Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Reviews

We use the product as our server's operating system.

The enterprise support of the product is valuable to us. When stuff gets difficult, it's nice to have somebody to ask about it.

The solution should be updated more with the releases of programming languages. They’re lagging a bit too much. We have a lot of developers complaining about having releases that are too old. For example, if they want Python 3.11, Red Hat Enterprise Linux supports only 3.9. So the product is lagging behind a bit more than our developers would like. 

It would be nice if all the features that are available on the cloud, like Image Builder and Insight, would be available on-prem.

I have been using the solution for five years.

The product is very, very stable and tested. It is like everybody tested everything for five years, and every problem was fixed.

We have never had a problem with the solution’s scalability. We have around 6000 Red Hat Enterprise Linux servers in versions 7, 8, and 9.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is a lot better compared to all other products. I rate the support an eight or a nine out of ten. There's too much information on the support page sometimes. If we log in to the support pages and try to find information, it's hard to get what we're searching for.

We had a lot of different Linux distributions. The pros of Red Hat Enterprise Linux are that it's the same platform for everybody, and it works for everybody. If you need something very special, you might get issues in Red Hat Enterprise Linux, but you can work around it. 

The biggest issue with Red Hat Enterprise Linux is mostly the old packages. It is a con if you have something that you know is a bug that hasn't really been released in Red Hat Enterprise Linux but has been released in the other products.

We do a template, and then we just use it. It's quite great.

We take 30 minutes to deploy the solution. It depends on the size of the machine.

I am using versions 7, 8, and 9. By implementing the solution, we wanted a unified server with a baseline platform that everybody uses. We wanted to have just one server that is enterprise ready.

We do not really have compliances in the same way as an American company has. It's nice to have IT security personnel. You get SELinux from the start. However, we get a lot of support cases because of it. The developers face problems with it. So, we get the security, but we also get lots of support cases. Usually, I end up in the middle of that because I work with support.

We run containers on OpenShift. We run only one platform, so portability isn't a concern. We only have Red Hat Enterprise Linux and OpenShift. We don't really need portability since we are government agencies. Nothing else other than on-prem is allowed for us.

The knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux is extensive. It is a bit hard to find information. However, when you find it, it's good. The packages are a bit old. We have a bit of an issue because of that. But other than that, it's a great operating system.

Overall, I rate the product an eight out of ten.

We use the product to host operating systems, applications, or infrastructure for our customers. Our customers use the product as a long-term solution that they don't have to upgrade every other year. They can get people that know the solution from the get-go.

The biggest feature is the longevity of the distribution. Compared to any other product, Red Hat Enterprise Linux provides a stable backported solution for a long time. It is important because we have moved a lot of software containers. We want to update it but don't want to unless we have to. So it's great to have something stable for a long time.

The biggest thing that the solution could introduce is an even slimmer version of Red Hat Enterprise Linux. We are moving to containers, but we also have a lot of void loads that don't go into containers. It would be nice to have an even thinner operating system. Even if you choose minimally, you still get a lot of useless stuff you don't need.

I have been using the solution for 20 years.

I rate the product’s stability a nine out of ten.

I rate the solution’s scalability a seven out of ten.

It's really difficult to get to someone that knows something. When you get to the right people, support is really good. But there are a lot of people that can only answer first-level questions.

Neutral

We're using a lot of different OSs. We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux because we are a partner.

It's pretty simple to install the product. However, some tools required to install it are missing.

The pricing is great for virtual systems. The pricing for physical systems is way too high.

The overall costs depend on the project and the company.

We continuously evaluate other options. The main difference between Red Hat Enterprise Linux and other solutions is the complete ecosystem's longevity and possibility. Other products may present something similar, but they don't have the ecosystem around them.

We probably purchased the solution from a cloud provider. We are using versions 5 to 9 currently.

