Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Reviews

My main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) include supporting engineering desktops, and when I was working in the healthcare industry, we also used it for picture archiving, such as when cardiologists would take chest x-rays. I have been supporting it in many different ways, including working on the program where we are doing Linux desktops for the developers who are writing code for some of the planes that we build.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps me solve pain points by always being consistently good, and the support is really there for us when we need it.

The features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that I value most include its ability to take innovations from upstream, bringing them down and making them stable.

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) features including Satellite and the Ansible Automation Platform to navigate our security risks and deploy patching. We also use OpenSCAP in Satellite for security. Satellite helps us do provisioning to maintain a consistent build across the enterprise.

In my company's implementation of the zero trust model, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) plays a role by ensuring consistency among the groups that we use to control security on the devices.

Things built into the operating system, such as rescue mode, give me the opportunity to fix issues before we spend about two weeks deploying a new machine, since it requires certification before going on the network. If we can save a machine using rescue mode, we save ourselves that two-week hassle. Additionally, if we get locked out of a system, we use a specific remote execution user that allows us to unlock the system or provide any necessary fixes, based on best practices found within the Red Hat community.

From the perspective of versions 8 and 9, one area I think Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) could improve is being careful about ABI, particularly backward compatibility. Some improvements between versions seem to leave people scrambling; for example, the updating of crypto policies has forced some to run in an insecure manner to continue using their authentication systems. While I understand this is not Red Hat's problem, it is something they could consider improving.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for probably about 18 years.

Regarding the stability and reliability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I have not experienced downtime, crashes, or performance issues, except I remember when they went from version 7.5 to 7.6, which broke the ABI; however, I think this issue stemmed more from Intel changing their chipset in the background than from Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) itself.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales well.

I would rate the customer service and technical support a nine or a ten because every time I have not been able to solve something, I usually call them, and we get to the root of the problem. They collaborate well with me, even when some problems are complex.

Prior to using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), we were actually using a plethora of different Linux distributions, and some of them lacked someone to hold accountable for support, leading to more challenges, longer downtimes, and related issues.

I describe the deployment process of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as straightforward.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)'s biggest return on investment, in my view, is when you get on the line with their tech support; when you submit an issue, the folks really know the product, so you get back up and running fast, which is worth its weight in gold.

In my experience with the pricing, setup cost, and licensing of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I have been moved away from the pricing in this organization; at my old organization, we switched to a three-year plan instead of one year, and it improved significantly because we saved some money.

We choose to use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) not only because we believe it is the right choice but also because the federal government expects, especially for the projects I am involved with, that we use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in accordance with customer agreements.

I would advise other companies considering Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) to invest in the open source community, especially if they are paying a lot of money to other operating system vendors such as Microsoft. I believe that more workloads are running on Linux, and unlike Windows, which often runs one application per server, Linux allows multiple applications to run on one server, so they could save money in the long run by investing with Red Hat.

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a strong eight or nine; while they are not perfect, they are better than most.

I primarily support servers in general, including a lot of virtual machines that support everything from telemetry to software development and business applications. I work in a small corporate IT environment, so I mainly focus on supporting the developers and the applications they create to keep the business running.

Our infrastructure is mostly on-premises, but we are starting to explore cloud solutions in Amazon Web Services (AWS) and are currently in the early stages of that transition.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) compared to other distributions helps me trust it more because of the security and the name behind it. Red Hat has maintained a good reputation for customer support and providing security patches, and it is a vendor we can point to when there is a vulnerability or issue, knowing they will take our needs seriously and support us.

I appreciate the philosophy behind Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in that it is slow-moving and stable. The newer features have been valuable, especially Podman for containers and the package manager, which is simple and just works.

I use Satellite a great deal. We use Satellite to have a comprehensive view of all systems and their vulnerability states, as well as using the OpenSCAP scanning that is built into Red Hat Satellite. This gives my security team insight into how well we are performing in terms of security.

I started using system roles back with Red Hat 7, and I have found them and the image builder to be really beneficial. We run Nutanix for our virtualization infrastructure, and it is valuable to be able to build a new template image from a trusted source and know that it is minimal and easy to manage.

Recently, we have started using the STIG security settings that are built into the Red Hat installer as a good starting point. I have found it is much easier to build a system that is secure from the ground up than to add security after the fact.

