about CVEs and things like that. We know how to iterate the ecosystems. We know how to deal with RPMs. Very rarely, you are like, "This is brand new." It always usually works into a construct. There is always a utility that you can use to wrap complex things, such as SELinux or containers. There is always something.

We have done bake-offs before with the big three that everybody talks about. There is Red Hat. There is SUSE, and there is Ubuntu. Personally, I am not a fan of Ubuntu. I do not run a desktop, which is probably why. The ones that I run into all the time are SUSE or Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

If I were not going with Red Hat Enterprise Linux, I would go with a Red Hat Enterprise Linux clone. In business, I would always use Red Hat. Personally, I would use CentOS just because I prefer the way Red Hat organizes everything, so it has always been Red Hat or a Red Hat clone.

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