The solution’s built-in security features are pretty good, but it's not something that I would take as a major selling point. The portability is good because we have a stable baseline for applications and containers. Red Hat Enterprise Linux’s security posture is pretty good. I don’t know if it's the strongest selling point, but it's up there.

In some ways, Red Hat Enterprise Linux enables us to centralize development. However, that's not mostly what we focus on. The primary output from Red Hat Insights is targeted guidance. Targeted guidance has not affected our uptime much.

It makes sense to go with a stable distribution compared to others. Overall, I rate the product an eight out of ten.

We've implemented OpenShift on top of OpenStack. It's a Red Hat OpenStack environment, which is the virtualization layer, and then OpenShift is for the cloud technologies.

It's currently on-prem on a private cloud. In the future, we might utilize a public cloud if the government approves that. Currently, the banking industry isn't allowed to go to the public cloud.

There is a big move towards digital banking. They prefer to have their solution up and running as soon as possible when the request comes in. They have to have the libraries and all the containers up and running. In a couple of minutes or seconds, they have their whole infrastructure up and running.

With regard to security, most companies are moving towards the black box approach and Red Hat. It's much more secure compared to the other vendors.

There's consistency, and it's resilient as well.

With regards to OpenShift, everything is related to cost. If you need a vanilla OS, you have to spend a lot on the licensing that is tagged. You have to spend on the infrastructure and the licensing on a core basis, and whatever is required on your containers, you just have to give minimum hardware specs.

Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization isn't up to the mark as compared to VMware and Hyper-V, but they're moving everything on OpenShift for containers and virtual machines, which is stable. If you go into the virtualization layer, they still need to improve a lot of things, but with regards to OpenShift, containers, Docker, and other things, they are doing well. 

We've been using it for three to four years.

Compared to Windows and other operating systems that I've used, it's stable. 

I'd rate it a nine out of ten in terms of scalability. We have plans to increase its usage in the future. Our infrastructure will be able to scale. We have a plan to grow it every three years.

Their support is very good. Most of the things are already listed in their knowledge base. Support cases are only raised when you end up with any critical situation. I'd rate their support a nine out of ten.

Positive

We've used Windows, Solaris, and AIX. The reason for switching to it was that everything is moving to the black box. People want everything to be secured. We got a lot of updates on Red Hat, and it was doing very well in the market.

It was very straightforward. When we did the proof of concept, we had everything ready within two or three days, and then the engineers who came to deploy it did it in a day's time once we had all the infrastructure up and running. This was just for the proof of concept.

With regard to the implementation, they had a timeline, and they did deliver before the timeline.

It has been deployed on Nutanix as well. They are present even in the marketplace for AWS. It's a straightforward installation. They have two categories: UPI and IPI, and the installations are very straightforward, but it requires a lot of expertise if you want to deploy it on a public cloud.

It was implemented by Red Hat. In terms of maintenance, it does require maintenance, but once it is highly available, it's easily done.

We've seen an ROI. It has had cost benefits. 

It has saved us money. We did a proof of concept with the VMware Cloud Foundation and OpenShift. We saw the feasibility and how fast it can be deployed. There were a lot of considerations. We evaluated it from all perspectives. Compared to the VMware Cloud Foundation, we noted that it was just 50% of the cost. If you go for VMware, they charge you on a core basis, and the licensing costs are huge. You'll have to spend on Microsoft licensing, and then you'll have to spend on the OS as well. Comparatively, it's much cheaper.

We purchased it directly from Red Hat. Compared to open source, it's very pricey, but you get the support, which makes it much better.

You have to deploy it and evaluate it. You can see that there's a lot of difference compared to other operating systems. It also depends on where exactly you're going. There are mainframes and other different places where you can deploy it. Even on the mainframe, it makes a lot of difference.

With Red Hat, there are a couple of things you need to consider while building your infrastructure. You need to have good hardware, and you need to have a compatibility matrix to be able to have a stable environment. It has to be tested in a proper way, rather than deploying it on any box.