The OpenSCAP system profiler allows us to audit the state of those systems and ensure everything is locked down. Using Ansible to apply security controls across our systems gives us something we can point to and demonstrate that the systems are actually secure.

I am confident that installing an update will not break anything, and it will make our systems more reliable than other distributions.

It seems the engineers are on top of improvements. I am not sure how I would improve it at this point other than reducing service interruptions, however that could be accomplished.

I have been using this solution for approximately sixteen years.

The stability is the main benefit, and it is one less thing to worry about. Knowing that the supply chain as far as updates is trusted helps prevent our developers from adding random repositories and untrusted sources. Overall stability is the main thing that stands out.

Scalability has been better than ever, especially with image mode and the image generation tool that allows me to create a good template to scale easily and then use Ansible to configure everything. The scalability is definitely present, and all you need is the compute resources to allocate to it.

I would give Red Hat customer service a solid nine. I usually only reach out to customer service when I am facing a very complex problem and I am at my wit's end. Red Hat does a good job escalating to people who really know their materials. I do not feel stuck on the lower tier of customer service or with someone following a script. The person I speak with is experienced and knows the product, so it has been a good experience.

In my career, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has always been the solution used at the company since I arrived.

The installation experience is easier and more pleasant than installing Windows. I appreciate that when I install Windows on a device, I am bombarded with advertisements and calls to action to buy additional products, whereas Red Hat does not do any of that.

We do not have significant setup costs. We have a relatively small environment, and I believe we are covered pretty much by the Red Hat Satellite subscription, which also gives us enough entitlements to run all of our virtual machines. The pricing seems good from my perspective.

There has been talk of going with an open-source alternative, either a Red Hat fork or something like Debian or Ubuntu. However, the lack of a good support path is the main reason for not pursuing that.

We have looked at a couple of systems that we are using for artificial intelligence inference, but it is nothing I would call production. At this point, the cost of hardware is holding us back, and the company is probably going to end up using more cloud inference or Software-as-a-Service products for our artificial intelligence needs rather than investing in an on-premises solution, though that may change in the future.

The ability to ensure all systems have uniform updates and seeing the view of the status of CVEs or bugs on the system is invaluable. Using Satellite for this purpose provides a lot of value.

The knowledge base is excellent, and I appreciate the work they are doing with artificial intelligence, which makes it easier to navigate and surface relevant information. Red Hat's knowledge base has always been very valuable for solving any issues I encounter, and it is usually the first place I look.

I have heard people discussing artificial intelligence-driven upgrades, and that is certainly of interest to me. We have a lot of Red Hat 8 systems that will eventually need to be upgraded, so it is something I would be curious about pursuing.

I would rate this review as a ten out of ten.

Our main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) include having servers all around for storage and processing, specifically for compute processing.

The best feature of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that I appreciate is that it provides consistent configuration setups with step-by-step configuration, which is easier. When configuring a server, what previously took at least a 24-hour turnaround time now takes only 30 minutes to one hour.

I am satisfied with the management experience and normally choose Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) when there is an option between it and other solutions. I have been involved in RHEL upgrades or migrations from many years ago, approximately 14 to 18 years back. Currently, everything is easier as upgrades and patches come as a package.

Regarding built-in security features, maintaining compliance is handled at the architect's level during configuration setups. While the service provider handles access level security, configuration compliances need to be managed by the architect.

The upgrade and migration process in AWS is straightforward - I can easily increase the number of processors through hot migration, which can be done while the system is running without requiring shutdown. RHEL has helped mitigate downtime and lower risk with negligible system interruptions.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) could be improved with more shared storage capabilities. For example, I have multiple RHEL instances, and enhanced storage sharing would be helpful for transferring data between servers.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for almost 12 years.

I assess the stability and reliability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as very stable, with negligible downtime, crashes, or performance issues.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales efficiently with the growing needs of my organization as it is one of the managed shared services. When we check the scalability option while configuring, it manages everything automatically without requiring separate actions. I have expanded usage, and the process has been smooth with zero downtime.

I haven't had the opportunity to evaluate customer service and technical support because we address any issues through AWS since it's a managed service.

Positive

Prior to adopting Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I was not using another solution to address similar needs.

