Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Reviews

My organization has different departments. In my department, we mostly work with containerization. I am using Red Hat Enterprise Linux as a part of OpenShift. I use the basic package and base image of Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

For scale-up in our platform, we use CoreOS as the master, and for the workers, we use the Red Hat Enterprise Linux service. From OpenShift version 4.10 onwards, we cannot use Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 worker nodes. We were using Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 worker nodes, so we upgraded to Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8. 

For OpenShift, there are some recommendations from Red Hat in terms of what needs to be used for the control plane and what needs to be used for the worker nodes. When you are using CoreOS and Red Hat Enterprise Linux worker nodes, there are some difficulties in managing them. For example, when you upgrade OpenShift, you need to upgrade two times. The control plane is upgraded separately because it uses CoreOS. The control plane has a lot of certificate updates that will in turn be updated on the worker nodes, so you have one restart of all worker nodes, and then when you need to upgrade your worker nodes, there will be one more restart. 

Overall, you have two reboots in your production environment, which is an issue, but it is related to your choice of product in your environment. We have this issue because we opted to use Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 or Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 worker machines, whereas Red Hat recommends using CoreOS because it is pretty fast in terms of rebooting and functionality. When you upgrade the control plane, that itself will update the worker nodes, so you are done in one shot. When you need to upgrade your Red Hat Enterprise Linux machines, you need to use the Ansible Playbook. You can then upgrade to Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7, 8, or any other version. Regardless of the versions, you can upgrade the operating system and the OpenShift version. For this purpose and for some ad-hoc activities, we are using Ansible Playbooks.

For us, its security, management, stability, and hardening are most valuable. All of these features are better in Red Hat Enterprise Linux as compared to Microsoft Windows.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is very good in terms of risk assessment. It is also good for maintaining compliance. It is better than Microsoft Windows.

From the administration perspective, I do not have any issues with Red Hat Enterprise Linux. For me, it is more convenient than Microsoft Windows.

My organization has been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for a long time. They have been using it before I joined the organization.

It is pretty good in terms of stability. It is a stable product. I would rate it a nine out of ten in terms of stability because sometimes the packages can have bugs.

Its scalability is good. I would rate it a nine out of ten in terms of scalability.

We never encountered any issues while using OpenShift.

I have mostly been working with Red Hat Enterprise Linux. 

I have been involved in the deployment of OpenShift. It is pretty straightforward. We just need to get the licensing, and we just need to create a pool for our containers session in Red Hat Satellite. We can do the configuration from there. It does not take long because we are adding the nodes to OpenShift. During the scale-up process, we only need to subscribe to the nodes with the Red Hat subscription. It does not take much time. If we have a good spec, the scale-up would not take much time. It would take less than twenty minutes. It is pretty fast.

In terms of maintenance, when we have the bug report, we need to do the security assessments. Over time, there might be some bugs related to some packages. At that time, if it is critical, we will be scheduling a maintenance activity on our platform. 

Red Hat provides high availability from the application perspective. You get high availability when you are using OpenShift, so when you are doing a maintenance activity on the OpenShift side, there would not be any downtime. The high availability is very good. For the end-users, there would not be any application outages if you configure your application with proper replicas. They would not even realize that there is a maintenance activity happening to the underlying workers.

It was implemented in-house.

We did not evaluate other solutions. Red Hat Enterprise Linux is the choice of most of the companies.

If you want to integrate with OpenShift or build an OpenShift cluster with the master Red Hat Enterprise Linux and worker Red Hat Enterprise Linux, you can do that, but you need to plan your upgrade or maintenance activities. It would be better if you choose CoreOS for both. CoreOS would be a better choice in terms of maintenance activities or upgrade activities in the future. If you cannot afford that, you can go with the Red Hat Enterprise Linux operating system, but you need to do two upgrades. You first need to upgrade the control plane and then you need to separately update your worker nodes. That is the only thing you need to keep in mind.

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

We are currently using Red Hat Enterprise Linux's versions 6, 7, and 8. We run the OS both on-prem and in the cloud.

