Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Reviews

There are multiple use cases, and I am mostly focused on information security. Before we promote an ACS policy to production, we should be able to test that build and see how that policy behaves for that build. We use Podman to build some test images and get them to our development box. Then we use commands that we scan against those images. That has been one of the major use cases. 

In the future, we'll move our automation program from an on-premises Windows server to a Linux server. Over a period of time, we want to move those applications to the cloud and OpenShift. Currently, we have many legacy applications that are still being run on Windows Server, and we use the title job scheduler for that. Once we mature and gain more confidence, we want to containerize those applications and move them to OpenShift and Linux.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux's most valuable features are the Podman and a lot of packages that come inbuilt as part of the regular package. Podman gives you the opportunity to build those images. Since it's a public registry, you cannot pull those images from a docker, and proxy blocks that. If we know how to recreate that scenario, we use Podman to recreate that image.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux should provide more training because many people are not very familiar with Linux's user interface. If it is made very similar to Windows and people can relate to it, they would be more comfortable.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for seven to eight years.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is a stable solution.

I have experience interacting with Red Hat support for ACS. The initial level of support is very minimal. They try to collect all the data, then go to developers or technical people, which usually takes time. So we don't get an immediate response. Hence, there is scope for improvement in Red Hat Enterprise Linux's customer support.

Raising a ticket and having somebody look into it takes time. I rate raising a ticket and addressing it a six to seven out of ten. However, we interact with a responsive relationship manager, who escalates and gets issues fixed. I rate this relationship manager an eight out of ten.

Since we have the capability to test vulnerable images, we know much in advance what their impact will be. We can test ACS policies against those vulnerable images. That gives us early visibility instead of deploying that application and finding what is happening there. Using Red Hat Enterprise Linux and all associated components gives us that visibility into vulnerable images, and we can set policies based on whatever we see. So in terms of business impact, we avoid many vulnerabilities that get into the production.

We run some applications on the cloud, but they are not business-critical applications. We run all business-critical applications on-premises. We are not dependent on the cloud for business-critical applications. We are not locked with the vendor.

We use Qualys to scan the underlying node. We expect any critical vulnerabilities to be patched as early as possible. We have an enterprise policy wherein any business-critical vulnerabilities seen on business-critical applications or nodes need to be fixed within 30 days. If some running application is exposed to the internet, we want that to be prioritized. If vendors can prioritize a 30-day life cycle for critical vulnerabilities, that would really help many other organizations.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is the only option we are currently looking at. We don't want to go with Windows. We already have this ecosystem where we use OpenShift, and it's already integrated with ACS. So we would not like to go with any other different OS. Red Hat Enterprise Linux will integrate easily with the entire ecosystem.

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

I work in the financial industry in Brazil and my first job was to use Linux.

We deploy Red Hat Enterprise Linux on-prem and in the cloud. Our cloud provider is AWS. 

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux for web applications, including the JBoss data bridge. We also have some applications for prevention and risk. Red Hat Enterprise Linux is used for most of our applications in Brazil, so it is used for almost everything.

We run our workloads and applications on AWS.

There are many Linux-based operating systems. We wanted an operating system that was mature and reliable, and Red Hat Enterprise Linux was the best choice for us.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is a highly resilient operating system. It has a strong XFS file system, kernel, and package build.

Migrating workloads between the cloud and our data center is easy. There are no problems.

The knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux helps a lot. It is very useful and has helped me to resolve the issue by looking at the documentation.

The integrity of our operational systems is very stable. Red Hat Enterprise Linux has a good file system type and good kernels. It does not crash for any reason. This makes it a very stable platform for me. It is the best solution for our needs.

There was a reduction in the amount of detail provided in backlog messages between Red Hat Enterprise Linux versions six and seven, compared to versions eight and nine. This makes it more difficult to troubleshoot errors in versions eight and nine, as users must dig deeper into the operating system to find the source of the problem. Versions six and seven provided more detailed error messages, which made it easier to identify and fix problems. Deploying applications using Red Hat Enterprise Linux versions six and seven was seamless. However, there is a chance that something could be broken when deploying with versions eight and nine, and we may not know it.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux since versions four and five.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is extremely stable.

One of the reasons we adopted the Red Hat Enterprise Linux ecosystem is because of its ability to scale.

I have not had a good experience with Red Hat engineers. When we have an issue, it is very difficult to have it resolved in the first call. They always have to escalate the issue and involve multiple people. At a minimum, we have to escalate an issue three or four times before it is resolved. The support team in Brazil has helped me a lot because they work with me to resolve the problem, but if I have to open a ticket and follow the steps I never get proper service.

I give the technical support of Red Hat a zero out of ten.