I manage Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems for provisioning and patching through AWS, which handles the patching at the service provider level. Provisioning is easy because I can modify configurations, such as the number of processors and other parameters.

The deployment model for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is cloud. Security requirements were a consideration in choosing RHEL in the cloud, as AWS provides most of the security features.

I have seen a return on investment with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as the prices have been reduced since we implemented a shared environment.

I cannot speak to licensing because we are using managed services from AWS. Regarding pricing, setup cost, and licensing, all costs come from AWS on a pay-as-you-go basis. We get charged when the service is up; otherwise, there is no cost.

Before selecting Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I considered something similar to VMware. These were the two options I chose between.

My advice to other organizations considering Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is that it's easy to use and a reliable service. It has been consistently at the top in this industry for ages and has its own strengths. I would recommend it as a first choice.

On a scale of one to ten, I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as eight or nine out of ten.

My main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) cover all the tiers from web application to the database.

The feature of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that I prefer most is Insights. I have been using Insights, and it can give me the health of the system, CPU, memory, and everything, allowing me to see everything including security patches, vulnerabilities, and missing patches. 

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps me solve pain points because it is a stable platform, so I don't have to fix many issues because we're using Ansible to automate everything. Since we have a very stable environment and Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is very stable, we don't have much pain. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) benefits my company significantly because by using it, we are using a stable platform, and all our environments are working as expected.

It has excellent features in terms of security. Everything is there. I just need to deploy it, and we have the SELinux, OpenSCAP, and many tools that I can use to configure the system to make it more secure. For upgrade or migration plans to stay current, we're using the automated LEAP process for migrating from a lower version to the latest version.

I see that there's a lot of improvement needed, but I can see that Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 10 has some of the features that I'm looking for.

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

I have peace of mind, so everything with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is reliable and stable.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped me to mitigate downtime and lower risks because we have everything in place to mitigate any issues since we have a failover on the other side.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales effectively; all the needs of our company are being met by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

I have experience with customer service and technical support. The experience with customer service has been pleasant, but some of the features that I am looking for are not met, so they're still working on it. I would rate the customer service an eight out of ten.

The knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has improved now because of AI. Previously, when I searched for something, it didn't give me everything, but now I am more satisfied.

Positive

My experience with deploying Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is smooth. We are using an automated process; we're using VMware VRA and Ansible to customize the environment. Everything is smooth in building Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) because we have the process from end-to-end, it's very well-defined, so we don't have any problem deploying Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

We have a hybrid environment with on-premise or cloud deployment. We use all cloud providers. 

When it comes to managing my Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems for provisioning and patching, we're using automation with Ansible Automation Platform, AAP, and everything is going smoothly, and I am satisfied with that experience.

I am looking to make the deployment much easier because there's the Image Builder that I prefer, and in building using the Image Builder, all the packages or repositories that I need are inside that feature. 

The biggest return on investment for me when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is peace of mind; I don't have to worry about the operating system because it's running smoothly as expected.

Security requirements were a consideration when choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) because since we're in the government, I'm the one that set up the compliance requirements, and I deployed using the OpenSCAP, but I cannot tell the profiles as it's confidential.

While using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I have not considered other solutions; we are working on moving to OpenShift, which is still Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as a nine out of ten; I don't give a ten because it's a perfect score. 

My advice to other companies that are considering Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is that it is the best operating system currently, so they can use it in deploying their system, wherever they want to deploy the applications.

My main use case for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is hosting enterprise applications that are critical to our operations.

A specific example of one of those enterprise applications I host on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is our human resources application or our learning management service because we're a university with many students who work with these applications. We also host proxy applications for both forward and reverse proxy, load balancers, and many other infrastructure components.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) effectively supports all of these applications, and we really appreciate it.

The best features Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) offers that stand out to me are the security and the consistency of the product. I know that I can trust it and that it will take care of my systems in a very secure way.

Regarding security features I rely on, the built-in capabilities of firewalld and SELinux come to mind. I also know that Red Hat's team is always working to proactively prevent things that might cause issues. Red Hat Insights is a great tool that tells me about issues that might come up and provides instruction on how to fix them, and that has been very helpful.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has positively impacted my organization by providing a stable operating system that has been very resilient and useful. I have nothing negative to say about my experience with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). The stability and resilience have affected my team's day-to-day work and my students' experience by allowing me not to worry about how my operating system is designed, giving me time to focus on building value in other areas.