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux for web applications, containers, Kubernetes, and simple scripting servers. The scripting servers are used to run scripts on run drops and so on. However, the biggest use cases are containers and web app workloads.

The cloud providers are AWS and Alibaba.

Red Hat helps our organization avoid cloud vendor lock-in because we can run Kubernetes and a few different workloads directly on Red Hat across different cloud providers. Since Red Hat is an operating system, we can migrate our workloads to any cloud provider that supports Red Hat.

Avoiding vendor lock-in and being able to move workflows between cloud providers has saved us hundreds of thousands of dollars per year.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is easy to recover, especially from a backup. I believe this is because of its resilience. If I use an instance, I can go to my backups and restore it without much trouble. I was going to compare it to Windows for a moment, where there might be some additional steps required to clean things up after recovery. However, I haven't had many issues where I needed to do any cleanup afterward.

It is easy to move workloads between the cloud and our data center using Red Hat Enterprise Linux. The ease of migration depends on the cloud provider and what they allow us to do. However, for the most part, replication-based migration between cloud providers or on-premises works well. 

Linux is good for hardening the operating system. Logical volumes allow us to dynamically expand volumes, which is valuable from an operational perspective. This is especially true in cloud environments, where we pay for every kilobyte of storage. By using logical volumes, we can expand the disk on demand without downtime, which can help us keep costs down.

The price has room for improvement.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for three years, but I have known about the OS since version four.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is definitely resilient and easy to recover, especially when compared to Windows. I enjoyed working with Red Hat Enterprise Linux more than Microsoft Windows, especially because of its resilience.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux's scalability is easy to manage. We can simply spin up more instances as needed, and then turn them off when we no longer need them. This means that Red Hat Enterprise Linux's scalability is not as much of an issue with the cloud provider.

We have around 2,500 instances of Red Hat Enterprise Linux in our environment.

Red Hat support is generally good, but it can sometimes take a little longer than we would like to get a response, especially when the issue is through a web-based chat.

Positive

The on-premises deployments are subscription based, and the cloud instances are from the providers which are AWS and Alibaba.

We can always ask for Red Hat Enterprise Linux to be less expensive but when we compare it to other options, there are savings in the long run.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux was our first choice because of its enterprise support. That was the key factor. We do also run other Linux distributions, but Red Hat Enterprise Linux is our primary choice because of the enterprise support. 

The big difference between Red Hat Enterprise Linux and other Linux-based operating systems is the support. There isn't much difference other than the syntax, where the command is "at, get" versus Red Hat using YUM or DNF for installation. So outside of that, the support is the main difference.

I give Red Hat Enterprise Linux a nine out of ten. No solution is perfect, but Red Hat Enterprise Linux is very close.

Our engineering team probably used the image-building tool. I am on the operations side, so I do not see that part of the process. I take the images that are already built and deploy them.

I think it's just a workflow issue. We need to improve our own workflows to be able to manage them better. Red Hat support is already good when we encounter something we're unfamiliar with. So, we need to get Enterprise CoreOS from Red Hat for those cases. I think as we encounter more of our own workloads, we'll need to improve our workflows even further.

I am a Federal Contractor. Red Hat Enterprise Linux is one of the FedRAMP-approved operating systems, so the government is comfortable with using it. That is why we use it, even though it is a bit outdated. Most of our software runs on Red Hat Enterprise Linux because we work in Identity Access Management. For example, Oracle Identity Stack runs on Linux, so we have to use Red Hat Enterprise Linux. We follow very strict security protocols, and we use Ansible to enforce them. Red Hat Enterprise Linux is the easiest way for us to do this.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is a trustworthy and highly scalable operating system. The federal government needs an operating system that they can rely on, with enterprise support and long-term service. As well as being stable and well-known within the community.

I have not yet experienced a disaster recovery scenario, but resiliency is important, and risk is very reliable. The auto logs are very clear. Additionally, with those support communities, it is straightforward enough to understand what we are looking for and to eventually resolve the issue.

I actually like the in-place upgrade that Red Hat Enterprise Linux offers. It has made our upgrade process from Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 to Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 much easier than we originally thought. 