Negative

The initial deployment is easy. I can deploy Red Hat Enterprise Linux myself using a base image within a few minutes both on-prem and in the cloud.

The implementation is completed in-house.

We purchased our license from Red Hat.

I give Red Hat Enterprise Linux an eight out of ten.

Cloud vendor lock-in is inevitable when we adopt the cloud. This is because once we adopt a cloud service, such as DynamoDB or AWS, we become dependent on that provider for support and maintenance. It is very difficult to work with multiple clouds 100 percent of the time, as this can lead to problems with failover and other issues in multiple cloud environments because the risk is high.

The Red Hat Enterprise Linux ecosystem is more attractive because we are not just buying an operating system. We are buying an ecosystem that helps, supports, and secures our platform. I believe this is the better option.

Applying patches in the new versions of Red Hat Enterprise Linux is more time-consuming than in Oracle Linux because Oracle Linux does not require legacy environments to be patched or changed through applications.

For someone looking for an open source cloud-based Linux OS instead of Red Hat Enterprise Linux, I recommend AWS Linux. It is a very stable version of Linux and does not require a subscription.

We have a private banking client who initially started to use Red Hat Enterprise Linux for approximately 30 nodes. They found that Red Hat Enterprise Linux was the perfect operating system for implementing Ansible automation and managing their infrastructure efficiently. They also deployed Red Hat Ansible Tower for centralized management. Due to the stringent security and compliance requirements in the banking industry, they chose Red Hat Enterprise Linux as their preferred operating system to ensure security and governance across their infrastructure.

In terms of clustering, Red Hat Enterprise Linux provides robustness and scalability compared to non-Red Hat Enterprise Linux operating systems. Clustering is not as straightforward with non-Red Hat Enterprise Linux systems. Red Hat Enterprise Linux's scalability is particularly important for us. We utilize Red Hat Enterprise Linux as the operating system to achieve scalability in our operations.

Moreover, Red Hat Enterprise Linux's strong security posture and its ability to scale applications on emerging technologies across the hybrid cloud is next-generation. I believe that's what people are seeking in Red Hat Enterprise Linux. It is built with a strong focus on security, ensuring effective governance and managing security aspects well. We have high hopes that Red Hat will continue to invest more efforts in enhancing security. When it comes to container-based applications and microservices, Red Hat Enterprise Linux plays a crucial role in the hybrid cloud environment.

One challenge we've faced is with databases. Configuring and implementing DBs is much easier in non-Red Hat Enterprise Linux systems, especially in Microsoft. However, as a partner, we faced some challenges with Red Hat Enterprise Linux, particularly when it comes to enterprise applications, especially on the IBM side since it's an IBM core company. There are still several IBM products that need to mature on Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Additionally, we require more comprehensive documentation. We face difficulties with the limited availability of documentation for Red Hat Enterprise Linux. It's a different community compared to the Microsoft market, so we need the right documentation to encourage end users to use Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

We've been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for the past seven years. As a business partner, we use the application deployed for our clients, providing consulting services. The clients run their workloads on both Red Hat Enterprise Linux and non-Red Hat Enterprise Linux systems. They have two options for cloud providers, hybrid deployments on IBM Cloud and AWS.

The benefit of using a hybrid approach is often discussed when it comes to migrating workloads to the cloud. Due to the OpenShift community, Red Hat Enterprise Linux has become the preferred operating system as it provides stability and frequent patches and fixes. Maintaining the total cost of ownership is also more manageable on the cloud.

It's excellent; in fact, it's the most stable. The presence of kernels is the key factor contributing to this stability. When it comes to security, scalability, and robustness, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) excels in all aspects. That's why we rely on this operating system. Personally, during my time as a technical assistant from 2015 to 2016, I installed a couple of IBM applications. I found that everything ran smoothly on Red Hat Enterprise Linux without any failures.

So the stability in Red Hat Enterprise Linux is remarkably good.

The scalability is nice. Red Hat Enterprise Linux doesn't encounter any issues as a supporting core. It can scale effortlessly.

I have personally used Solaris. However, we eventually switched from those operating systems, but Red Hat Enterprise Linux has been there since version 4.2, a long time ago. I have worked with versions 7 and 9, and I believe the latest one is version 11, although I'm not certain. I have been immersed in technology for the past couple of years.

One of the most important factors is the community. The Red Hat community is different from others, and it is more active and responsive. If you have Red Hat Enterprise Linux and you want to move your production environment from development or testing, it is easy to switch by simply managing the licensing and purchasing the system. You don't need to make extensive changes at the underlying system level. Your system is ready, and you can deploy it in the production environment. It's up and running. If you want to mitigate risks and ensure security in your production environment, you can simply subscribe to RHEL and use it. On the other hand, migrating from other operating systems can be quite cumbersome and challenging. As a client and partner, I always recommend starting with Red Hat Enterprise Linux in the development and testing environments before moving to production. It makes the journey to production much easier.