Nothing really comes to mind for how Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) can be improved. Red Hat's team is already working on many great things that I was not even aware of until recently, and they continuously stay ahead of anything I can think of.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for 11 plus years.

We host Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in an on-premises environment with OpenShift virtualization.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)'s scalability is good; it can handle small and large VMs, so I would say it is pretty scalable. In general, an operating system is not really focused on that aspect.

Customer support for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has been great. Every time we open a ticket, we receive pretty fast responses, and anytime I have had a problem, escalation has worked very well. Our account team has done a good job of taking care of us.

In my previous job, I had used CentOS because the company was not willing to pay for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). In my current job, they were already using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) when I moved in, but nothing has changed our mind since that time.

I have not used Image Builder because I do not use image mode for Linux. I have used System Roles extensively and have incorporated a number of them into our automation tools to provision and update systems.

We manage our Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems by automating many of those features with Ansible, which has been a great add-on tool. That has been very satisfying; in fact, our patching is done daily automatically, and I do not have to think about it anymore.

I do not know specific details on a return on investment, but I know that our whole organization feels that it is a positive for us.

As an engineer, I do not deal with pricing very much, but I find that licensing is pretty easy and works well.

We evaluated Ubuntu in particular before choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). It works, but it does not have many of the add-on features that Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) does. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is definitely very stable, which is something I have mentioned multiple times.

The first thing I would say to others looking into using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is do not turn off SELinux. Make sure you use it; it is very valuable.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps me keep track and stay on top of keeping my environment secure and reliable, allowing me to focus on doing other things.

I have used Leapp and Red Hat Insights frequently, and they have both been really good. Leapp has been great for upgrading systems in place, and it is a pretty simple transition. Insights has been really useful for doing vulnerability assessments and remediation, and that has made that part of my job very simple.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)'s knowledge base is one of my other favorite things about Red Hat. The knowledge base is extensive and very useful, and Red Hat is always updating it with new things they learn. It has been great.

I give this review a rating of 10 out of 10.

I use RHEL on-premise for the most part; we have some of the server infrastructure that I work on now in ROSA, OpenShift.

I am starting to work my AI workloads with RHEL.

The most valuable feature of RHEL that I have found is the dependency resolving; it is nice not having to worry about the programs interacting with each other for the most part, except for when it has the locking problem, but they improved significantly with that.

The feature in RHEL that I use to navigate my security risks is SELinux, which is the big security mechanism we use to make sure that the contexts are right between the different parts. I am mostly removed from that, and then I use yum for the most part or sometimes I end up using Ansible to do the patching.

Red Hat Satellite helps me manage and maintain my cloud environment by locking the packages to known good states, so that we have infrastructure that we know runs.

The features that I think will help my AI workloads in RHEL include using natural language to determine what to get the system to do to get up to date. I just did a lab the other day, and it was impressive.

RHEL plays a role in my company's implementation of the zero-trust model mostly in the systems themselves; the other aspects are usually pushed out into other departments and groups.

My company's process for managing regulatory compliance has shifted most of that responsibility over to the security teams, and RHEL plays a role in our compliance and auditing workflows.

RHEL has helped to mitigate downtime and lower risk; it is nice coming from Linux from Scratch implementations and having the software and package infrastructure we discussed before, allowing the ability to update and do the dependency resolution so they do not conflict with each other.

I would improve RHEL as a platform by noting that you have significant advantages over the competition that I see; I think being more proactive with emerging issues is important, especially with all the new vulnerabilities that we have been dealing with the past couple of months.

I think they should ensure more security, but if I step back and look, you cannot do anything before you know about it, and there has been a lot of difficulty with all the regulatory requirements that go into that.

My experience with major version upgrades using RHEL and Ansible Automation Platform is that it works well, although sometimes there is a need to get the right software set up in Satellite in the backend at the versions when it is changing for the Red Hat-specific upgrade paths.

From time to time, I experience some downtime, but it is not usually the OS; it is usually the user or the underlying hardware.

I switched to RHEL because we merged with a different part of the university and RHEL came with it.

I looked into Ubuntu, and the reason I always picked RHEL is that the software is supported on RHEL, which is the determining factor.