In terms of the golden images created by the image builder tool, we have vendors who come with their solutions. They come with the containers, and they deploy them. Most of them are using GitHub, and we just provide the infrastructure. From a technical perspective, there's a solutions department that's into APIs. They handle everything, and we just provide the infrastructure.

Overall, I'd rate it an eight out of ten. 

In our organization, we use the solution as our internet banking platform.

Some of the solution's features include scalability, lower footprints, and the fact that licenses don't really cost us much. Also, the upgradeability is fantastic. With Windows, you can't upgrade to certain versions. I haven't found that issue with Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

Working at a bank, I can say that lack of scalability is a big no-no for us since we deal with people's money.

It would have been nice if we had the ability to do updates without rebooting. If we can update certain parts internally without having to remove them from the entire server, that would be fantastic since, else, there will be downtime, and we will need to reboot. We have to schedule downtime. If we can do so, we will patch it and continue running. Even though the downtime is minuscule, having as little as possible downtime could be great.

Speaking about the downtime caused due to the lack of the aforementioned feature, we reboot about 40 servers every time there's a patch, and they're not staged all at once. The whole process will take an hour or so.

I have been using the solution since I started using Red Hat Enterprise Linux version 7.

Regarding stability, it's good since we haven't had a major outage.

I rate the support an eight out of ten, considering the callback feature and rapid response compared with Windows, where you need to wait for a couple of hours to get support.

With Red Hat, the community is so robust. Most of the time, while waiting for a Red Hat engineer to call us back, the solution to the issue is already provided. This is because it's an open source platform. 

Positive

Previously, we used AIX. Now, we still use CentOS and Rocky for development.

Though the solution is deployed on a hybrid cloud, I would say that ninety-eight percent is on-premises, and two percent is on the cloud.

Also, I am running my workloads and applications on the cloud.

We transferred our license to the cloud because we were originally a VMware on-prem shop. We're transitioning some of our workloads to cloud licensing. Also, I have opted for a subscription. I don't know where we got it from because when I came to the company, it was already in place.

Comparing Red Hat Enterprise Linux to other operating systems, it is a nice solution, especially considering the support we get from Red Hat. Not a con, but on Windows, the GUI or navigation can be a little bit tricky.

By implementing the solution, my organization is trying to solve the agility issue. Using Red Hat Enterprise Linux, we are not tied to Windows patches. Windows patches break sometimes, and then the application goes down, which is a big issue. With Red Hat Enterprise Linux, we have that reliability and robustness.

I am very impressed with the solution's resiliency.

Regarding how easy or difficult it is for us to move workloads between the cloud and our data center using Red Hat Enterprise Linux, I have found it to be very easy.

Regarding portability, it is easy. I was speaking to someone over there who benefits from containers. I mentioned it to my manager, and we are going to have a discussion about it.

In terms of my assessment of the solution's built-in security features when it comes to simplifying your risk reduction and maintaining compliance, I feel it is good. We haven't ever had an issue ever with the solution.

As nothing is perfect, I rate the overall solution a nine out of ten.

We use it to host applications, services, and backend databases. We aren't using it on the cloud. Most of my customers are DoD or some type of government agency. If it's not classified, it's siloed in some way. We don't get to use a lot of the functionality that makes Red Hat cool. It's all disconnected.

In terms of version, currently, mostly everything is on versions 7 and 8. I've started pulling up some of the things from version 9, but that won't go into production for a while.

We use it because it's stable. That's half the reason, and the other half is because the DoD standardizes on it because it has a support contract, so even though we're forced to use it, it's a very good product, and it's on-prem. We probably would use it anyway.

We needed to host applications, services, and backend databases. We have a lot of Java-based applications, and we wanted something that we could deploy in different places around the world and that everybody standardized. Windows didn't really work for us on that. Most of the time, we're not connected to the Internet. We find that Red Hat or Linux in general works a little bit better for us than macOS or Windows.

It's also across the board a little bit cheaper for what we're using it for. That's a benefit we're getting from it.