Regarding centralization, we have a combination of on-premises and cloud environments where development activities take place. Currently, I don't see a specific use case for centralized development and operations, but Red Hat Enterprise Linux is being widely used both in on-premises and cloud setups. As for hybrid deployments, I haven't personally come across many instances of it. There may be a few customers who are utilizing it but not with us thus far.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux's built-in security features in terms of ensuring application and container portability are not an easy task. Although it's not my personal experience, I've observed that in the industry, there is a lot of discussion about moving toward container-based applications. However, only a small number of clients, especially those in highly regulated industries like banking, government, and oil and gas, have actually embraced containerization. They are facing significant challenges when it comes to adopting container-based applications. Many of them still rely on legacy systems running on-premises, such as mainframes.

I have seen an ROI. The most important determinant is the security aspect. Because you rely on the security of Red Hat Enterprise Linux, that's something you are paying for.

When it comes to Red Hat Enterprise Linux pricing, I have a case to share. We recently sold Red Hat Enterprise Linux OS to one of our clients. Before that, I had another client who had concerns about the OS licensing and Red Hat Enterprise Linux's pricing model. The licensing model needs to be more flexible and dynamic because the cost of a single operating system license is relatively high. I'm not suggesting a reduction in cost but rather the introduction of a different model that allows clients to choose scalable options. For example, if a client has licenses for a few operating systems and wants to expand to 50, 100, or even 200, there should be a proposal that offers them flexibility. 

Currently, most clients tend to opt for a limited number of licenses and rely on the community for additional usage, which results in revenue leakage. Red Hat should consider adopting a more aggressive open license policy that encourages higher volume licensing with clients.

When you use Red Hat Enterprise Linux in production, it's worthwhile considering the cost. But even for non-production environments, the client will definitely calculate the expenses since it's a massive implementation for large clients with an operating system. You will open your laptop, and you just need an OS. So my suggestion is for Red Hat to create a business model that also targets the user level and desktop level, where Microsoft is widely used. Considering this eventuality and how many people are switching or still using Red Hat Enterprise Linux, we, as a partner, mandate that all our Red Hat team members use Red Hat Enterprise Linux. We don't allow them to use any Microsoft operating system or other operating systems. When engineers join the company and work in the Red Hat pillar, they have to use Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux's built-in security features, in terms of simplifying risk reduction and maintaining compliance both maintaining compliance and security, are essential aspects. Compliance requirements vary across different industries, such as banking, with each industry having its specific rules. However, security is a common concern that applies universally. Therefore, we need to address both areas.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux provides various logs and event triggers that assist in monitoring the operating system's security. Since the operating system sits as the layer between the hardware and the application, it plays a crucial role in safeguarding against security breaches and penetration attacks. A secure application relies on robust application security, followed by a well-protected OS. By ensuring the OS's security, we can establish a strong foundation for the entire ecosystem. If the OS is secure, we can confidently state that the application is at least 80% secure.

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

I use Red Hat Enterprise Linux for web application support, mainly OpenShift.

Azure is the cloud provider.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is easier to manage because it can scale to a large amount and be managed across many platforms. This can lead to cost savings for our organization.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has reduced the amount of management required on the Windows side.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is extremely resilient because it is much more secure.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux's day-to-day functionality is very easy.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has helped our organization save money by not requiring large-scale virtual machines, resources, or images.

OpenShift is the most valuable feature because it can be used to create applications on the fly.

The UI is not user-friendly and has room for improvement.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for six years.

I am impressed with how extremely stable Red Hat Enterprise Linux is.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux's scalability is excellent.

Technical support is quick to respond, but sometimes tickets can get stuck in tier one for a while before they are escalated.

Positive

We previously used Windows but switched to Red Hat Enterprise Linux for cost savings.

The initial setup is straightforward. We can copy and paste any templates we need into the environment.

We have seen a return on our investment simply from receiving timely support when needed.

We purchased the Red Hat Enterprise Linux license via Azure and the vendor.

We evaluated CentOS but ultimately chose Red Hat Enterprise Linux because of the support.

I give Red Hat Enterprise Linux a nine out of ten.

When evaluating operating system options, keep in mind that Red Hat offers the best support.

Our company uses the solution to provide DBA services and manage Linux databases for clients. 

The solution works well both on-premises and in the cloud. We deploy based on client preferences that include on-premises, hybrid cloud, and fully public or private cloud. 

Depending on use cases, we use different cloud providers such as AWS, Oracle, or Azure and they all have their own limitations. The solution is flexible and has great scripting so it can accommodate any conditions. 

