Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Reviews

We use the solution in our company for normal application support and for databases.

In Red Hat Enterprise Linux, we use Red Hat Satellite as part of all the patching and deployment, even from on-premises and AWS, and that's been really helpful since it is one product that can be used in a hybrid environment. It's just one place to manage everything. It's good since you don't have two different products or places to manage, especially if you have a multi-datacenter and not a multi-cloud but a multi-location environment.

The room for improvement depends on how we use it. It's just a normal operating system. Considering an area where the solution lacks, I think we can look into a lot more automation and integrations with Red Hat Enterprise Linux and other products. However, I cannot say specifically where the improvement should be because it mostly depends on how we are using it. It just works the way it's supposed to work.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux on the cloud for six to seven years. Currently, we are using Red Hat Enterprise Linux Versions 7 and 8.

The product's stability is good, with 99.99 percent uptime.

Scalability is something my company hasn't delved into that much. Right now, scalability is mostly on the backend hypervisor or how we leverage AWS.

I would probably rate the support around an eight out of ten.

Positive

We have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux since I've been with the company. Linux is our platform of choice.

I supported those involved in the setup phase peripherally.

The initial setup was straightforward.

Regarding the straightforward setup, building the base image and deploying it with our internal security standards was pretty straightforward.

We used to get our own license model. We purchased a license through Red Hat.

We haven't necessarily evaluated other options, but there are a lot of requests coming from other application developers that want to deploy other operating systems because they are much more common, especially in an open source environment. So we have looked into those options. However, Red Hat Enterprise Linux continues to be the main platform that we support. We are also looking into other solutions just in case a scenario arises where a vendor cannot support Red Hat Enterprise Linux for some reason and we will need a backup.

Regarding the problems we are trying to solve by implementing the solution, I would say that it is our operating system of choice. I think the support is good since we have Red Hat Enterprise Linux subscriptions. We get support for all the operating systems from them. It's great and stable.

Regarding the solution's resiliency, it is good. We've been running, and we have over 99 percent uptime all the time. We also do monthly patching and everything, so it works. Kernel upgrades also work as expected. So it has been pretty good.

Regarding how easy or difficult it is for you to move workloads between the cloud and your data center using Red Hat Enterprise Linux, we don't use relative migrating solutions. It's considered a separate environment, but we use the same base image. 

I consider the solution to be the main OS because going with an open source solution like Red Hat Enterprise Linux, you have better support.

The support is great. We also have integrations with other products, especially with whatever Red Hat releases. We have all those integrations available and we can easily take advantage of it.

I rate the overall solution between seven and eight out of ten.

We are in a closed environment, so submitting a ticket can be painstaking as only a few of us have access to do so. We primarily use Red Hat for its stability, and it's one of the few Linux operating systems that meet our security constraints.

I find the satellite feature the most valuable. It allows us to manage disconnected workstations, keeping their patching, software updates, and bug fixes up to date. We can collect all the necessary updates on a connected system and then transfer them to a disconnected system. Each client thinks it's connected to an external satellite infrastructure, making management very easy.

The Image Builder feature seems very helpful. We currently use Kickstart to build systems.

The support can be lackluster sometimes, especially in our disconnected space where we have specific requirements. Occasionally, we encounter support representatives who are not familiar with our setup. So, in that space, personalized and tailored support based on each use case could be better.

In additional features, I would have said being more on the bleeding edge, but RHEL 9 was released, which is a nice push forward. So right now, I don't think there's anything specific. I find the product stack to be pretty decent.

I have been using this solution for three years. We are using versions 7.9 and 8.7.

It's very stable, but that's also why it falls behind at times. For example, if you have newer hardware like systems A and B that were released within the last year, there might be potential sleep issues, specifically with S3 sleep, that require manual patching and intervention in the kernel. It's because they are trying to support newer systems on a much older framework.

I believe RHEL 9 is supposed to mitigate that a little bit. It aims to provide a balance between the latest stable release and the older version that is, like, five years old. They're trying to meet somewhere in the middle.

