Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Reviews

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.

I use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in my company as a hosting platform for database servers, application servers, and for building high-performance servers with Red Hat clustering and high availability server creation.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps me save time in terms of design, deployment, and troubleshooting by reducing turnaround time. I can deliver in less than 24 hours, typically within two to three working days for complete installation, configuration, management, and support, which varies over different life cycles.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps solve pain points by providing enterprise customers with a high availability and secure operating system environment. Its reliable support means I can run various applications such as Oracle databases or SAP without needing to seek alternative solutions, which saves time and ensures quick deployment.

I chose Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for its security requirements because it is built on top of the CentOS kernel, and with Red Hat Satellite, I can identify any vulnerability and perform quick patching. Red Hat support is also strong in terms of escalation and covering any security aspect with OpenSCAP or security policies.

I value Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) because with Red Hat 10 coming up, many different features are available, including hosting containers and running Red Hat OpenStack on the Red Hat side, which are generally used on RHEL as the compute OS for hosting virtual machines.

For the provisioning part of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), it depends on the scale I am implementing. If I am provisioning multiple scales, such as thousands of servers, then there is a different provisioning method, and sometimes I do standalone installation based on the scenario. The provisioning part also comes with strong features, such as Red Hat's minimized ISO, which helps me quickly build servers.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) makes it easier for me to manage my hybrid cloud environment with Red Hat OpenShift, allowing me to use a single RHEL in my cloud environment and on-premises. It provides great flexibility with the same licensing and allows me to customize the image based on my requirements, especially when running on AWS.

I find that virtualization, particularly with Red Hat OpenShift virtualization, provides the same kind of experience as VMware, and it is a strong feature that came after decommissioning Red Hat Virtualization.

I have worked with the Image Builder feature, which allows customization in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

The Image Builder feature is helpful for system roles as it allows for customization based on the deployment environment, such as adhering to security frameworks like HIPAA, and it helps minimize the footprint of the OS binaries for RHEL VMs.

I do not see any significant disadvantages with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), but for improvement, I think they could offer a cost optimization calculator and license portability, especially for perpetual licenses when upgrading to newer versions.

Red Hat's ecosystem aligns well with the current market standards and they continually add new features and provide support for various vendors, so I cannot recall any specific requests for add-ons at this time.

I started working with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) more than 12 years ago.

I see no limitations on scalability with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

I rate support from Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as nine out of ten.

I find the knowledge base Red Hat offers to be very strong, providing comprehensive, point-to-point mapping for issues, and it is easy to search for specific errors before raising support tickets through access.redhat.com.

I find the deployment part very straightforward and user-friendly with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

In terms of upgrades and migrations on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I find the process very straightforward with minimum downtime for upgrades and patching, as Red Hat provides all binaries and changelogs to inform me about feature upgrades or library changes, though migration depends on the architecture and tool used.

In terms of value for money with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I see a strong return on investment because Red Hat licenses based on socket basis rather than core basis, making it a simpler and more efficient cost model compared to other vendors.

I consider the pricing and licensing for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) to be moderate, not too high or low, but it does depend on how partners engage with Red Hat.

When I compare Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) to other Linux distributions such as Ubuntu or Oracle, I notice that Red Hat has a very strong ecosystem regarding environments and operators. While Ubuntu follows a different distribution stream, in terms of performance, scalability, and security features, Red Hat is truly a pioneer in Linux.

I work with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as both a customer and a partner, initially as a customer, then as a partner.

I have Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in a hybrid environment.

I work with all three cloud providers: AWS, Azure, and GCP.

I would give Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a perfect 10 out of 10.

I assess both the technical and commercial aspects and find them well-balanced, leading to my score of 10 out of 10.

My main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) include it being the operating system that runs all our servers that have applications running on them, and it is installed on our VMs as well.

I appreciate several features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), such as Red Hat Insights, which provides updates on vulnerabilities and CVEs. Red Hat subscription is easy to register for each operating system, the support is good, and Bootc is innovative with its new way to install the operating system with a container file.

To navigate our security risks, we use Red Hat Insights, as we have the complete Red Hat Insights portal where we register all our servers and operating systems installed on physical servers. It provides us with updates on security vulnerabilities found and automatic updates that help us maintain our servers.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps us solve pain points by running our operating system that supports our SaaS application.