I know that many people prefer in-house support, but I personally prefer Red Hat's support. It is easy to get in contact with their support team.

Even though it is not directly related, the fact that Red Hat Enterprise Linux and Ansible are closely related makes it easier for us to move forward.

The package management, repository, and satellite repository are easy to use.

I am a bit biased because my client is air-gapped. This means that we cannot connect to the internet, so all of our operations are disconnected. I would like to see better support for disconnected operations. For example, the in-place upgrade from Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 to Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 initially relies on a lot of online resources. This makes sense, but it would be nice for a consumer or integrator like me to be able to say, "Hey, we need an offline solution so we can upgrade our government clients on-premises." Red Hat does provide instructions on how to create a repository, but the instructions are not very clear. This leaves us scrambling to figure out why we are missing a repository in our satellite image. Red Hat should provide a way to mirror repositories or at least provide a solution for us to bubble up packages throughout the entire process.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for four years. We started with Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6, and we upgraded to Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 in an airgap environment. We are currently in the process of upgrading to Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is stable.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is scalable. It is deployed in a 10,000-plus enterprise company.

The support team is always direct and easy to find. Their answers are so helpful that I have not yet had to call them. I also appreciate how they approach troubleshooting. They don't assume that you're doing anything wrong. Instead, they try to educate you on how to fix the problem. In my experience, the support team has always been very positive.

Positive

I have experience with most Linux operating systems, including distributions like Apache, Debian, CentOS, Fedora, and others. From my perspective, Red Hat Enterprise Linux is not necessarily the top standout product, but I know that it is a product that I can rely on. It is the standard image that enterprise users in the community will use. We can rely to a degree on the standardization of how packets are used to support it. However, it does not stand out to us as much as the other products. Nevertheless, I know that it will have a positive partnership with us. Red Hat Enterprise Linux is a more suitable operating system for enterprise environments in terms of stability and reliability.

We are currently in the process of reviewing our initial solution for upgrading from Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 to Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8. The in-place upgrade for the airgap environment is an area where we are still struggling to understand the documentation. However, Red Hat has been very supportive and has offered us pathways to move forward. We do not have much to say at this time, as we are still in the middle of the process.

When we upgraded Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 to Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7, it took us around six months due to external factors not related to Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

Our client has a direct subscription to Red Hat.

I give Red Hat Enterprise Linux an eight out of ten. I am not a firm believer that everything is perfect right out of the gate. Everything can be improved. I am a little biased. I wish there was better support for offline environments. I understand that I am in the minority in this case, as everyone is connected to the internet now. However, as a federal contractor and integrator, we have requirements that we must meet. It is not fun having to download binaries offline and then figure out how to set up our own repository. These are not straightforward tasks like Red Hat telling me what to do. We just wish it was easier to do things like patch management. Perhaps there could be more support for air gap environments. These are not environments where we can temporarily connect to the internet. They have never seen the internet.

Depending on our customer's environment, sometimes they have GovCloud, but we still use Red Hat Enterprise Linux images there. Sometimes the customer can't use that so we use the offering from CentOS. But we still try to match it with CentOS.

The reason why some clients don't use Red Hat Enterprise Linux on the cloud is not because of security concerns. I think it's more about cost and their current contract situation. They need a low-cost, open source alternative, and our recommendation would be CentOS. However, many clients are not ready to pay for the enterprise edition of Red Hat Enterprise Linux, so they may choose to scale back their plans.

I have not used the Red Hat Enterprise Linux knowledge base strictly. I have only used the Red Hat Enterprise Linux support.

Clients who use Red Hat Enterprise Linux on the cloud, typically use AWS GovCloud. As a government integrator, we strive to design our solutions in a way that does not lock our clients into any specific cloud provider. This is why we chose Linux, as it can be run on any cloud platform. This flexibility is important to our clients from a price contract perspective. For example, Amazon provides Kubernetes services, among other things. We try to figure out open source solutions or at least architecturally determine them and provide them to our clients. For example, we can tell them that they can move all of their GovCloud data to Azure or Google Cloud. Government agencies really like Amazon right now because it is FedRAMP. However, for other classes that are not government or commercial, we try to introduce them to the CentOS perspective so that they can get a taste of the upstream.