We get our compliance from DISA, which is the defense information service agency. They put out security technical implementation guides. There are specific ones for Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 and 8. The reason we're not using Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9 is that there isn't one for it yet. In terms of how we harden the operating system we're using, it's whatever they tell us to do and then whatever extra we want to do. It's as good as any other Linux other than the fact that it's supported by the DoD. For example, SELinux helps us secure across the board with contacts across different directories and things like that. They tell us how standardized the SD-WAN layout should be. We're able to go a little bit deeper into that. Red Hat uses Podman, which has SELinux, and which by default helps us a lot. 

We run Satellite on a lot of these, so having a central repository that we can use for patch management and remote execution is huge. That's something that is very difficult in a Windows environment. We're very compliance driven, so to have that built into Red Hat is easy. We don't need an agent or anything like that to get a lot of work done, so Satellite and centralized automation are the most valuable features for us. We're dabbling into Ansible but not as much as we should be.

It's obviously a security-focused operating system versus some of the other operating systems that lay you down in the terminal as root. In Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9, you can't even root. It's disabled by default now. Overall, they are definitely more security conscious, and that's also because of their primary customer space.

I've been using it for ten years or so. I've been using the solution since version 6. 

The stability of what we have deployed is good. The only time it crashes is if we do something or we try to configure a control that one of the engineers doesn't fully understand, which then breaks it. A lot of it's just like us breaking it ourselves or a customer asking for something that wasn't initially planned. Just pure deployment is good.

Its scalability is good. It's what they excel at. If we have 10 machines or 100 machines, they have the platforms to scale that up.

Overall, the customer support is good. It's better than Microsoft support. They are above and beyond that. They are better than others in terms of response time, getting somebody who knows what they're talking about, and not spinning their wheel. Usually, within the first response or two, people figure out what we're trying to troubleshoot here. We're not going from one queue to another queue or anything like that.

I'd rate them a ten out of ten. I've never had an issue with it. 

Positive

We had CentOS systems. When they changed upstream, we had to pivot some systems. We pivot some systems to Oracle Enterprise Linux, but then those eventually got transitioned to Red Hat as well.

The main reason for the switch to Red Hat was for the government customer and having a support contract. You can do Oracle Enterprise Linux without a support contract, but if you're going to buy one, you might as well get Red Hat at that point for the added benefits.

We use Kali for a couple of other use cases, and we probably won't replace it with Red Hat.

We've used a lot of flavors of Linux. One thing that sticks out for me, even in just the home lab environment or deploying at work, is that if there's some backward thing that we weren't planning on going into, if I look for a solution, nine out of ten times, I'm going to find an article on Red Hat's website where somebody has either a verified solution or somebody is talking about it and there are comments that are relevant. I hate going on ServerStack, Ubuntu Stack, or something like that, where somebody has the exact problem that you have, but there are no comments and no answers. I find that to be less true with the Red Hat platform.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward but can be tedious at times because of the compliance things that we have to implement. 

I just sat in on the training or the demo for the deployment platform, and we're already planning on setting up the Ansible automation platform where we also want to look into setting up this deployment tool because we do a lot of ISOs. We do a lot of kickstarts. We don't do any of the cloud tenants. We probably will switch to using the on-premise disconnected deployment capability because we can preconfigure everything and then run Ansible after the fact to get it all compliant.

We're the integrators or implementors of the solution.

We're forced to buy the licensing, but it's also good. I and a couple of other staff members are all Red Hat certified engineers, and then we all have our own specialties, so we don't call them a lot, but when we submit tickets, it's definitely worth it.

The ROI is mainly in terms of needing to recover from any system downtime. If we don't have an engineer on a computer doing a certain piece of research, then we're wasting money or just not generating a product, so to have the support that we can call and then reach out to us in enough turnaround time holds value for us.