We have around 30 workstations and approximately 60 servers.

The customer service and support team depends on the environment you are in. The support can be spotty. The support can be spotty; at least they've tried to be helpful. Sometimes they'll just point you to a documentation link, practically like Googling it for you, and it's like, "No, we've already looked at this. Can you please review the logs further?" And sometimes, I'll have to go and pinpoint specific areas to look at. And then it's like, "Oh, okay." 

It's not always very thorough. But it's hit or miss. So I think it's just a people thing. If you get somebody in support who really likes their job or enjoys fixing things, they're going to go out of their way, as opposed to someone who does the bare minimum.

Neutral

The initial setup is very straightforward. It's pretty easy to enable it. After weeks of setting up a Linux Kickstart, the whole system can be deployed. The whole bare-metal system can be deployed in around thirty minutes. So it's really fast, especially for a bare-metal image with a lot of packages installed.

When it comes to maintaining compliance, I think it's pretty good. However, for risk reduction, we have to rely on other software and tools. So I can't really say that Red Hat provides that specific functionality for us. But I think it's good for maintaining compliance is very easy, especially with satellite. It makes it easy for us to access package and vulnerability information, allowing us to identify and resolve any issues. Overall, it works quite well. If you use the right products, I believe you can have all the necessary components in one place.

The portability of applications and containers is pretty good, although there is one issue. With the transition to Red Hat 8, Docker was removed. As a result, there is an issue with using Podman, specifically related to certain types of authentication in a mixed Windows-Linux environment. Due to the way secrets and related functionalities work, Podman cannot be utilized in that scenario. Therefore, there are some challenges to address in this regard.

I believe Red Hat should have maintained compatibility with Docker or at least their own Red Hat Docker until they could bring their software up to speed.

We did the implementation ourselves. The documentation is pretty good.

I save at least a few hours weekly using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). 

We got the license through a third party. They buy licenses in bulk for us. We pay them, and they handle the licensing.

Moreover, Red Hat's pricing and licensing structure seems fine. There's not a huge separation. The licenses can cover everything without worrying about the core count, socket count, or similar complexities like VMware and other big companies. It's simple enough to figure out which support contract you want based on the level of support you need.

It's an open source product.

Overall, I would rate the product an eight out of ten. The product is good, and the documentation is really comprehensive. The support is satisfactory as well. Based solely on the product itself, without considering support, we find it stable and capable of supporting various architectures. The documentation is particularly good and stands out. It provides valuable resources, including bug fixes, to people with developer accounts, which are free. Having all that information available is very helpful and resourceful, especially when troubleshooting Linux-related issues.

The documentation is very good, making it easier to troubleshoot any peculiar Linux-related problems.

We are a fintech company that uses Red Hat Enterprise Linux for enterprise and financial applications. Red Hat Enterprise Linux is deployed on servers at two sites. Access is mostly limited to IT staff because it is only used on our servers, not employee workstations. 

Red Hat Enterprise Linux offers performance stability, and it's easy to scale up or down by adding servers. The OS is easy to monitor and integrate with other systems. We use all these applications as containers. Red Hat has a container platform called OpenShift that we use to deploy containers. It's effortless to deploy and redeploy Red Hat Enterprise Linux. You can easily deploy it across multiple platforms and move it from one provider to another.

The operating system helps us meet security standards for the financial industry. You need high levels of security in this business to protect your financial data. Red Hat Enterprise Linux has various security features. 

We use the System Roles feature primarily with Ansible. It's powerful. You can use it to perform complex tasks, and it simplifies processes. For example, it helps you change network settings for storage, security, monitoring, etc. System roles help us automate security configurations and maintain consistency across systems. They have playbooks we can get from their website, and it's all based on system roles. 

My company uses Red Hat Insights only for systems with internet access, but most of our environment is offline. 

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is easy to manage, update, and integrate. I also like Red Hat Enterprise Linux's built-in security features. You need to enable them by default or keep them enabled if you want your system to be secured. It protects most of the system components. 