We do not use the image builder tool provided by Red Hat. Instead, we use the one provided by Amazon. We take a base image, coordinate it with Ansible, and provide it to any environments that have used the cloud. For on-premises solutions, we strictly use manual processes.

I don't have a perspective on the golden image, which is at least with our client. The parts that we use are always evolving, so we don't really maintain the golden image. We do have a relative backup of what we deployed to, but we don't necessarily have a strict golden image.

Migrating workloads between the cloud and the data center using Red Hat Enterprise Linux is not entirely applicable to us. We did migrate from on-premises to the cloud at one point, but migrating from Red Hat Enterprise Linux on-premises to Red Hat Enterprise Linux in the cloud was not a concern for us. We knew it would be stable and fine. The main concern was migrating our customer data from our enterprise to the cloud.

If someone is looking for an open source cloud-based operating system for Linux instead of Red Hat Enterprise Linux, I would like to eventually drive them over to Red Hat Enterprise Linux, but I would recommend starting with CentOS. CentOS is a good gateway OS because it is very similar to Red Hat Enterprise Linux, and the knowledge transfer between the two is very straightforward. This makes it a good choice for users who are new to Linux, or who are looking for an OS that is compatible with Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

According to the price and if your use case is more worth saving, you can go with that. I can help determine what use case you want to pursue. If it is a small scale operation, you do not need to choose that option. If it is a huge business, you can definitely invest in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

The system is user-friendly and they have a cloud console for managing all the subscriptions you have purchased. From that perspective, it is very user-friendly to manage your subscription, and you can list out all the systems where you have installed this Linux, managing them from a single console.

We are saving more costs because we are getting immediate support. If any issue arises, we do not have to wait for someone to respond. We can get immediate quick responses from the support team. We are saving lots of time and from the customer side, we have heard that they are achieving significant cost savings from this.

The main disadvantage is that you may find the price is too high.

I have two years of experience with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), and I am currently doing projects with it.

I would rate the customer service nine out of ten.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is basically from Fedora. I worked with Fedora and CentOS. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), Fedora, and CentOS are all from the same Linux family. I have also used Ubuntu.

We are a service-based company delivering services. We provide subscriptions to customers, implement them, and then complete our work.

You definitely need to consider the cost and determine if it is worth the investment. If your use case is larger and you need immediate solutions, then you should consider the cost. Technology-wise, it is very good and reliable.

I am working with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and am certified with the OpenShift platform, which is a Kubernetes platform. The company I currently work for operates both on-premise and in cloud environments.

Regarding patching, if any issues arise or security issues such as hacking or vulnerability issues occur, they will first address it through engineering and provide patch support to customers as the first priority. After that, they release it to the open source part. This patching process makes it more secure.

The immediate support and response time are good reasons to use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). My overall rating for this solution is 9 out of 10.

Our business is primarily focused on software development. We are doing development and deployment using containers. We are mainly using Docker, but we might also adopt Podman later.

Our business logic is mainly for our own software development. We mainly have Java applications, Java containers, Tomcat, and Java frameworks. These solutions cater primarily to our business-level operations.

We are using Red Hat Enterprise Linux on-premises.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux gives us a standardized way of handling various tasks. Everything is the same in our environment.

It gives a standard procedure to do everything. It also gives standard APIs and a stable environment.

It works very well for our business-critical applications because of its stability and support. We have some kind of support in terms of the life cycle of the operating system.

Its long lifecycles, updates, support, and documentation help with business continuity and compliance. With reference architectures, we can straightaway get working solutions.

We can rely on security features like SELinux and run several workloads for WordPress and so on. We can rely on Red Hat.

We have used Red Hat Insights for certain things, and it has been helpful.

Stability, support, and life cycle management are valuable. We get fixes quickly. We can rely on them for features and so on. We can rely on their support. In the case of an issue, we can get somebody on the phone.

Red Hat could offer a containerized version of the operating system, potentially moving towards a more containerized ecosystem. 