For one client, we have version 7 installed and managed on a variety of physical servers for different environments including production. For another client, we have VMs. For other use cases, we have a setup of active sites in on-premises with standbys in the Azure cloud. 

The solution has enabled us to centralize development because it provides true automation. It ensures that systems are stable. There is no room for doubt with our clients because the protection is sound. 

Productivity and efficiency are key advantages because the solution automates regular tasks and processes. All of this benefits our company. 

The solution integrates with all types of software and is much easier to manage than a Windows system. 

Management is portable and easily automated so deploying or installing packages and running updates is seamless. You can automate as much as possible from the deployment and maintenance points of view, both on-premises and in the cloud. 

The operating system is very stable and robust with a very good kernel. You don't run into issues related to the core of the operating system.

Updates are constant and delivered pretty regularly. The solution covers most vulnerabilities so we feel pretty confident using it on different machines. We can tell within 30 days that patches or updates are good. 

The solution could provide more APIs and GUI interfaces. The current options are kind of low-level and not as visual as Windows. 

I have been using the solution for 15 years. 

The solution is very stable so I rate stability a nine out of ten. 

The solution is scalable so I rate scalability an eight out of ten. 

I used technical support once and they responded very quickly with useful information. 

I rate support an eight out of ten. 

Positive

I previously used AX, HP-UX, and Solaris at a prior job. My current employer has always used the solution. 

The setup is straightforward. 

For one client's cloud setup, we created virtual machines and provisioned the operating system on the solution. The cloud solution provides images for the operating system so is pretty easy to install. Just click, click, click and that is it. 

For other cases, we had to install from scratch at boot but had well-documented instructions so we didn't have any issues. 

These use cases were not too complex so the focus was more on installing patches and packages that ensure compatibility with the solution. We find prerequisites for implementation in order for it to work. We focus on a strategy that makes sure we have the correct kernel parameters, the right center for settings, and the utilities needed for managing the operating system in conjunction with the database. For example, a lot of C++ compilers need to be installed. Everything that is part of the pre-install packages can be done by a DPA as well. 

We deploy the solution in-house for customers and it takes a few hours.

Ongoing maintenance includes applying versions on occasion to make sure processes aren't hanging, over consuming, or missing resources. 

Each client has a set of servers and databases, so maintenance might require two to six system administrators. It all depends on use cases including the number of systems, how critical systems are, and whether you need downtime. 

It is important to make sure your patches are up to date. Any part of regular maintenance should not be skipped. 

I recommend the solution because it is stable and easy to manage. I rate the solution an eight out of ten. 

We have a very large system with ten application teams. We've got four DevOps squads that support those teams. We use this solution to containerize about 85% of our applications and software. OpenShift 4 maintains our applications and our databases, keeping our system up to date and it integrates with our CI/CD pipelines.

We also use OCS for security compliance.

RHEL runs as the backbone for our applications. We are able to meet our deadlines of becoming the system of record and creating an operational maintenance system, on time and under budget. Our system processes 4.7 million customers' flood insurance policies yearly and processes their claims. It's the backbone for all of our applications and what they do.

RHEL's built-in security features have helped us reduce risk and maintenance compliance. We've been switching over even some of our build pipelines to use OpenShift. We are able to run a GitOps model to be able to track and store changes and then press the button to be able to sync it with OpenShift and this has been great.

The containerization capability has been most valuable. Having our applications and our databases containerized has allowed us to be able to migrate from our on-prem site to the cloud in a much faster timeframe. We don't have to change the applications or databases and there's a lot less rearchitecting. That has been a game-changer for us.

The OCS is built to help monitor and scan OpenShift 4 containers and Core OS. That integration has been seamless for us.

This solution could be improved if it was easier to set up and run in cloud environments. It can also be costly to manage a large OpenShift environment.

We have been using RHEL since 2016. 

This is a stable solution.

We're about to build out and use the elastic capabilities to spin up OpenShift clusters as needed on demand so we're about to find out if it is scalable.

It's been great. We've been having weekly meetings with them as we migrated to Google. They've been a great partner in providing support as needed in helping troubleshoot issues.

I would rate their support a nine out of ten.

Positive

The initial deployment and setup of OpenShift were straightforward. We ran into some issues that we were able to work through. The Red Hat team did provide a lot of support to get us there.

We have an O&M contract that helped do the setup, and then we did consult with Red Hat on it. Guidehouse is the contractor that provides support for development in O&M. They've been a great team and partner to us. 

OpenShift being containerized has meant that we've been able to move from the on-prem to the cloud in a much faster time period.

I don't have any issues with the licensing or pricing. In general, OpenShift is a little more expensive. It's a bit expensive to have the number of containers we need and for disaster recovery but it's been worth the money because it's helped us get to the cloud faster.