For the next release of the operating system, I would prefer a comprehensive suite package that combines the operating system and support rather than having to purchase individual packages for KVM, Satellite, and others.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for 10 years.

I have not experienced downtime, crashes, or performance issues with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), thanks to the support available for debugging and crash logs, making it significantly better than Windows.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales exceptionally well with the growing needs of my company, and we use it on everything.

I would rate the customer service and technical support an eight, as they act promptly and provide good feedback, though I have found them quick to detach from application-related issues without comprehensive engagement.

Before adopting Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), we were using CentOS until its upstream support ceased.

We switched because CentOS transitioned into a stream with limited support, prompting a necessary move to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

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

I have seen major version upgrades in the class related to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and Ansible Automation Platform, and we regularly deploy Ansible playbooks through a GitLab pipeline using our own runners and Docker images for Ansible controllers. We regularly release upgrades, including going from RHEL 8 to 10 while we skipped 9, after having completed a significant upgrade from RHEL 7 to 8 a couple of years ago without using Ansible.

From my point of view, the biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is its status as the industrial standard, which makes it very reliable and dependable.

I am not involved in the actual pricing; however, I know it has influenced our decision on not pursuing Ansible Tower as we did not find the pricing justified for a significant change.

I have not evaluated switching to another Linux distribution. We have experimented with Ubuntu and Fedora, but we would not switch away from Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as it remains the enterprise solution.

I do not currently use Red Hat Satellite or LightSpeed, but I have used them in the past. Red Hat Satellite is similar to Splunk, enabling server management through the UI to automatically update, which we have not actually done because we have our own patch management cycle built in-house.

In our company's implementation of the Zero Trust model, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) plays a crucial role, as we register many things with it and depend on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) to function properly for us to manage our operations.

We used to use AWX and considered implementing Ansible Tower; however, we decided against it probably due to the paid subscription costs and opted for a different deployment method.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped mitigate downtime and lower risk by allowing us to patch sooner and faster, which we base on the vulnerabilities found.

I would assess the knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as good, as it provides substantial feedback when creating tickets and often allows for direct knowledge base access that avoids the need to open a ticket.

I rate this product an overall eight out of ten.

I am using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) on a document management system, services server lines, and to build these applications.

Regarding lifecycle practices in the cloud, I am using two applications on-premises and a few are on Docker containers.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) saves me around 60% on time. With regard to downtime, I can lower downtime by about two to three minutes.

Regarding pain points, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) does not help me solve any specific issues.

The biggest advantage of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is that it is easily available and easily manageable. The support cases are more readily used and the online local support is available.

With regard to the management part, when it comes to provisioning and patching, I can do patching and management on my own. I see that there is no difference between on-premises and cloud solutions; both are similar and it depends on conditions and the way the structure is organized. This is why I have no issues with on-premises or hybrid cloud deployments.

I find that integration with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is easy, as I am using it with Oracle.

Regarding disadvantages in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), the certification cost is a concern for me. The problem with the certification is that its price is high, and it needs to be minimal for countries like Pakistan.

About the knowledge base that Red Hat offers, I feel it needs to improve session offerings more. This is especially important for junior beginners.

I have around three to four years of experience using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

Regarding scalability, I am satisfied. The services are easily available and scalable as per the need.

My experience with Red Hat support is that it is very helpful. If I had to rate support from zero to ten points, I would give it a nine because everything is solved.

Regarding deployment strategy, I find it quite simple. Regarding the upgrades and migration process from on-premises to the cloud, I have to first create a setup on a test machine, then upgrade, and after that, go live.

Regarding return on investment, I see value for money with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) saves me almost 60%. The saving I speak of is on both time and money.

When choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), our security requirement was that I am using it on IBM Power servers, which offered a bundle price. That is why I opted for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). Regarding the price, I think the license is a little bit expensive nowadays, but I have opted for six years in a bundle offer. That is why I am using it at a cheaper price.

In comparing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) to other Linux distributions, I find Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) to be more stable than compared to others in terms of performance, storage, and security. Although other distributors are more secure, as part of my choice, I choose Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

When I have it on the cloud, I work with a local provider rather than a native Red Hat Cloud or cloud providers like AWS, Azure, or GCP. I have not tried Image Builder of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) at this time. I would give Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a rating of nine points.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is our primary production OS across multiple environments. On our client environment, we also use the same Red Hat OS to run our Fintech applications.