Red Hat Enterprise Linux's monitoring could be improved. I would like additional monitoring features, like a greater ability to monitor services and workloads running. Satellite can provide centralized monitoring of subscriptions and deployments. You can build a monitoring console, but there is no native monitoring. 

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

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is stable like every other Linux distro. It works fine. We have had no issues. 

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is easy to scale. You can clone it, deploy another instance, and scale it up with a few changes. 

I rate Red Hat's support an eight out of ten. I contact them often. Red Hat's support is helpful. They can solve your issue most of the time or point you in the right direction. 

Positive

Deploying Red Hat Enterprise Linux is mostly straightforward, but it depends on your requirements and the settings you need to apply. We typically do everything in-house. Red Hat Enterprise Linux requires a little maintenance. We need to do patching, clean up the file system, rotate logs, etc. 

I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux a nine out of ten. If you don't know anything about Red Hat Enterprise Linux, you should read up on it. It will do everything you want. Red Hat Enterprise Linux is excellent.

I've used it primarily in federal government computing centers. However, I've also used it in private companies.

I run everything on it. I've run databases, I've run web servers, and I've run application farms - so pretty much everything. I have it for MongoDB, data crunching, and more, so it covers the gamut.

The product saved us a lot of money compared to other products, like Solaris. Also, having one OS as opposed to many OSs is nice. For the most part, the benefit for the organization is saving money compared to other operating systems and having good stability.

I'm just a tech guy, so I don't know how well it affects the organization's efficiency. However, I do find that we keep things running.

The consistency, stability, and centralized batching are great.

It is easy to troubleshoot using RHEL. Their support site has excellent references, and it's widespread, so you can find pretty much anything you want on Google.

RHEL's built-in security features and security profiles for helping to reduce risk and maintain compliance are good. I like them. We don't run the firewalls on the servers. However, we run STIG and more against them, and we do pretty well.

They don't have any huge innovations. However, they're supporting many excellent projects and integrating many excellent tools into their stack. We hope they keep doing what they're doing and keep supporting open source.

The licensing model is kind of a mess. It works, however, it could be streamlined. For example, just how they apply the licenses to servers and the solution seems like a mess, at least from my end of it.

I've been using the solution for 15 to 20 years. 

I like their stability. I like that they are gatekeeping a lot of the changes. They are not too far behind the curve. However, they are maintaining stability, which is important, especially for running businesses.

Technical support is excellent. 

I've never had any issues with their tech support.

Positive

We also use Red Hat Ansible and Satellite.

I have used Solaris, and I've used different distributions of Linux, however, not always in a professional setting.

The deployment is straightforward. 

Building out a server or building out infrastructure is simple, comparatively. Setting it up so that you can deploy multiple servers is simple. Being able to do post-install and install via Ansible is great. It's smooth.

We've been rolling out new OSs across the entire infrastructure at the scale of maybe a year or two. That said, we're getting it ready to deploy everything in a month or two, at a maximum.

There is some maintenance. For example, we have to patch all the time, however, that's true of any product. I am constantly tweaking and upgrading and making changes. That said, in terms of knocking out the foundation, I don't have to do that often, so that's good.

While it's my understanding that the solution has saved the organization money, I can't say exactly how much. I don't know the exact numbers.

At this time, we do not use Red Hat Smart Management.

The benefit of using multiple Red Hat products is that they integrate well, so I don't have to worry about fitting different Lego pieces together. They just work. I prefer Red Hat over most other solutions since I'm most familiar with it at this point and it offers consistency.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

I work for an IBM business partner and we install Red Hat for our customers. They use Red Hat for databases, application servers, and some IBM applications that we also install. There are different uses.

RHEL gives our customers the abilities and security of an enterprise application. It's an enterprise operating system with enterprise support. The benefits are the stability of the product and the support for problem-solving.

It has also enabled our clients to centralize development and it is integrated with a lot of Red Hat tools. We have a customer with OpenShift and other products from Red Hat and it helps to centralize and coordinate the development in their environment. It makes things easier and their productivity is higher.