The pricing is fair. The workstation licensing cost is fair. If you're running enterprise-level deployments, depending on what you're using, the volume licensing is good. I personally am worried that if they get so successful, they can increase the price, and then it won't matter because we'll be stuck on them. Hopefully, their open source mentality keeps that from happening. Where it's right now is good.

In terms of the portability of applications and containers built on Red Hat Enterprise Linux, I don't know how much that applies to us. In our case, someone develops an application in a Podman container, and we ingest that and run it, but we're not doing much more than that. So, all of the Java-based applications that we run, are run within a couple of different containers, and that's about it.

I personally use Red Hat Insights in my home lab. We can't dial out for that for a lot of customer-based work, but I personally use it. It hasn't helped avoid any emergencies because it's super low risk for what I'm using it for, but I can see the benefit of it. In a more enterprise setup, such as health care where I used to work, things probably would have been interconnected, and we would have been using Insights, but we're not using it currently.

Overall, I'd rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux a 10 out of 10. 

We run various application servers. We have application servers for Java and Python. We also run Postgres and different applications. We have Kubernetes, Docker, Docker Swarm, etc. We have a wide variety. 

We weren't trying to solve a particular problem by implementing Red Hat Enterprise Linux. We've used Red Hat Enterprise Linux for so long. We used to modify the Kernel in the early versions of Red Hat, but that's not needed anymore. We are currently using versions 7, 8, and 9. 

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has enabled us to centralize development in our hybrid cloud environment because the containers can be migrated from Red Hat Enterprise Linux to AWS. It's not an issue. There is also a Red Hat-supported programming tool called Skupper, which is a layer seven service. It's an open source product. It's supported by Red Hat, so we could use that to migrate our containers back and forth on the cloud and on-prem, which is very much needed.

Red Hat is pretty good at containing risks. We have a firewall, but we also use iptables and SELinux. SELinux has proved to be very valuable. We have certain tools where when somebody tries to break SELinux, we immediately get alerts.

We don't have a problem with compliance. We also use Red Hat Satellite. Our Red Hat Satellite server is helpful in terms of meeting compliance requirements.

We're able to modify and migrate containers and redeploy containers very easily. We do that on the Red Hat platform. We do it with other tools such as VMware. Red Hat API works very well with other vendors, so that's definitely a plus. In terms of changes, for instance, if we want to connect to ServiceNow to create a ticket in Ansible, we're able to do that without any problems whatsoever. We can create a ticket in ServiceNow. We can remediate it, and we can close the ticket on ServiceNow from Ansible. Ansible is a big part of Red Hat.

It's a rock-solid operating system. We don't need anything fancy from the operating system itself. What we need is something that doesn't crash, stays up to date, and provides the security features that we need to keep external players out.

The CVEs that come out for the vulnerabilities are very fast. We try to do patching in different tiers. Our regular patching happens once every ninety days, and then we have special iterations that need to be done, and those are on demand, or if there's a high-security risk and it's absolutely immediate.

The other thing that we like about Red Hat is the support for open source. That for us is a slam dunk.

They should work more on container documentation. The only issue that we have is that Red Hat specifically promotes OpenStack, and we don't use OpenStack. It's good if you're using OpenStack, but if you're not using OpenStack, and you're using Docker or something else, it isn't that good. Having more support for non-OpenStack would be very helpful, but, of course, as part of their business, we don't expect it.

I've been working with Red Hat Enterprise Linux for many years.

It's very stable.

It scales very well. We have about a thousand servers, but we could scale to five thousand servers without a problem.

Their support is good overall. It's better than some of the other vendors. The staff is very friendly. The people I've met hear and discuss issues. We're very much interested in open source, so we use a lot of open source. The engineers have been extremely helpful. 

I'd rate them an eight out of ten. I'm not giving them a ten. Some of it has to do with the time cycle, and some of it has to do with different levels of quality with the support. You could get a junior support person, and obviously, that's going to be a very different experience.

The knowledge base offered by Red Hat is very good.