More flexible tools for dealing with complex things like SELinux would also be beneficial. Its built-in security features are good, but they are quite complex to manage at an atomic level.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for 25 years. We are mainly using Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9, but we also have Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 and 8.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is very stable. However, sometimes, there might be some load balancing issues leading to performance issues, so we have to figure out all those. Usually, Red Hat tools are helpful for that.

With automation, we have been able to handle scaling efficiently. We are using an internal cloud, which suits our needs without relying on OpenShift or VMware.

The support from Red Hat is very good. We have collaborated with Red Hat remotely and have been satisfied with the assistance provided for our customers' cases.

Positive

The pricing is suitable for midsize to large companies, though small enterprises might struggle. It is comparable to Windows licensing.

I would advise considering the lifecycle and support that Red Hat offers. They provide long-term support and have best practices for addressing vulnerabilities and attack vectors.

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

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux to run Oracle Databases for CC&B and JDM. All the RHEL stuff is on-prem. The CC&B team manages the customer care and billing stuff, but we take care of the operating systems, and the application users manage the applications. We have 200 to 300 users on RHEL. 

We are missing random devices for patching and everything, and we don't have the Linux data license for that. If we had that, life would be much easier. Right now, we patch using Yum updates and we manually do configuration changes from our end.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux improves our security. On our end, we only use the console to reboot the server and apply security. We patch it completely if we have any security updates. Every quarter, we run a report using quality and whatever it was pulling. That's what we are patching. 

Red Hat Enterprise Linux makes patching and scripting much easier, and it provides all the features I need for patching and VM updates. It's easy to apply Red Hat Enterprise Linux's built-in security features when it comes to simplifying risk reduction or maintaining compliance.

For phone support, we had to buy a license for all our servers, and it was a bit pricey for us. 

I have used RHEL for 21 years.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is highly stable. We've never had any problems or crashes. It's very smooth from our end.

It's easy to scale Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Right now, we're discussing what will happen a year from now, when we plan to increase our usage. 

I rate Red Hat customer service eight out of 10. Their knowledge base is fantastic. You can easily find whatever you need. Their support responds immediately, whereas we struggled with support from Oracle. 

We were using Oracle Linux, and I don't see much difference except the support. We were not getting good support from Oracle because it took too long whenever we opened a ticket. Oracle was also too expensive, and patching is much easier with Red Hat Enterprise Linux. We were not looking for more features. Oracle Linux has a lot more packages than we need.

Setting up Red Hat Enterprise Linux was straightforward. You need at least two system admins to do so. Migrations and upgrades are also easy. Our main products are CC&B and JDM, with an Oracle database on the back end. We were highly satisfied with Red Hat Enterprise Linux for migrating all of those. We also have other solutions like SQL Server, which is on the Windows operating system.

Performance-wise, this Linux is better because you can ignore some packages if you don't need them. 

Oracle Linux is free, but we were having many other issues with it.

I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux nine out of 10. Red Hat Enterprise Linux is very easy to install and manage. 

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.

I use the solution in my company mainly for the operation system of the core business applications.

My company has experienced benefits from the use of the product, especially considering the agility that the tool offers in terms of the time to market in different areas of business and because of its compatibility with most of the applications in the market.

The most valuable features of the solution are the stability and scalability.

I run Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) on a hybrid cloud deployment, and it has impacted our company's operations, but I would say that it has been quite simple to implement, especially considering the security, which has been a considerable piece of the infrastructure.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped centralize development in our company. The applications run with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), and it became the standard for the operating system for the applications.

My company uses Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for containerization projects with OpenShift. This use of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has had an important impact on containerization, as it is a simple process. Owing to the simplicity, we always involve the solution's experts and get faster solutions.

The built-in features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for risk reduction, business continuity, and maintaining compliance are very important because our company is always aware of all these security issues that constantly happen.

Though the product has many features, the tool's virtualization area has certain shortcomings that require improvement. The product should also offer more containers and probably some financial services.

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

It is a very stable solution.

It is a quite easily scalable solution.

The technical support for the solution is very good. I rate the technical support a nine out of ten.