It is easy to troubleshoot with RHEL. I would rate this solution an eight out of ten. If you are in the government space and you're looking to modernize your systems but you're not quite sure about the cloud, using OpenShift to containerize is a good first step. It will give you that cloud-agnostic capability so that you're more readily able to move to the cloud when you're ready.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten. 

The main use case is general system administration, which includes configuring networking, configuring storage volumes, managing users, and running backup applications.

Application performance is one of its main benefits. The applications that run on RHEL are very stable. 

I've not done much work with containers, but with general applications, as compared to other solutions that I've used, RHEL has the best portability. I have not had any issues or application failures while migrating. I've moved virtual machines and systems from one platform to another, and I've never been scared of RHEL. I never had to deal with application failures while moving them from one place to there. That's why I'm pretty confident with RHEL when it comes to working with it.

I like its integrations. I would put it higher than any other Linux version when it comes to availability. Its integrations with different applications and solutions are the best. We work with a lot of clients that use RHEL, and we could easily and quickly integrate any cloud solution, virtualization solution, storage solution, or software with the RHEL system. It is better than the other solutions we have worked with.

I like the way the updates are done and the way packages can be installed through the Red Hat Package Manager. I like it because of how fast and straightforward it is.

Its user interface could be better for people who want to use the GUI. They can provide a better user interface with more features. Storage works perfectly fine. Of course, continuous improvements should be made all the time, but it isn't at all lacking when it comes to storage and other features.

I've been using RHEL for four years, but in the last 12 months, I've used it more.

It is the most stable one. It is very stable. 

It has the ability to scale. I know that it can scale, but because of my limited experience with scaling, I don't know how good scaling is. I have only done the basic scaling, but I would assume that it can scale way more than what I have done.

Most of my usage of it is on a private cloud. I've used it in a hybrid cloud environment, but I've not done a lot of work with the hybrid cloud because most of the clients we work with have private clouds. The little bit of experience I have had with the hybrid cloud was related to basic application installation and scaling. For the scaling part, I was able to have the applications first in the private cloud and then migrate or move it to a hybrid cloud. I was able to integrate them, and I was able to change the environment, as well as have them work in a cluster. The scaling part was seamless. It was pretty easy. It was easier than I thought.

The private cloud is deployed at three locations. The public cloud is deployed across two regions. There are a lot of users of this solution. There are different systems for different applications and different services. I can't put a number on the total number of users. Some systems have 50 and some systems have close to 70. There are systems with just 10 or 5 users.

They can be faster. Because I work in support, I classify support in terms of how well you can resolve an issue and how fast you can resolve an issue. They don't reply fast enough. In a lot of instances, they don't get back to you immediately, and you have to wait for a while after creating a support ticket. They can be faster at that, but when it comes to resolving your issue, they are good. Overall, I would rate their support a seven out of ten.

Neutral

Prior to using RHEL, I was using Windows. I've also done a lot of work with Ubuntu, SUSE, and other Linux solutions, but Red Hat is the best one. I prefer it over other solutions because I'm used to it, and I find it better than other solutions. I'm used to the commands, and it is easy for me to navigate my way through it. If I have to choose between Windows and Linux, I would always go with Linux and choose RHEL because of its stability and agility.

I also use CentOS for my personal things or running some tests. For example, if I want to run a test with a client, it doesn't make sense to run a test in the client's production environment. I have a test environment with CentOS, and I run the test on CentOS before going to RHEL. I'm pretty comfortable using CentOS. CentOS is like my own testing environment.

The reason I switched over to RHEL was that over here, almost everybody or every client who uses Linux has RHEL. So, I had to understand how RHEL works. I realized that most people use it because of its stability. People find this system and its architecture good. A lot of clients talked about how they preferred the architecture of RHEL. Some clients find the commands to be easily readable, and some clients find it easy to integrate with others. A lot of clients find patching and package management pretty easy.

In terms of the deployment model, we have a private cloud. We have VMware for virtualization and Azure Stack for the private cloud. There are also public clouds, such as GCP, AWS, and Azure, and then there is the physical hardware. Some of our deployments are on physical hardware. So, we deploy RHEL on physical servers, and then, there's also the hybrid model when some clients want to integrate the private cloud and the public cloud together. They want the public cloud to be like a backup environment, or they want the private cloud to be a backup environment.

I was mostly involved in the deployment of the hardware and the private cloud.  I was also a part of the team that set up the hybrid environment, but I didn't do a lot of work on the public cloud side. The only complex part of the deployment was the hybrid configuration, where we were trying to interconnect the private cloud and the public cloud. The deployment on the public cloud was more straightforward than the deployment on the private cloud because, on a public cloud, the image is already there, whereas, on a private cloud, you have to set the image up yourself.