I have used Red Hat Satellite or Lightspeed.

Overall, I think Ansible Automation Platform is good; it became too expensive at the scale we are at for how we are utilizing it, but it is an awesome product.

I assess the knowledge base of RHEL as pretty good, and I use it when I need it, although I tend to encounter those unusual edge cases a lot.

My overall review rating for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is eight.

My use case for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is for dockerization; I use it for Docker or Postman. We use it for microservices, for example, to install JBoss and deploy some applications and pipelines for processes such as CI/CD. A summary of what I do includes microservices for applications such as Tomcat or JBoss, or for microservices in Postman, and installing Jenkins and launching pipelines.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped reduce downtime and lower risks for me. There are rarely crashes or errors.

Image Builder or system roles feature is beneficial because it is a feature that allows you to create small images for what you need. With these images, you can go to a registry or whatever with VMware or KVM, and you can deploy them very quickly and efficiently. I tested it because it's better than having to install another machine all over again and losing much time. With Image Builder, you can create a small image tailored to your necessities. It is a good solution; you have to embrace automation, and the Image Builder helps you automate the creation of servers and images.

I appreciate all the Red Hat products available and the support provided when encountering any issues or needing help. You can open a case, and they answer very quickly. 

The other reason is it is a very strong OS for your needs. For example, I work in a banking system and in a financial system, and all kinds of products that you have—the problems may come from development, not from the server or machine.

In the knowledge base of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I can find everything I need. I don't have to go elsewhere. There are some videos with practical advice, all in one place, and all for free. I'm very happy with this kind of resource and knowledge base.

I find Red Hat Insights very helpful and beneficial. In all IT departments worldwide, I find it important because when I call my colleagues or other companies, this is a very significant feature. Insights gives many opportunities, particularly regarding security, and provides more facilities to improve security in your servers. In my opinion, the most important security feature in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is Red Hat Insights. When you use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), you can install an agent in your Linux, and this agent runs on your Linux and gives you all the CVEs or security issues you have. For me, as an administrator, this is very helpful because with minimal clicks, I have the solutions and instructions on how to solve them. You only need to connect to Red Hat, and they provide a deployment, scan your machine, or all machines with Ansible, and give you a summary of your vulnerabilities, and you apply the solutions they provide.

The areas that have room for improvement in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) include having more case bases and possibly more forums or places. A community that is not just informal but rather official could be beneficial. Everything else is good.

I would suggest improving compatibility. Sometimes I find that Red Hat is not aligned with the rest of the world. They create their own solutions, such as Docker, Podman, Kubernetes, and OpenShift, which can be better than what others offer. This can be both good and bad, depending on the situation. On the positive side, their innovations can enhance the overall quality of the company’s offerings. On the downside, when you need certain images or components that deviate from industry standards, it can become confusing. I find it difficult to understand why they choose to differentiate themselves from the rest. 

I have been in IT for 24 years, working with Linux and Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for about 10 years.

I would rate the stability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as a nine out of ten.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is scalable for my business. It is very important, and I cannot imagine working without it.

I would rate the technical support of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as an eight out of ten.

Positive

I have worked with Ubuntu and SUSE, but I prefer Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) because the support is better than others. All solutions, how the machine or OS works, and all the other products, for example, OpenShift, I appreciate. I feel very comfortable with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) because it is a solution based on CentOS and Fedora, and since my early career, I studied and learned in this distribution.

The deployment of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is very easy.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has saved me about 40% to 50% time.

I would recommend Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) to other users; it depends on the company size. For medium and bigger companies, it is necessary because all the components needed, such as support and stability, are available. I cannot help much with the pricing because I do not work with licenses; this comes from another department. I discuss with my boss about how many machines or servers we need, and they coordinate with the commercials. I do not have information about whether it is cheaper or expensive, but I hear that they are very comfortable depending on how you deal with them. 

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

My main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) include workflow development. We are running the workflow in that.

The features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that I appreciate the most include OpenShift. These features have benefited my organization through working on on-premise cloud migration. 

Some of the high sensitive data cannot go to the public cloud, so we are trying to use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for the internal migration. We got rid of the VM maintenance and related tasks.