In our Fintech environment, we run our product with ATM solutions like Hitachi, which must operate 24/7 and be available 365 days a year. The software must support these operations, be hardened security-wise, and allow us to balance the workload as much as possible.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is easy to use as a distributed OS, allowing us to set it up in VMs, and it is highly supported with available support.

In managing regulatory compliance and upcoming mandates like post-quantum cryptography, our system metrics help us run services effectively.

Since using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), we have maintained our production environment at 99.9% availability, with highly available on-premises servers and cloud environments, resulting in 80% growth compared to other operating systems.

To measure the 99.9% availability and 80% growth compared to other operating systems, we configured observability for all our platforms, measuring and analyzing reports quarterly to assess metrics and understand what went wrong.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) offers several best features, including community support, commercial support, and automation support through pre-configured Ansible playbooks to automate complex tasks. The solution also provides AI-driven predictive analytics tools while ensuring enhanced Linux security and hybrid cloud options.

Out of these features, I rely on the image building option, security, automating in-built Ansible playbooks, and security hardening most in my day-to-day work.

Regarding Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)'s AI capabilities, its insights are very helpful. I am satisfied with the accuracy and reliability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)'s AI output, as it has met my expectations.

To navigate our security risks, we use identity management and SELinux policies, which are the major tools that help our organization.

For CVE management, we leverage features like Lightspeed. We have tried Red Hat Enterprise Linux Image Builder, which helps us assign particular permissions and environments to configure them each time.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) could improve in areas such as subscription costs, where we must pay for production support and updates. There are also some restrictions related to the license with slow updates.

The needed improvements focus on the stability that Red Hat is emphasizing, which makes the update process slower. We could potentially test updates on non-production or development environments and report issues back to Red Hat.

I chose a score of seven out of ten due to three main points: the lack of process flowability, the subscription cost, and the complexity of distributions, which can be challenging for newcomers to the industry.

We have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) since 2020 on our production environments.

I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a seven on a scale of one to ten.

In our organization, we deploy Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) primarily on-premises servers, followed by public cloud and hybrid cloud environments.

We use Azure and AWS as cloud providers for our public or hybrid cloud deployments.

I advise others looking into using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) to recognize that it is an industry-wide approved and recognized environment that they should try.

My main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) include virtualization, day-to-day computing, general use cases, desktop use cases, and server use cases, treating RHEL primarily as a server system.

RHEL helps us solve tremendous pain points because we are a cloud service provider, and we do a lot of virtualization and networking. As a cloud provider, we basically rely on virtualization, networking, storage, and a lot of other things, so RHEL is a core platform for us that enables us to combine all these components together and provide a comprehensive solution.

Since we are a cloud service provider, we rely on RHEL's virtualization feature and sell these virtual machines to customers, making a significant profit from it.

RHEL supports our hybrid cloud strategy as we offer private and public clouds to customers and can burst into other public clouds. RHEL as an operating system provides in-built support that helps us burst into hybrid and other cloud ecosystems with our expertise.

The features I appreciate most in RHEL include virtualization, networking, and storage, and there is not a single feature that stands out for me because I appreciate pretty much everything RHEL offers.

RHEL acts as an enabler for running AI workloads, offering in-built security, particularly with features such as Podman that help secure the environment. With RHEL AI, there are many integrations, including Instacloud, providing significant security benefits.

RHEL plays a core role in our implementation of the Zero Trust model, operating many OpenStack clouds and utilizing systems for regulated industries such as financial services and government sectors. The good ecosystem of RHEL supports authentication, authorization, and zero trust, enhanced by features from OpenShift as well.

RHEL should cover more hardware, particularly since we face challenges with some hardware components, such as Intel VROC as a RAID controller, which RHEL has compatibility issues with. I acknowledge that it is difficult for RHEL engineers to cover all hardware, but collaboration with manufacturers such as Intel or Lenovo might alleviate some drawbacks.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) since my university days, and it has been almost eight years.

I have not experienced any downtime or performance issues with RHEL; it is a very stable operating system.