Positive

Before Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), my company used to use Windows. My company started to use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) after we found that it offers more stability, sophistication, and security and serves as a standard for many products.

The product's initial deployment phase was easy and quick.

My company did follow some strategy to deploy the product, and we also had the support from the vendor.

The solution is deployed on the cloud and on-premises models.

My company sought the help of a system integrator during the implementation phase of the solution.

In terms of ROI, I see that the tool offers stability, performance, agility, and resilience.

If I describe my experience with the product's price, I would say that we have to live with it for now.

My company evaluated other Linux products, such as SUSE Linux Enterprise Server (SLES), against Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

I would recommend Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) to a colleague who is looking at open-source cloud-based operating systems for Linux since it is a tool with more market experience and offers more documentation and support from the vendor, which is not easy to acquire when it comes to open-source software.

Red Hat's portfolio has affected the total cost of ownership across our enterprise landscape by around 10 to 20 percent.

My company has the product in two data centers, but the production happens only in one. Mostly, my company uses the cloud services offered by Azure.

I rate the tool a nine or ten out of ten.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The solution is deployed on an on-premises model.

The team members can deploy the solution in my company.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I rate the tool a nine out of ten.

We are using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for running SQL servers, Oracle databases, Java applications, Apache, and data store types of things.

We use it for all sorts of functions. We have different levels. I am primarily an SE building and configuring the servers. The application-related work is for everyone else.

In terms of our environment, we might have some cloud. We have different engineering teams working on different parts of the technologies. My team and I do not touch that, so we have a basic cloud-based and non-cloud-based setup.

We are primarily able to standardize on the platform. By keeping everything standard, you know what might break or should not break. That is the true benefit. It seems to help keep a better level of standard across all groups, business standards, and application types.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux enables us to centralize development. That goes with platform uniformity. The development team has a common toolset and expectations from the toolset and what they are working with. It just makes things easier for each developer.

The portability of applications and containers built on Red Hat Enterprise Linux is very good for keeping our organization agile.

It is the most lightweight platform to use. It is very flexible. It is not very difficult to manage, configure, and deal with. That is a plus point.

Migrating people from Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 to 8 has been good so far. Irrespective of whether we are doing an in-place upgrade or a full rebuild, most people are able to convert over. There is no problem.

For our use case, it seems to be working well, so I cannot think of what it could do better. I know for our purpose and what we have been using it for, it has been working well. Their support, however, can be better.

I came on board when they bought our company. At the time, I was using CentOS. From what I know, they have been only using Red Hat Enterprise Linux. I started using it from Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7. It has been about 13 years.

It seems stable, but developers might have a different response. When you have a problem with a Windows server, you typically reboot it, but you do not have to reboot a Linux server to get it to work better.

It is a scalable platform.

It is pretty good. It varies based on the support person that you get. They might understand what you are talking about right away or not.

For one of the cases that I opened, I laid out every single detail possible. The first thing they said was that it was not that. It was something else. They kept going back and forth with different support teams on the same ticket. Finally, it clicked with somebody and they figured out what caused the issue. Somehow an RPM of a different version was installed on one server versus another one, and no one caught that. Some people were going down the wrong path saying it was networking and not some sort of binary that was installed which changed something. They went back and forth with different troubleshooting paths. Eventually, someone saw and understood what I meant.

Positive

We have always been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux at our workplace.

Deployment for our builds is typically PXE. I do not have insights into that because the build is built and configured by another team. I deploy and provide the server for the development team. I understand how Kickstart and other things work, but I do not install and configure it. It seems relatively easy. From what I have done in the past, it does not seem that difficult.

I am not aware of taking any external help for deployment.

The biggest ROI is in terms of consistency. We know how it works which makes going forward a lot easier.

We are coming from CentOS, so technically, our total cost of ownership has gone up, but it is still cheaper than Windows for a database server and things like that.

I was not a part of the evaluation. I came on board and began working with what was there.

In terms of security features, we do not use anything too advanced other than what is out of the box. We do not manage the compliance piece and things like that. There is a different group that manages that piece.

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