Security requirements were a key consideration in choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in the cloud. We are from the financial industry, so customer data is one of our big responsibilities. When it comes to managing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems for provisioning and patching, we currently work with our middleware team for upgrades, however, the plan is to work with AWS or the Red Hat team for future upgrades.

My assessment of the built-in security features is limited as I'm from the development side. Our upgrade and migration plans to stay current involve recommendations from our vendors.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped to mitigate downtime and lower risk. Our restart used to take considerable time initially, but through optimization, it now takes significantly less time. I would assess the knowledge base as good. We received dedicated training this summer from Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), with trainers coming to our office for two days, which was very beneficial.

The pain points that Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps me solve include the transition from a Microsoft background, where I had a habit of everything with a GUI. I see very few GUI elements in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and many command lines. I'm not proficient in that, which makes me struggle sometimes. Overall, we have the tools, however, there should be drag-and-drop, window-type functionality.

I've used the solution for 11 years. 

I would assess the stability and reliability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as very good. As a developer, I have never seen any downtime, so it is working perfectly fine from the middleware side.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales efficiently with the growing needs of my organization. They consistently release new versions. The scalability has been going well. 

We have expanded usage, and the process was smooth. In the beginning, we had very few applications, and now I can see many applications running on that side. It is definitely expanding.

I would evaluate customer service and technical support as very proactive.

Positive

Prior to adopting Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I was using Microsoft Windows Server. Now our focus is more on this area. The factors that made us want to change include transitioning from Microsoft technology, moving to Pega and Java side. This technology is much more supported on this platform.

The initial deployment was very good. 

I have been involved in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) upgrades or migrations, and due to our many internal dependencies, it takes time, however, we successfully completed it.

I have seen a return on investment with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) because we have many critical applications running without any issues. There is significant ROI on that.

The other solutions I considered before choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) include using three or four vendors as a business continuity plan. We have Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), AWS, Windows and others. We cannot rely on one vendor; we have to work with multiple vendors to maintain business continuity.

The advice I would give to other organizations considering Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is that it's a really good tool to use if they have applications in Java, Pega, or IBM workflow or Lombardi. 

On a scale of one to ten, I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a nine out of ten.

My main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in this company include running some mission-critical databases, which include Oracle, and one of our document imaging applications.

The best feature of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the easy virtualization on any of the VMware platforms, and now we are also trying on OpenShift, which is very helpful. These features benefit my company by reducing the downtime, which is the main help.

I describe my experience with deploying Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as a bit challenging because it is very advanced on the AIX side or HP-UX side in terms of creating the image and directly building a new server or recovering a server; that is still a challenge on the Red Hat side with that rear image, but now they are improving upon that, and I'm hoping Red Hat 10 will have better options. 

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) can be improved to keep pace with the dynamic world of IT, especially as artificial intelligence and other technologies evolve.

So far, we are very satisfied with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)'s built-in security features when it comes to simplifying risk reduction and maintaining compliance. However, we are exploring further, as there are always challenges, especially when it comes to well-known bugs that need addressing before deployment. I’m expecting more automation in this area. Ideally, it should be handled automatically, allowing us to say, "You don't need to do anything; I’ll take care of that."

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for probably fifteen plus years.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped mitigate downtime and lower risks because we used a lot of freeware Linux systems before, which posed challenges when bugs came up, leading to struggles when solutions weren't available. With Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and support from Red Hat, if issues arise, we can get quick support and resolution, making it very helpful.

So far, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales with the growing needs of my company, but we need to see how this next big change towards artificial intelligence will unfold.

The knowledge base on their website and other resources is quite helpful. However, I have faced several challenges with support, not only with Red Hat but also with other vendors. Typically, when we open a support case with Red Hat, it is assigned to the first level of support. Even when we clearly outline the issue and request a timely response, the case often takes longer than expected to resolve. Sometimes, the support team asks unnecessary questions that are not relevant to the issue at hand.

I believe this is not just a problem with Red Hat; many vendors exhibit similar behaviors. There are knowledgeable individuals on the support team who could assist effectively, yet the initial support level often asks basic questions that do not pertain to the problem we're experiencing. It would be beneficial to streamline the process to ensure that appropriately skilled personnel are assigned to cases more quickly.