We have been able to scale well with RHEL; we run a lot of distributed storage, and scaling up is just a matter of adding resources without limitations, as the platform supports scalability indefinitely.

The customer service and technical support from Red Hat are perfect; they know what to do when we reach out, even when it is on behalf of customers.

We have also worked with SUSE and Ubuntu Pro, but our customers often prefer RHEL for general-purpose server workloads, while they go to SUSE for SAP workloads, indicating that RHEL has a strong customer preference for its compatibility and support.

My experience deploying RHEL has been straightforward; the deployment methods are easy, utilizing PXE boot and cloud-init within our OpenStack environment, which makes maintenance and deployment very efficient.

From our perspective as a cloud service provider, the biggest return on investment with RHEL comes from the margins we make after selling licenses to customers. We operate clouds with RHEL as the core, and we see a good amount of margin through virtualization services provided to customers.

The pricing, setup cost, and licensing of RHEL work out for us as a cloud service provider, so we are satisfied with them.

We sell other products such as OpenShift that do similar work to RHEL.

When it comes to navigating security risks with RHEL, we rely on SELinux as the main security feature, and we are also looking at Lightspeed, which provides a nice command line assistant. We also utilize PQC for core cryptography in RHEL as well as its TLS functionality, and container sandboxing is another major feature we leverage.

I tried the Image Builder in RHEL, and my experience with it was quite good. The image mode is beneficial because it allows us to create many portable images, which I find really good for our needs. I use the Image Builder in the cloud for internal purposes as well as for our customers.

I have used Satellite. Satellite helps manage and maintain my hybrid cloud environment, although not to a very good extent because we operate a single environment that we consider an on-premises or private cloud. Some customers use it to manage a fleet of systems across various instances, but for me, it is more focused on on-premises.

We have tried out RHEL AI, using Instacloud and other tools as well as OpenShift, which is outside of RHEL. We are not using the Ansible Automation Platform for major version upgrades, but we do use Leapp upgrades because the Leapp tool is necessary for our upgrades, although it requires manual oversight to ensure there are no compatibility issues.

We use both open-source Ansible and the Ansible Automation Platform, and it has been good for managing our fleet of servers as we run virtualization. The Ansible Automation Platform is particularly useful for managing many CVE patchings.

I believe RHEL effectively mitigates downtime, and I do not see any significant problems regarding this issue. The knowledge base offered by RHEL is pretty good; the documentation is top-notch and very helpful, and the support portal, including the AI features, is also excellent.

We have been able to scale well with RHEL; we run a lot of distributed storage, and scaling up is just a matter of adding resources without limitations, as the platform supports scalability indefinitely. Overall, I would rate RHEL as a top-notch, superior product, and it is a very stable operating system.

I would recommend RHEL to other companies, emphasizing that stability is key, especially for running enterprise-grade workloads or server workloads because everything is tested and reliable, which minimizes the risk of breaking things during upgrades. I would rate this review as 9 out of 10.

My main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) include using it with VMs, particularly my company's SAP environment that runs with RHEL, and leveraging it into OpenShift.

To navigate our security risks, I use Satellite in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) to mitigate CVEs, so all our environments are managed by content views, and each month, I create another version. That is how I keep things updated for packages, and for security standards, I use Ansible, which is pretty much an Argo CD thing with AAP.

In my company's implementation of the Zero Trust model, every application runs on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), and while we are not using it much outside of that, approximately 90% of the application runs there.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps maintain my environment overall by acting as a repository manager where I set up everything, ensuring our servers are not directly connected to the internet to receive updates, thus keeping it safe.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps me feel very comfortable knowing that I have vendor support for whatever happens. I can open a ticket and someone will be there with me figuring out what happened. I feel very safe using RHEL.

The features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that I like the most are its reliability and how reliable it is, along with the integration with Ansible and OpenShift. I think it is the same environment, so it is all connected.

I cannot think of a point for improvement for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), but perhaps making it lighter in some way could be beneficial.

To be completely honest, I have no idea how Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) can be improved, as sometimes I think it is just perfect. Every iteration of RHEL seems to fix issues that were not a problem for me.