We also use Red Hat Insights. It's a good tool and it helps us keep the installation up to date and have a global view of what we have. In addition, Insights provides vulnerability alerts and targeted guidance, and those features have helped increase uptime.

The security it provides is one of the most important features, as are the support and the documentation. The latter helps me to do everything. 

The features included in the Red Hat environment enhance the security that Linux has by default. They're good enough to secure the system. It's very complex but it's flexible and it gives you the opportunity to deploy good security. These features reduce risk.

We use it in a hybrid environment. We have it on-prem and also in the cloud. It offers good security in such an environment. The security is well-defined and I would evaluate it positively in this type of setup.

Also, the containers and the application are totally exportable to other Linux distributions. It's very open. I haven't found any compatibility issues with other Linux distributions.

The Cockpit interface needs improvement with more features. The information for implementing Red Hat Cluster could be also improved. And there could also be better performance monitoring.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for eight or nine years.

It is very stable and that is one of the features we most appreciate about it.

It's scalable.

We are quite satisfied with the technical support of Red Hat. Perhaps they could improve on their response times, but it's quite good.

Positive

We use Ubuntu and SUSE. We switched to Red Hat mainly for the enterprise support that we receive, the documentation, and the container integration.

Deployment is easy. It's very intuitive and it is well explained in the documentation.

The time it takes depends on the application, but the operating system takes a few hours to deploy and do the initial configuration. In two hours you can have a system up and running.

Generally, we start with the requirements. We have a pre-production environment and we test the strategy there. We prefer container applications, so one of the strategies that we follow is that, if it is possible to install the application container, we do that.

It can be deployed by one person like me. I am an architect but I could be a system engineer certified by Red Hat. The solution requires maintenance such as periodic upgrades to stay up to date. We have two or three people involved in that process, including patching application, compiling the product, and updating the application and the operating system, when needed to stay current and to be compatible with the next new features.

We have deployed it in various locations and we have also deployed it in IBM Power Systems as well as in some databases. We have an application server installed there and some IBM applications.

We use resources from Red Hat support. That's usually enough for us.

The pricing of RHEL is very similar to other offers. We like the model that Red Hat makes available for subscription and support. There are some free parts, subscriptions that facilitate solution development and implementation, and then, when the solution is well-defined, we move into the paid support license. That kind of subscription is a good approach.

The overall cost of RHEL versus its competitors is comparable. It's more or less the same as SUSE. But the support from Red Hat is better than you get from the others.

Compare the documentation and the answers that are published by Red Hat. Review these aspects and that should help you decide.

I strongly recommend RHEL as it fits well in on-premises or cloud development, whether for a small or a large company, and it's a professional product. It's very integrated with container technology, including with Podman and Docker, although we recommend Podman for containers. RHEL fits well in a lot of situations and container environments. It's a good product.

We're using it to support security applications. We also use it for various infrastructure aspects, such as hosting Satellite or Ansible Automation or Confluence. We have a mix of different apps running on it.

Our improvement as an organization, from using RHEL, has been the ability to take the stance of an infrastructure-as-code approach. We've seen that with automation of server deployment, getting them spun up a lot faster. Traditionally, the environment was using Satellite and Kickstart. Regardless of whether we were bare metal or virtual, it could take a couple of hours to Kickstart a server. Moving to infrastructure-as-code and deploying a server takes about 10 minutes until it's ready to use. It's a lot faster.

In addition to Satellite, we're using Ansible Tower. Those are the only ones we're paying for. We use other products, like Red Hat IDM for identity management but that's part of RHEL. When it comes to the integration between these products and RHEL, we're able to use Satellite for our dynamic inventory, with Ansible to help deploy new servers or manage servers, and we use Ansible Tower to patch our servers. Everything works pretty well.

That integration has helped to improve things compared to how they were when I got here. For example, we have a more automated process for patching. As we develop it and work through issues, we hope it will be more of a pipeline and a lot easier and faster, compared to how it was done before. Similarly for building servers, now that we're able to use Satellite as our dynamic inventory, we're able to run Ansible, whether it's predefined playbooks or ad hoc, without having to do something manually or maintain an inventory file.