Positive

Our environment is hybrid. Most of our Red Hat Enterprise Linux is on-prem. For the cloud, AWS is the cloud provider, but we are using a different distro for AWS. We use AWS Linux for that. For on-prem servers, we're strictly using Red Hat Enterprise Linux. For desktops, we use Fedora.

The reason for using AWS Linux is that we only have AWS. If we use multi-cloud, for instance, if we use Azure and AWS clouds together, we would definitely need something other than AWS Linux. AWS Linux is very solid too, and our team likes it. We can download the AWS Linux version for on-premises too. I've done that. I tested it, but we're sticking with Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

In the server space, nothing comes close to Red Hat Enterprise Linux. I know that Ubuntu is making a big push, and some people have gone ahead and migrated to Ubuntu, but I think those are going to migrate back. There's just no comparability. They're different. They're like cousins. They're very similar in some ways, but they're very different things. You can install SELinux on Ubuntu, but why bother and why go through the whole configuration? Red Hat Enterprise Linux is more suitable for servers.

We use certain tools from HashiCorp, such as Packer, so deploying it is very simple. We have a script that runs every night, and it creates via the CI, goes up to GitLab, gets whatever it needs, such as parameters, and sends it to Packer. Packer grabs the ISO, and it creates a very specific, customized deployment. It's done with a couple of right clicks. That's it.

We've absolutely seen an ROI. It's in terms of reliability, stability, security, and usability. You name it. The use cases are out there.

The licensing structure is very convoluted. It's very confusing. We have a Satellite server, and we license it through the Satellite server, but if we didn't, we'd have to buy individual Red Hat licenses. That would be a nightmare to maintain in terms of renewing it every year and things like that. 

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

I work in the energy sector, so we use Red Hat Enterprise Linux for a variety of purposes. These include high-performance computing, running applications like SAP, geospatial applications, and Oracle. We rely on Red Hat Enterprise Linux for a wide range of applications, including those that require running Oracle databases.

It is important to our organization to have a solution that avoids cloud vendor lock-in. We just don't want to be locked into just one side or the other. We want to have the flexibility and availability to explore other options.

One of the main reasons we chose Red Hat Enterprise Linux was its reliability and stability. Compared to the Microsoft Windows environment, the Linux environment provided much greater stability. Therefore, we decided to use Red Hat Enterprise Linux for all our critical applications at that time, as they required a Linux-only environment.

We use Red Hat Image Builder as well. The golden images created by Image Builder are okay. In our organization, we prefer to create our own images because we need to incorporate our own security measures and harden the images accordingly.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux could do better in live patching. In this day and age, vulnerabilities are constantly emerging, I feel that Red Hat Enterprise Linux has fallen backward in terms of live patching, particularly live kernel patching. There are other products available that can perform this function, and they often follow their direction. 

Currently, my company has a live patch solution where we can patch the kernel without rebooting. This is essential because certain applications cannot tolerate downtime for reboots. However, there is a security concern when the patching process is delayed, as it exposes the system to high vulnerabilities and risks. So, when critical applications go down due to rebooting, it has a significant impact on both the financial and operational aspects. It requires a lot of money and manpower to schedule and execute the reboots, and during that time, the application downtime results in losing money. I believe this is an area that Red Hat Enterprise Linux should focus on to address this challenge.

I have been using the Red Hat Enterprise Linux operating system for around 20 years. We transferred our existing subscriptions to the cloud version. We are actually exploring hybrid solutions and availability options. As we transition to Azure, we are bringing our own subscription.

The scalability is good. We are able to scale efficiently. In our high-performance computing department, they handle a lot of scaling, and it's going well. Red Hat Enterprise Linux scales well.

I'm not particularly fond of the support. For example, when we have a server that's down, we raise a ticket indicating the severity of the issue. Then we receive another email suggesting things we can try to resolve the problem. I miss the days when we could directly speak to someone because sometimes, depending on the maintenance contracts and SLAs, it can take a lot of time without actually making any progress. Whereas speaking with a support representative could significantly reduce the downtime. So, I'm not really crazy about it.