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

Regarding stability and reliability, I have not experienced any significant downtime, crashes, or performance issues with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). As with any systems, they crash from time to time, but there is nothing to complain about.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales great to the growing needs of my company, as I can just spawn whatever I need. I virtualize pretty much everything, so in a matter of minutes, I have a bunch of servers running RHEL, and I license the hypervisors too.

The customer service and technical support of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is great, as I can create a case with priority one, and someone will call me 10 to 20 minutes after that.

I think the reason I switched to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is primarily about pricing, as I needed to buy new hardware, and Oracle was bumping up prices little by little until it became unpayable.

In terms of the deployment process, I find it straightforward. Either spinning up a VM with a template gets it there, or using the installation wizard is also straightforward. I just click next, next, next, put my name, and that is it.

I have considered switching to OpenShift, which is the natural step for me from Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped to mitigate downtime and lower risks.

The combination of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and Satellite has been beneficial, as they work together to mitigate any risks that come into Satellite first. I have all the tools to mitigate directly into the host or do it manually.

Regarding the knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), every time I have a doubt or something, I just search for it, and Red Hat articles pop up. Someone asked the same question one year ago, and there is the answer.

The advice I would give to other companies considering Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is that while I have heard of some companies running open-source free alternatives such as Ubuntu or even Fedora from Red Hat, they are doing so to bypass the payment of a license. I think it is worth the price, so if someone is thinking about it, there is nothing to think about. I would rate my overall experience with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a 10 out of 10.

I mainly work on-premises with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). I focus my work on disconnected clusters, following that deployment model.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps mitigate downtime and lower risk. When we raise a support case, there is a priority-wise system. If there is any production issue, we can designate it as severity one, and Red Hat provides on-call support at that time. Red Hat is very good for support.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) provides excellent back-end support, which is one of the main features. The commands and overall functionality are more feasible compared to other Linux systems.

I assess the knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as perfect. Red Hat is increasing in the market every day, and based on that, I find Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) more preferable.

The most important security feature in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the constant support they provide. If any issue arises, we can recover from it through their back-end support.

I have tried Red Hat Insights, which now integrates with AI. However, the cluster I work on is mainly disconnected, so I use the AI feature less. For a personal knowledge base, we use the Insights component. Red Hat provides an excellent knowledge base with officially good documentation, which makes it more feasible to follow. I have previously worked on SUSE Linux as well, and I find Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) superior in comparison.

Regarding Image Builder, I work with it at a cluster level, configuring aspects such as ports and other settings.

I find it helpful and most preferable. I am committing to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) going forward. Through my work experience, I have found it more feasible career-wise and learning-wise, with excellent opportunities to develop and explore more expertise. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has a very good scope.

At the connectivity level, there are some challenges I have faced. Currently, I am troubleshooting a cluster where etcd quorum issues have become loose. When etcd quorum loses stability, I need the kube-admin password and related information. At that time, I do not find feasible solutions for recovering that main resource. In such situations, I need to connect with Red Hat support. As an individual contributor, it is not ideal, as I need a more specialized person to resolve these doubts and issues.

Regarding agentic AI, I want more exploration into how AI integrates with these systems and how agentic AI tools such as Claude and other emerging systems will develop. For feasibility purposes, Red Hat should integrate these technologies with security considerations to ensure that agentic AI systems do not compromise security.

I want to see improvements in how agents and LLM models are building and evolving. There should be integration to ensure that LLM models do not replace our roles.

I have been working with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for six years.

I rate their technical support at eight out of ten, between eight to nine.

The initial setup was straightforward. They could directly connect if they wanted any connection with the team.

Regarding the pricing of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), we work with the client and received feedback that it is more reasonable. Currently, we are working with Red Hat Virtualization and comparing it with VMware. Many organizations are migrating from VMware to Red Hat Virtualization.

This is why I consider Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) more preferable, as it is also less costly. Red Hat is gaining more market power everywhere.

I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) eight to nine overall.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) We primarily use RHEL for hosting enterprise applications, database servers, virtualization workloads, web services, automation platforms, and secure production environments. It is also used for managing cloud-based deployments and containerized workloads in hybrid infrastructure environments.

My primary use case for RHEL is working with Docker containers and managing development environments. I use it for running containerized applications, installing development and DevOps tools, hosting services, and managing enterprise workloads in a stable Linux environment.