We also use the AppStream feature in some cases. We have a couple of applications that require different versions, and we're able to install it and it makes the requirements for those specific applications.

The most valuable features are

• stability
• supportability.

Those have been the two common and important features over the years. They're pretty equal. You want to have something that's up and running and stable, something that's not going to crash. But if we do have an issue, we can get somebody for technical support who can help us work through the problems.

As for the consistency of application and user experience, we spin it up and almost forget about it. It just does what it's supposed to do, regardless of the underlying infrastructure. It's all good and there are no issues as far as supporting applications or things crashing go. Because it's doing what it's supposed to do, it's not a source of concern.

And similarly, there are no issues when it comes to deploying current applications and emerging workloads across bare metal, virtualized, hybrid cloud, and multi-cloud environments. We just have to take note of whatever the requirements are for the application we're deploying, to make sure requirements are met, and then build a server based on those requirements.

In this environment, I'm not doing any cloud work, but in my last environment we did do a bunch of public and private cloud and we had no issues there. It worked fine and as expected in AWS and OpenStack. We were doing infrastructure-as-code in that environment as well. We would create an image-base, whether for AWS or OpenStack, and then we would automate the deployment again, using Terraform and Ansible for configuration. It made deployment of cloud-based workloads relatively quick.

My biggest issue right now is Red Hat Consulting and trying to use some of their services to help get us going. Technically, they're good, but we seem to have issues with scheduling.

Also, we initially deployed it with Red Hat Satellite. We're now moving more to automation using Terraform within VMware, to automate the clone and then follow up with Ansible to configure. Red Hat's standard deployment is with Satellite and Kickstart, but we're looking at other options to help speed it along. We do have a mix of bare metal and virtualized servers and it's easier to spin up in the virtualized world versus bare metal. That's why we're looking at some options outside of Red Hat, for the bare metal. We'd like something that we can use to build a server a lot faster, as well as address network latency issues.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) since version 4 or even before that, since 2000 or 2001, before it was RHEL.

In the environment I'm in right now, we've never had any issues. It's very stable. 

In another environment that I worked in, we had some Oracle Databases, but that wasn't really an issue with the operating system. It was more an issue with some configuration items between the database and the OS. And that was about four years ago.

In the last company I worked for we were deploying a PasS environment, where we were doing some stuff with containers, and RHEL worked well. In my current environment, it's more of an application base but, again, it seems to scale. Both have worked fine.

Red Hat's tech support has been pretty good. I'll open up a ticket to see if I can get information from Red Hat when I don't have the time to find it on my own. But 99 percent of the time we get great support and we're able to get the answers that we need.

Positive

The pricing is fair. We do a bunch of dev work and there is some free dev licensing out there that's great for doing proof of concept work. When that was brought out a couple of years ago we heard about it, but it didn't seem to have been communicated to our Red Hat representative. We would ask him about it and it seemed that they were confused. 

But the cost has been pretty stable over the years for what you get.

We figure out what we need for servers, make our purchase, and then manage it all in Satellite. We just make sure we're using what we pay for.

In the past, I've used other versions of Unix, such as Solaris and HP-UX, as far as paid versions go. In other environments we also used community versions, like CentOS and Oracle Linux. 

Oracle Linux would probably be the closest thing to a paid solution, although I think it's free. But using Oracle Linux wasn't a good experience. Dealing with Oracle support was not the best. Maybe it has improved, but it just wasn't the same as Red Hat support.

Times have changed from when I first started using it. Back then it was just a matter of putting a CD in and installing it. One of the companies I worked for did a lot of homegrown stuff and I used their tools that were like Kickstart. Now it is all automation with infrastructure-as-code. The complexity of deployment is about the same. Some of what we're doing to deploy stuff is outside of Red Hat and it's a matter of finding what tools are available.

We're in the process of deploying something right now where we have different versions of Python. That's the only use case we have with multiple versions on the same server. I don't expect any issues, but it's still early in that deployment.