The knowledge base is good. I would rate it a nine out of ten. 

Neutral

One of Red Hat Enterprise Linux's pros is that it has been around the longest. When working in a large corporate environment, reliability is crucial. In case something breaks, you want to have the assurance that there is a reliable support system to address the issues. Red Hat Enterprise Linux provides that level of support. 

However, it's important to note that even with a solid distribution like in Red Hat Enterprise Linux, the effectiveness may vary depending on the specific customer or scenario. It's about assessing how well the distribution handles issues when the next customer raises a complaint. So, we need to carefully consider the pros and cons based on our requirements. For certain workloads and development tasks, we might consider freestyle options that don't require paid subscriptions. In my company, we have a development program that greatly supports our decision to go with Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

Personally, I find the deployment process straightforward, but I've been doing it for quite some time. I can't speak for someone who is new to it. However, from my experience, it's relatively straightforward. I've been in this role for a while, so I'm familiar with the process.

Currently, we use Azure AVS, which allows us to migrate existing physical machines to the cloud until we can fully modernize them. It's much easier than it was a couple of years ago, but there is still some work to be done. Overall, it's manageable for us to move workloads between the cloud and on-premises or data center environment using Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

We have streamlined our deployment process within our guidelines. I can build a server in just three minutes. The time required depends on the type of server we need. If it's a more specialized server, it may take longer. However, it's nothing like the old days when it used to take several days. Especially in the cloud environment, it's quite fast. On-premises is a different story because we need to consider hardware availability, which can take longer. But once we have the hardware, the deployment itself typically takes less than an hour, especially when we leverage tools like Satellite for automation.

We have indeed realized a return on our investment. If we hadn't, we wouldn't still be using Red Hat Enterprise Linux. However, we are always striving to improve our return on investment. That's why we continually conduct due diligence and explore other operating systems to ensure that we're not blindly sticking with a particular company. We want to find the best solution that can potentially save us more money while delivering an equal or better return on investment.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is starting to realize some other companies are gaining some footing in the industry. Red Hat's pricing still needs to get a little bit better. When you look at what you pay for a subscription compared to what you can pay with some of these other companies that do offer a lot of technical backing behind them, it starts turning heads.

Red Hat should focus on making enhancements and providing better support in that arena.

Before choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux, we did evaluate other Linux-based solutions. When we initially chose Red Hat Enterprise Linux, we had options like Solaris and SGI. However, even recently, we have continued to evaluate other distributions because the Linux landscape is constantly evolving. There are new solutions emerging, so we have to perform our due diligence and assess what they can offer.

For customers looking for alternatives to Red Hat Enterprise Linux, my advice would be to choose something that aligns with your requirements and that you are happy with. Don't just pick something because it's cheap. You gotta look at the long term. Also, know what is needed for your project. For example, if you have issues, can you get those issues resolved in a timely manner? If you run into an issue, you're stuck, and they can't help you out, this means your project will be delayed. You will need to weigh that out.

Primarily, we use it for a couple of different servers. Some are doing data hosting, and some are doing network management-type functions.

We use it on-premises. We do not use it on the cloud. Because of government work, we're not cloud-based.

By implementing Red Hat Enterprise Linux, we were mainly looking for stability. By having a lot of open source solutions, we ran into problems where there were too many flavors and too many variables. We ran into issues with ISO and other things where this particular site was a one-off from this site, which was a one-off from this site, which was one-off from this site. That became a problem for making sure that we stick to a consistent level and patch to a consistent level across the board.

The portability of applications and containers built on Red Hat Enterprise Linux has been good. We do a lot of containerization and a lot of microservices. It has worked really well. It helped in keeping our organization agile. Our partners provided us with a lot of quick utilities and reuse of things. We can shut down a container and spin up a new container to introduce new capability quicker. 