My experience with customer service and technical support has been mixed; sometimes it has been excellent when we get the right person at the right time, but otherwise, it is always a challenge, even though we pay for the highest support and have a special Account Executive or Account Manager assigned to us.

Neutral

We mostly used free Linux, but our critical systems were on Red Hat ever since we started migrating from HP-UX, which is not Intel-based, but rather RISC-based systems, even AIX.

I expect to see a return on investment once we start migrating from VMs on VMware to Red Hat or OpenShift.

I have not considered switching to another solution that does the same, but there is always pressure from the company to reduce costs. They question why we don't just use free Linux, Ubuntu or other flavors, which we are using, but not for our critical applications. The main difference is support.

Security requirements are always a consideration before choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) because we are living in a different world. I always have upgrade or migration plans to stay current and we are very aggressive about it, except when the application vendor says it's not supported on the new version yet, which is the only bottleneck.

For the management of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems, a lot of processes are currently manual, although we are using some features and trying to do a lot of automation with Ansible, which we just started implementing, to complete the automation process.

We are always very aggressive with upgrades, except when an application states that it does not support the new version. That's the only drawback we face.

For someone considering Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for their company, I advise conducting some kind of PoCs to understand how it works, and I would then recommend going ahead as it represents the future.

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

Our use cases for Red Hat OpenShift revolve around telco environments, where we deploy telco applications using container microservices architectures. We have around 32 to 35 OpenShift clusters, with multiple worker and master nodes running on them, totaling more than 500 nodes across pre-production, test, and various production environments. We onboard different applications onto these OpenShift clusters, which primarily operate in private data centers on bare metal rather than in VMs, since the motive of this client project is to align the telco environment with a cloud-native approach.

It enables customers to deploy any type of application. A lot of enterprises are moving to the Linux environment from the Windows environment.

When it comes to development, it saves time because, unlike Windows, you don't require a lot of different things and licenses.

I appreciate the features of OpenShift, particularly its built-in capabilities such as operators and integration with multiple identity providers. Operators eliminate the need for creating helm charts, and considering Kubernetes, which Red Hat OpenShift is built on, the enhancements make OpenShift a preferred choice for many enterprise customers.

The documentation and knowledge base for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are quite good, allowing for effective searches, though I would prefer something more interactive.

I have tried the Insight features in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), which provide a good overview of clusters, but most customers at the OpenShift level do not opt for the Insights feature for two reasons. Firstly, Insights is specific to individual clusters and does not offer a single pane of glass for multi-cluster environments. Having a centralized Insights feature for multiple clusters would be more appealing, especially for customers managing a fleet of 50 or more clusters.

There is one feature that could significantly enhance our time to market: enabling AI capabilities. For instance, if you have a fleet of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) servers, potentially thousands running, they can incorporate a built-in agent that monitors key metrics. This agent would allow us to easily query and track the CPU and memory status of all clusters. Instead of generating traditional reports through Insights, we could leverage AI to curate this information directly. If such features could be included in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), it would be a game-changer. There would be no need for external AI solutions; just an integrated AI agent would suffice. This enhancement could help minimize operational costs. From a customer perspective, while capital expenditures (CapEx) are already being handled through Red Hat solutions, we need to focus on reducing operational expenditures (OpEx), especially related to reporting. Even when Insights are generated, someone still needs to analyze them. By incorporating this advanced capability into Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), they can streamline processes and deliver valuable insights more efficiently.

We are using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for our customers. We have been using it at the infrastructure level for more than 10 years. However, we have been using Red Hat OpenShift only for the last two to three years as our container platform.

It helps reduce downtime. Overall, it's stable, but it also depends on the type of workload you are running. 

It is scalable. For example, creating logical volumes and extending disks is straightforward. This process is quite easy.

Red Hat's support is generally good, but sometimes they take a long time, which can be frustrating for customers, particularly when dealing with products still in development, such as new versions of Red Hat OpenShift. When bugs arise that lack solutions, both customers and Red Hat are searching for answers, leading to delays until new releases are issued.

Positive

I have used Ubuntu and CentOS. I find Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) better than Ubuntu and CentOS.

Its deployment is easy. The number of people required and duration depend on how many servers you're deploying.

We utilize a hybrid environment with some of our customers operating in the public cloud, allowing us to manage both on-premises and cloud infrastructures.

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