We have three people dedicated to maintaining the infrastructure environment that we work in. That includes managing Linux servers, the applications that go with them, and dealing with day-to-day tasks like patching. It's the typical life cycle maintenance functions: break/fix, dealing with hardware issues, deploying new applications, and maintaining a VMware environment.

The reason we're using it is because it's stable and we know we can get support. I know there are other versions of Linux, ones that I've used, but I've never experienced the kind of support with those versions that Red Hat has provided. Red Hat is a stable Linux solution provider.

Our primary use case is that we use it for transaction servers.

We have it on-premises, mostly virtualized.

RHEL helps speed up our deployments. We don't use things like Kickstart and Satellite for deployments, because we usually just clone systems. But the ability to script customizations during deployments is particularly useful for us. It enables us to tailor each machine the way it needs to be.

We use RHEL to run multiple versions of the same application or database on a specific operating system and its features for managing them, things like Satellite and Insights, make management of multiple versions of an application server much simpler.

We use Red Hat Insights to monitor the systems and it is a godsend. It's like having an extra person on staff. Insights is a constantly updated database of CVEs and configuration best practices. It checks everything in the environment to make sure that it is patched, up-to-date, configured properly, and using industry best practices. When you look at the Insights control panel, you know either that everything is good or, if you have an issue, you know exactly where to look and how to fix it. Nine times out of ten, it even gives you an automation script to fix it automatically.

Other than Satellite, we also use Red Hat Ansible, but not Ansible Tower. They integrate very well with RHEL. They're tooled for integrating with it and they do that well. That integrated approach makes my life much easier. The primary function we use Satellite for is patching. Having something that's built to manage application environments and make sure that everything is patched correctly to use Ansible, plugs into everything else, including Satellite. You can use it to manage RHEL, Satellite, and other things, such as Windows and networking equipment. The tightest integration is with Red Hat.

RHEL enables us to deploy applications and emerging workloads across bare-metal and virtualized environments and I find those workloads to be extremely reliable. The reliability is so good that I rarely find myself calling Red Hat support any longer. Support is the first benefit of using RHEL, but the second thing is that the platform is so stable that the need to use support is negligible.

There is potential for improvement when it comes to ease of use. It has become easier to use over the years but could be better still. Linux, in general, has never been a simple solution. It's usually a more complex solution than something like Windows. If there is a downside, it's that it is more complex than some of the other solutions.

I've been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for about 10 years.

One of its most valuable features is its stability and reliability.

We have applications that we've scaled quite significantly, with over a dozen servers running the same application, load-balanced, and RHEL scales quite well.

We have an installation of about 200 servers and about another 800 servers in our SaaS environment. We're looking to grow the environment where it makes sense. I like to take the approach of considering the appropriate tool for the job. We are primarily a Windows shop, but often the right tool for the job is Red Hat. That's where we would grow our environment, where it's appropriate and the right tool for the job.

Our engagements with RHEL support are usually good. It's been a while since I've had to contact them, but they're good even when it's a significant issue that takes time. They don't even have any problems moving issues around through time zones and having support work on them around the world.

Positive

The initial setup of RHEL is very straightforward. It's all menu-driven and most of the time there are only a few answers that need to be given during the setup procedure to get a system up and fully running in a few minutes.

We can get a system up and running in about 15 or 20 minutes if we need to. We can do a custom build and use the full build process, or sometimes we do virtual cloning and then just run scripts to individualize the machines.

RHEL's single subscription and install repository for all types of systems may be a bit of a stumbling point. It seems that the descriptions of the subscriptions change every year or two and it gets a little complicated. And the naming conventions they use in the subscriptions can be a little complicated.

As for maintenance and administration of RHEL, there are just two people in our organization who handle that, me and another engineer.

The prices are comparable, and good for what is being provided.

RHEL is certainly more difficult to use than Windows, but it requires fewer hardware resources than Windows and, in my experience, it has also been more robust.

The fact that RHEL is an open-source solution isn't a concern, directly. Where it might be a factor would be when we're looking at using a tool for a particular need and we're looking for the best platform for it. That's the biggest factor.