Each deployment model took approximately one week to deploy, but the hybrid model, requiring interconnecting the private and public clouds, took more than a week because there were a lot of dependencies.

In terms of maintenance, it does require maintenance. That's the main reason why people pay for support. 

We have definitely seen an ROI. There are around 15% savings.

It is pretty expensive, but it is worth it. Generally, in an enterprise environment, there is no cheap solution. This is coming from someone who is working with a company that provides a lot of solutions a bit cheaper than the industry standard. In the enterprise environment, I believe no solution is inexpensive, but RHEL is still pretty expensive.

Additional costs that I am aware of are usually for support and setup. A lot of banks use RHEL. I've seen the cost of the support and setup. Some of them complain about it, but they also talk about how well it works.

I have not compared the overall costs of open-source competitors to the overall costs of RHEL when it comes to supporting business operations over time. The only other distribution for which I have seen the pricing is AIX, which was a bit more expensive than RHEL.

I would always advise doing a proof of concept where the client gives out his requirements and you run a proof of concept based on those requirements to make them confident of purchasing the solution. It is always better if a proof of concept is done. This way, everybody knows what they're getting into.

Its built-in security features are definitely helpful, but at the end of the day, you have to go further than using the built-in ones. You have to do a few other things yourself. The built-in features are helpful for compliance, but we, and most enterprise organizations, always want to go further than using built-in features because some built-in features could be more open to risks. We use the best built-in features, but we always want to go further and integrate other features into the RHEL system.

I have used Red Hat Insights only once, and I have not worked much with it, but my colleagues handling monitoring used it. It was helpful for the unpatched system. They checked Red Hat Insights and saw the systems that need patching. We got an email saying that it is a security requirement and that we need to patch them because it may affect the security of the systems. Coincidentally, after doing the patching, we read blogs about security hacks out there for some of the older systems that were not patched early enough.

Red Hat Insights provide us with vulnerability alerts, but I am not sure about targeted guidance. Vulnerability alerts have impacted the uptime, which is something that we take very seriously. Uptime was one of the major reasons we wanted to work with Insights because we didn't want any attacks that would cause downtime.

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

Our company uses one of the solution's varieties, mostly CentOS. We are restructuring and moving to the licensed version of RHEL and its derivatives. 

We use both RHEL 7 and 8 mostly in the cloud but also have a small data center where the solution is used on bare metal. Our team does a lot of AIML work where we set up instances to run simulations. 

We are moving a bit into Redshift because we do not have many staff members with containerization or Kubernetes experience. 

We run most things on the solution and its impact has been huge. We do have a few items on Ubuntu but question its use. Conceptually, Ubuntu is for amateurs and RHEL and CentOS are for professional organizations with hardened security. 

The YUM repository is valuable. We are in an interesting situation because we cannot have access to direct YUM or browser repositories so we have to copy to a Nexus server and pull from there. From what we have seen, pretty much everything is available right there. 

The solution's use of Kubernetes as an internal or core process on the system is brilliant. You eventually get to Kubernetes whether via Redshift or other tools and do not have to worry about your hardware because you deploy and push to the infrastructure without worry. 

The Cockpit makes it very easy to maintain systems because you do not have the overhead of running gooey but still have the interface. I am a Linux person and had issues with Windows because they required gooey on servers when it was not necessarily needed. 

The solution is moving away from CentOS and there are growing pains from the customer's perspective. It was purchased by IBM and they are for profit which everyone understands. There is a huge shake up right now because customers who run CentOS do not know what to do with all their systems. One of the reasons CentOS is used for government offices is its security feature that does not change because it occurs after route. The solution placed CentOS in the middle so government customers do not trust it. The way the rollout occurred caused a lot of mistrust with Red Hat. 

The SELinux is great but the Amazon security features cause issues. For example, we run RHEL and CentOS on AWS but they control the cloud and do not give us access to security features. We have to go through multiple layers to deploy an instance. Something that could be controlled with a firewall or blocking ports is now controlled by security groups inside AWS that we cannot access. 

I am newer to the solution but our company has been using it for a long time. 

I previously worked with an Intel customer who used a lot of CentOS, so I am aware in that sense. I am very familiar with the YAM and DNF. I have even played a bit with Rocky which is not specific to the solution. 

My work in systems and software supports one of our teams. 

Technical support staff are personable and quick to get to problems. Support is better than other vendors and I rate it a ten out of ten. 

Positive

I used to work for a government organization that was heavily into AWS. One of the reasons they embraced open source was because Oracle was too expensive. They put everything into AWS rather than open source, so they will soon be in the exact same position where everything is proprietary. 

The solution is easy to set up but sometimes there are issues with custom software deployments. For example, we want to use Ansible in RHEL 8 but the software is only supported in RHEL 7. We question whether we should install an old version of Python to get things to run. 