RHEL has positively impacted our organization by providing a stable and secure Linux environment for server and Docker workloads. Linux is one of the most important platforms for modern servers, and RHEL makes server management reliable and efficient. Installing and configuring development tools, Docker utilities, and required packages is simple, which helps save time and improve productivity. Its strong performance, security updates, and long-term support reduce downtime and make infrastructure management easier for our team.

Some of the best features of RHEL include its exceptional stability, enterprise-level security, and long-term support. The operating system performs reliably even under high workloads, making it ideal for mission-critical environments. Features like SELinux, Podman, system roles, and integrated automation tools improve security and administrative efficiency. Another major advantage is the extensive documentation and strong vendor support provided by Red Hat, which helps organizations quickly resolve issues and maintain high availability.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is very good. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) provides

RHEL could be improved by simplifying subscription and licensing management, especially for smaller organizations and development teams. Enhanced out-of-the-box monitoring and performance analytics tools would also be valuable. Additionally, improving the user experience for hybrid cloud and Kubernetes integrations, along with providing more lightweight deployment options, could make the platform even more flexible and developer-friendly in modern infrastructure environments.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for more than 5 years across enterprise server environments, virtualization platforms, and application hosting infrastructure.

Yes, RHEL is very stable and reliable for production environments. It provides long-term support, regular security updates, and consistent system performance. We run Docker containers, automation scripts, and multiple development tools on RHEL servers without facing major downtime issues. The operating system handles workloads efficiently and maintains good performance over long periods, which is very important for enterprise server environments.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is highly scalable and works well for both small and large enterprise environments. We use RHEL for Docker workloads, server management, automation, and application hosting, and it performs consistently even as workloads increase. It supports virtualization, cloud environments, and container platforms efficiently, making it suitable for scaling applications and infrastructure without major performance issues.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) provides strong customer service and technical support for enterprise environments. The support team is knowledgeable, responsive, and helpful in resolving server, security, and system-related issues. The official documentation, knowledge base, and community resources are also very useful for troubleshooting and learning new technologies. In many cases, issues can be resolved quickly using Red Hat’s support articles and technical guidance. Overall, the support experience is professional and reliable for organizations managing critical production systems.

I used SUSE Linux and CentOS before Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is much better than CentOS and SUSE. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) provides its own cloud, OpenStack. 

The initial setup and installation process for RHEL was simple and well-documented. Licensing costs are higher compared to free Linux distributions, but the enterprise support, security updates, and long-term stability justify the investment for production environments. Overall, the pricing is reasonable for organizations that require reliable server infrastructure, professional support, and enterprise-grade performance.

We evaluated CentOS and SUSE Linux before finalizing RHEL. CentOS was lightweight and community-driven, but it lacked enterprise-level support and long-term reliability after its changes in lifecycle management. SUSE Linux was stable and feature-rich, but RHEL provided better compatibility with enterprise applications, stronger Docker and cloud ecosystem support, and wider industry adoption. RHEL’s documentation, security features, and vendor support were stronger compared to the alternatives.

On a scale from 1–10 (1 = worst, 10 = best), how would you rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) overall? What advice would you give to other organizations considering Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)?

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 10 out of 10 for its stability, security, and enterprise performance. RHEL is very user-friendly and highly reliable for server environments, Docker workloads, and automation tasks. The platform makes it easy to install tools, manage services, and build automation scripts using shell scripting and CI/CD pipelines like Jenkins.

One of the biggest advantages of RHEL is its strong security architecture. The Linux kernel and networking security features provide a secure environment for enterprise servers and applications. It is very difficult to bypass the kernel-level security controls, which makes RHEL a trusted platform for production systems.

Another major benefit is the Red Hat knowledge base and learning resources, which help users improve their Linux and automation skills through practical documentation and training materials. I currently use shell scripting extensively for automation and Docker deployments, and RHEL provides an excellent environment for this work.

My advice to organizations considering RHEL is to choose it if they need a secure, stable, and enterprise-grade Linux platform with strong support for automation, Docker, DevOps, and cloud environments. It is especially valuable for organizations that require long-term reliability, easy server management, and strong security features.