Make sure that you have well-trained engineers who are familiar with RHEL. If you are looking for a solution that runs in a mission-critical environment, you always want a supported solution. If you're looking for Linux, I don't think that there's a better-supported solution than RHEL.

In our particular scenario, our underlying infrastructure is either VMware virtualized or bare metal, although the latter was mostly in the past. Rolling out to a virtualized solution or rolling out to bare metal with RHEL—with the exception of the bits that are unique to those platforms—the operating system installation and the like are going to be very similar.

Overall, RHEL is a very solid solution.

We have various use cases with about 12,000 instances across four data centers and three different clouds. In general, it's for the adoption of and standardization with other vendors, so that other vendors' software is known to work. We're doing lift-and-shift of existing hardware infrastructure that is onsite into the Cloud.

It enables us to deploy current applications and emerging workloads across bare-metal, virtualized, hybrid cloud, and multi-cloud environments. Typically, there haven't been a lot of issues in terms of the reliability of applications across these environments.

The AppStream feature provides access to up-to-date languages and tools in a way that interoperates with third-party source code. It makes it a lot easier to maintain that, as well as keeps our developers happy by having newer versions of development languages available.

In addition, as we roll into version 8 and, upcoming, 9, it makes the migrating of older applications into these environments easier.

We also use Red Hat JBoss Fuse and Red Hat Insights, the latter being a part of RHEL. Red Hat products integrate greatly with the OS itself. We're pretty pleased with that. The integrated approach simplifies our operations to a great extent.

The most valuable features are the

• flexibility of the OS itself
• reliability
• support model.
  

Also, the two versions we use are fairly standard. Most of our applications work with versions 6, 7, and 8 meaning migration and maintainability are pretty good.

In addition, we run multiple versions of the same application on a specific operating system, between different instances. RHEL is great at managing and maintaining those different versions. It's so much easier, and it does it without destroying the operating system itself.

I don't see anything that needs improvement with RHEL itself, but there is room for improvement of the support infrastructure for it. The management and updates to Satellite, which is the support update, have been cumbersome at best, including releases and changes to a release. Communication on how that will work going forward has not been great.

I've been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for about 20 years.

We chose Red Hat for the stability.

The scalability is really good too. In terms of increasing our usage, I can only foresee it becoming greater in the environment.

Sometimes the tech support is hit and miss, but most of the time they're really responsive and knowledgeable. If the first-line tech doesn't know something, they will escalate quickly.

If I were to compare the tech support from Dell, HP, and Red Hat, Red Hat is probably our best support structure.

Positive

I've been with my current company for 10 years. We've used other UNIX platforms, like Solaris and AIX, but those are for different use cases. The company I started at, which was bought, had seven different implementations and I standardized them on RHEL, before the acquisition.

We switched to RHEL because those seven different operating systems were supporting a single team and none of them had a great management infrastructure, or they were just plain open source with no support. And getting to a single, supported, managed environment was the goal.

Red Hat's open-source approach was a factor when we chose the solution. I'm a big fan of the entire open-source consortium. The more people there are who can look at the code, validate it, and make sure it works as it moves upstream into the solidified package that Red Hat supports, the better. It gives you more visibility, more transparency, and you can customize it more. Whereas with closed code, you have no idea what's going on in the background.

The initial setup of the solution is relatively simple. It's pretty much click, click, click, done. And the single subscription and install repository for all types of systems make the purchasing and installation processes easier.

Depending on the platform, deployment of a single RHEL instance could take anywhere from  five to 30 minutes. Bare metal is going to take longer than deploying the cloud.

The licensing is a subscription model and the only product whose model I don't like is Ansible. At $100 per server, with 12,000 servers, it adds up.

My biggest advice would be to read the documentation and reach out to Red Hat, or even just search the internet, so that you understand what you're getting into and what you're implementing.

I can't think of very much that needs to be improved with RHEL. The model that they have for maintaining patching, and their cadence on Zero-day attacks is fantastic, and their support is really good. I don't see any issues.