The solution is pretty easy to troubleshoot. 

Our organization is huge but I handle the setup for instances in our small data center.

I do not deal with money, but I see an ROI in terms of the engineers' skills because they can reapply them to multiple RHELs and incidents. 

The solution is moving away from its open source roots and licensing is a little bit of an issue. 

We use Ubuntu, but not much. 

Primarily, we are dedicated to RHEL and CentOS to the point that we do not see Windows as a viable server option. Microsoft's cloud is getting traction but it only makes sense if you have a solution meant for Windows. 

We also use Redshift and Cockpit. There is consistency across products so they are backward compatible with familiar operations. For example, you could use RHEL 8, YUM, or DNF because the syntaxes are identical.  

The solution is very into Ansible and we are trying to drive everything to it.

Look at the security features of the solution and compare them with other options. Open source is great, but at the end of the day, you need someone supporting the product. Another option is to just listen to groups that write on the internet, but you have to decide if you trust that along with their adversaries. 

Government offices have to worry about adversaries from other countries because the code they use is unclear. The idea of open source is to be able to evaluate the code but it is not clear if anyone actually reviews it. 

I rate the solution a ten out of ten. 

We provide web servers and support for websites for the government, and they all run on the Red Hat Linux operating system.

It has had a very positive influence on our organization's management and efficiency. We couldn't live without it. We just could not.

It's easy to troubleshoot with RHEL. We're able to easily pull log files from servers, analyze them quickly and efficiently, and resolve matters.

They provide good notices on updates and fix packs that need to be applied. We do monthly updates and fix packs. Based on what their requirements are or what their messages are regarding updates, we're there. We do them quickly every month.

I like its user-friendliness for the admins administering the servers and the ease of doing fix packs on the servers and upgrades with the Red Hat software. It saves time and cost because we don't need to have expensive hires to do the work. We can do it ourselves a lot of times. It's a pretty straightforward, easy-to-learn, and user-friendly operating system.

Support for older versions of the operating system could be improved. If people can't afford to upgrade, or if they have servers that are outdated, they need to be able to provide back-field support for those.

We have been using it for at least 15 years. I've been with this outfit for 15 years, and I have been using it for 15 years.

As far as I know, we're just using Red Hat Linux. That's it. We don't use any other product of Red Hat. We do use IBM WebSphere, but that's totally different. Red Hat is our preferred one.

It's very stable. We don't have any issues with our servers crashing. If you scale your servers properly with enough RAM and resources, the operating system is almost up 100%. It's high availability.

It's very good. They provide notices on an as-needed basis. They're easy to get in touch with. They provide good customer support for our servers. Our hosting center uses them exclusively. I would rate them a nine out of ten.

Positive

It was already existing when I joined. I worked with the infrastructure group to maintain and apply fix packs and updates to the Red Hat software.

It does require maintenance. It requires doing fix packs and upgrades. There are some upgrades that are scheduled by Red Hat. It's not maintenance-free.

I would advise looking at some of the other operating systems out there and determining what your needs are in terms of if you're going to be using Linux, or if you're going to be using Microsoft. For Linux, it's definitely preferred, but just do your research and do your homework. I can't say enough good things about it.

I would rate it a nine out of ten.

It's what we run our primary mission systems on. Our office automation runs on Microsoft, which includes Word, email, etc. For everything that we present to the customers through the agency, the backend is an RHEL platform.

Through the various tools that we've utilized, RHEL was able to help improve our security posture. We run a very tight ship.

We use Satellite to do patch management and limited repository so that we don't have folks going out to the internet to get the repos. You have to get the repos through our Satellite system. We also do patches through that. We use Ansible for our automation to build boxes, to install all the security patches on them, and to run the vulnerability scan against them. It initiates that. Also, implementing IdM on them is done through Ansible. So, we use Ansible quite a bit, and we're just starting with OpenShift.

One benefit of using multiple Red Hat products is compatibility. Compatibility is the most important. We haven't had an issue where the tool doesn't understand the OS or doesn't understand the platform. Ansible written for Red Hat works perfectly. It understands the plugins and satellites, and it's having one ecosystem where it also gives one phone call. If there's a problem, we call Red Hat. That has been very handy.

RHEL’s built-in security features and security profiles are very good for reducing risk and maintaining compliance, but as a government agency, we have to use other baselines. CIS baseline is what we primarily rely on. We also put in a little bit of DISA as a baseline, but they're standard out-of-the-box solutions. It's pretty good. It just has to be tweaked slightly to get it to the level we have to run at.

It's relatively easy to troubleshoot using RHEL. Sometimes, the troubleshooting can take quite a bit of work, but it's an easily understandable OS. If you understand the basic key principles, you can pretty much work it out.