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) to install our Linux versions. We are using a product called Appian, which is a low-code/no-code platform BPN. On top of that, we will be installing our products at the client location. We will run that installation and everything in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), and we will be bringing that instance where end users develop their use cases on that. Apart from that, we have four to five products called Boardwalk and Apptio which are running on the on-premises Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)-based versions.

Before choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I previously worked with Kubernetes, but for the past four years, I have been working on OpenShift administration and as an application developer. Red Hat OpenShift has the best GUI for a friendly user experience, and regarding security, it is number one compared to open-source tools like orchestrating Kubernetes. Red Hat OpenShift also provides excellent customer support where responses come immediately when we get stuck with anything.

Security constraints are an added feature because they restrict non-root users for all applications, making it immutable and not overwritable by any malfunctions, which represents the best practices in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). I am currently working with the Red Hat Insights feature, which is a customized one for us in the banking sector. Although I may not have all the features, the best things we have for enabling security come into the picture, including RBAC, security services, and firewalls.

System Roles are organization-dependent and will change from organization to organization, not only in Red Hat. Those are the default system roles, but the organization can create roles on top of that. If they have an enterprise license, they may ask to create some system roles which are defined for the organization with privileged access.

In my hybrid cloud strategy for my clients, they will select any data center and install the bare metal racks there. On top of the racks, they will install the physical servers, which involve CPU utilization, and they will apply the security policies to the cluster, making it the best for deploying resources. I feel there are no pain points that Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps me solve, and I do not have any complaints. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) saves time because it provides the best GUI, making it easier to perform changes without relying solely on CLI.

From my perspective, the best features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) include security patches which are the best, and the OS is very good compared to Ubuntu or other alternatives. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) offers UBI images or UBI versions that are very eco-friendly for use by the end users of those Linux machines that are deploying their services or applications, making it user-friendly for them. Whenever we get stuck, the support from Red Hat is very responsive, and we receive the best support from them.

I decided to switch to Red Hat because our products have the capability and we need to have the flavor based on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). With Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), the security and compliance are the best part, and building applications on that platform will give security constraints. The dependency can be installed, and whatever packages we get from Red Hat are the best things to have compared to Ubuntu.

I have worked in both hybrid and purely on-premises environments, specifically on-premises bare metal. The business value of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) compared to other Linux distributions I have used is that a separate team is always engaged with our organization. Whenever we face issues, there will be a ServiceNow or an INC raised, and they respond immediately along with dedicated people available for support.

I would prefer better handling as sometimes the PVCs may get stuck, and there are numerous things like release notes that may affect some applications depending on the binaries, which they can manage and improve.

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

I have not seen any performance issues with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). Performance issues may arise if any node goes down or a cluster drain occurs.

When a new release happens, every organization receives notification via email that applications should be built per Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) guidelines to avoid any performance issues, which depend on how the applications are built on the platform.

I find Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scalable, and there are no limitations because scalability depends on the replica set, allowing flexibility from 100 to 10 or whatever you need.

Whatever issues we encounter, we immediately go to that customer portal and get those things and raise a ticket for them.

I rate the tech support for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as nine out of ten.

I previously worked with Ubuntu, but currently we are using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) flavors only.

The initial setup with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is straightforward, and there are no significant complexities in the deployment process. Red Hat provides the necessary binaries or TAR files, allowing you to bring it into your Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) system and run it with command line access directly from the local machine to the OpenShift cluster, demonstrating how user-friendly it is.

The ability to mitigate downtime and lower risks depends on how I build my applications. If you create them on a good platform, they generally behave well. If a new release occurs, only then would it cause disturbances, but that usually does not happen. For user benefit, end users do not know what platform it is sitting on. They experience the best latency with low latency, allowing them to utilize the products and resources running, making everything compatible, which is the best for them. Therefore, this is essential to design at an architectural level. I have not faced any missing features, so I cannot comment on those.

I can provide advice if they need to migrate from on-premise to OpenShift based on my experience in working as an architect in that area. I will recommend Red Hat because in OpenShift clusters, it is user-friendly with a GUI that offers excellent visualization alongside Kubernetes. There is no need to create additional dashboards. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is a best security product managed globally by the Red Hat team, and all binaries are available for download. The support portal allows for quick issue resolution, with responses available in a fraction of hours depending on the ticket's urgency. My overall review rating for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is nine out of ten.