The biggest feature that I have found valuable is stability. 

The way it lent itself to automation has been very invaluable for us. It makes the setups a lot more consistent and repeatable across the board. We're able to deploy the product quickly in a very consistent manner, which meets our timelines. A lot of what we do has very short spending dates, and they need a lot of product work.

It has been pretty good for us. I have no complaints as such. We just learned that we can get access to more support documents by going through the portal. I didn't know that. If it was something that was more known or advertised, that would have helped us to find out some of the information a little better.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for about a couple of years.

It's a 10 out of 10 in terms of stability.

It's a 10 out of 10 in terms of scalability.

The customer service is good. There is a lot of support documentation out there for anything you're looking for.

Positive

We tried quite a few flavors of different things, but nothing provided the consistency that we are getting with Red Hat Enterprise Linux. We tried everything such as Ubuntu, Mint, etc.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux stood out for its consistency and stability. We had several different problems with drivers on Mint. There were so many different flavors. We had one developer who built everything on one, and then another developer built on another, and none of that was coming together. It was not meshing, so we finally went to a common platform with stability and supportability. It was a lot better. It has allowed the developers to focus more on their code rather than having to worry about fighting the underlying things, such as drivers aren't on this one, and that one is not working.

It was very straightforward. We've pushed in further to make our own ISOs, so we're making sure that everything is getting the same applications and everything is deployed across the board, and we are able to virtualize in some cases. It has been good.

You definitely get what you're paying for. From what we've seen, it has been great. It has also allowed virtualization and making their own ISOs. We're able to package all that up, and it has worked consistently and repeatability. We've written our own Bash scripts so that we can automatically deploy that and stick it as part of the build. We're saving a lot of time and getting to a common platform repeatedly.

Overall, I'd rate it a nine out of 10. There's always room for a little bit of improvement.

We use Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform. We are using version 8.4, but we started with 8.3.

The solution’s stability is its most valuable feature. It has only been two years since I first started using the product. So far, I have seen a subtle comparison of the solution’s stability to other operating systems.

It is challenging to use the knowledge base and the deployment documentation. Some of it is all over the place, and it's challenging to piece them together.

It has been two years since we put in the first footprint of Red Hat Enterprise Linux in our organization.

We have about 30 to 40 servers.

The support team is pretty good. Whenever I send support requests and ask questions, the team is knowledgeable enough to get me the necessary answers. Sometimes there are delays in the response. However, it has been a positive experience for me.

Positive

I was the main engineer during the initial deployment of the product. The initial setup was straightforward. Whatever was in the documentation was exactly what was meant to be done.

We did not struggle with the documentation because I have been an engineer for years. Someone who is just getting started might have a different perspective on the ease of setup.

We purchased the solution from a third-party vendor.

I use Ansible Builder to build my containers. However, I do not use Red Hat Enterprise Linux’s image builder tool.

We do not use Red Hat Insights yet, but we're planning to use it in the near future. As soon as we get more servers in our environment, our firm’s directors might decide to start using Red Hat Insights. Right now, we are just using Automation Analytics. The solution’s resiliency is pretty solid.

We implemented the solution because we wanted automation. We cannot install Ansible Automation Platform in operating systems other than Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

Overall, I rate the product an eight out of ten.

I use the solution to develop OS for our internal use. I deliver it to our internal clients, so they can use it for whatever applications they may need to use it for.

The product is very stable. The knowledge base is excellent.

The solution should improve its documentation.

I have been using the solution for 16 years.

The solution scales well.

The support is good. I would rate support an eight or nine out of ten. The documentation should be improved to make it a ten.

Positive

The deployment is very easy for me because my organization has been doing it for a long time.

The product’s resiliency is pretty good. It responds fast to security updates compared to some other closed-source vendors. 

We moved from other priority operating systems to Red Hat Enterprise Linux because it saves us costs on the commodity hardware. Overall, I rate the solution an eight or nine out of ten.