We're very happy with the amount of security customization we've been able to do with RHEL. The fact that Red Hat is really on top of security issues is also valuable. We get daily emails from Red Hat letting us know of possible issues and fixes, which is incredibly helpful for us.

Other than that, we use it as our primary DNS. So, DNS is an important piece of it. 

Compatibility is also extremely important. We get the ability to run as many applications on it. They are widely supported.

There are some things that we've seen from RHEL that have given us a little bit of consternation. Their IdM product could be improved greatly. It would be great if they had some type of application built in that would let you do whitelisting for applications. On the government side, for zero trust, that's becoming very important. We're currently using a third-party solution, and it's tough to get it to match up because anytime the kernel changes, you have to match the software to the kernel. If we get a critical vulnerability on a kernel, we have to roll out the new kernel but then our third-party software isn't cooperating, and it starts breaking down the system. So, it would be great if Red Hat could integrate that type of functionality into the product so that when a new kernel comes out, it includes the updated software to do whitelisting and blacklisting of applications and processes.

At the agency, we have been using it for about 10 years. For me personally, it has been about six years.

It has been relatively stable. The only time we see stability issues is when we introduce new third-party products. We have some mandates as a government agency to do some endpoint security stuff and integrating that in has caused us a few stability issues, but that's not so much the fault of Red Hat. It's a quagmire of the chicken and the egg. You have to run a certain kernel, but that kernel is not compatible with the other software that you are forced to run. So, we've artificially created stability issues.

They eventually work out or work themselves out. When the vendors get on board and update their products to match the kernel, then everything tends to function smoothly at that point until we introduce another hiccup. We're constantly throwing hurdles, but we also have a very good system for bringing stuff back to life after it's dead, and we've done it enough that we're pretty timely. We can get one of our servers up in about 10 minutes.

It has been relatively scalable. We don't have any super large deployments, but we've had some scaling of specific applications, which has worked out great. We're integrating it more into Ansible and using our virtual hypervisor platform to recognize times when it needs to scale, and when we expect a large deluge of customers coming into our website, we have to have the backend expand. We've been doing that manually up to this point, but we're looking forward to being able to automate that.

We wanted an enterprise platform that was going to be supported. So, support from the vendor has been very important to us, and Red Hat has always provided that. When IBM took over Red Hat, we were very afraid that it was going to change our relationship with Red Hat, but it worked out very well. We've got a great sales team that has helped us, and they've always been able to get us the technical support we need when we run into an issue.

Until we got our new salesperson, I would have rated them a two out of five. Now that we've gotten our new sales team, we've gotten the right people in the right places, it's definitely a five out of five. We had a salesperson who was more focused on larger agencies, and we're a relatively small agency. So, we weren't getting the amount of focus that we needed, but that changed when our Director and our CIO engaged Red Hat's Enterprise Management. They were able to get us someone who could be more focused on smaller agencies and be a lot more helpful, and he has absolutely done that.

Positive

I was involved in the deployment or setup of RHEL to a degree, but it was mostly during our life cycle refreshes when we moved from RHEL 6 to RHEL 7 to RHEL 8. And now, we're looking at RHEL 9. 

On the backend development of the base image, I'm part of the team that puts together the base design, and then we put the steps into our repository so that we can rebuild the images easier. Right now, it's a manual process. We want to get to the point where we have all of the changes documented in a GitHub solution or something where we can make a change, push a button and have it implement those changes in there by using a script or something else. I'm mostly the one yelling to the Linux developers to get their stuff done because they have a tendency to run multiple instances while they're transitioning. They'll run an RHEL 6 box, an RHEL 7 box, and an RHEL 8 box at the same time when they have to get off of RHEL 6 and RHEL 7. So, I'm more of the management yelling at them to get this stuff done.

I would advise making sure you get a good support contract and you have a very good salesperson to work with.

In terms of RHEL's effect on our organization's management and efficiency, it can always be improved, but we probably are a three out of five on efficiency. As we move into OpenShift and get a lot more automation working, we will move slowly to the five, but that's not the fault of Red Hat. That's the fault of our organization having limited resources, and Red Hat is helping to provide the tools to get us to the next level.

Given that we started running everything on Microsoft, Red Hat is a lot more flexible in giving us the ability to span out specifically as we move into containers. It's going to give us the ability to stand up a lot more resiliency. When we're getting a heavy load, we can expand. Even currently, we have the ability to expand slightly but moving into containers will give us even more capability. We've chosen Red Hat as our platform. Red Hat has done well enough for us, and that's the platform that we're moving to with containers.

At this point, I would rate it an eight out of ten because there's always room for improvement. I don't feel that there's a perfect OS. I would even rate Windows as a seven. There's definitely room for improvement, and with Red Hat being one of the larger targets out there for hackers and people, there are always issues coming up.