Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Reviews

I use Red Hat Enterprise Linux for deploying servers to install Oracle Databases.

The performance that we get is very satisfactory. Usually, when you compare the results against previous databases that were run, you realize, "Oh, this is really good." But the performance depends on the hardware you put it on. If you put it on a very powerful server, the performance will be better. If you put Linux on a server that is not powerful, the performance will not be there.

All of its features are valuable. It's very good when it comes to building with a sense of assurance and for ensuring availability across different infrastructures.

Because most databases run on Linux, that's what makes this solution so important. If you install a Unix system and want to use a database, you won't have trouble finding a database to run on it. But if you are using Windows, other than using a Microsoft database, you're likely going to have problems. For example, if you want to run Oracle Database on Windows, it could be problematic. Linux, on the other hand, is wide open. People use it for development and that's why we have chosen to use it.

Also, it's great to have IP tables for firewalls in open source. That's the way things are supposed to be going. When you create a file system they ask you if you would like to encrypt the data, and that's great for securing things. 

If you download Oracle Linux, it is very easy. And when it comes to updating Oracle Linux, it does not require subscribing to the repo to do the update. When you install Oracle Linux, the repo directory contains all the files needed to run a DNS or VM update. Whereas with Red Hat, if you download the ISO and do the installation, once you finish, they force you to subscribe to their environment to do VM updates.

I understand that Red Hat would like statistics on how many people are implementing certain kinds of servers, so they force them to create an account. I agree that, when first downloading it, it makes sense that I have to provide my information. But when I want to update, it shouldn't be necessary.

Sometimes, I'm just doing a proof of concept and once I'm finished, the server is gone. In that situation, Oracle Linux doesn't ask me to subscribe for that server, because they don't need to know. The server may only be there for a second and, once I finish, I delete it. If Red Hat would remove that requirement, that would be great. If I want to download the OS, I understand that they need to know who I am, but they don't need to know that information when I'm building a server, unless it is a production server. If it's not a production server, they shouldn't force people to register.

Also, it can be difficult to find the RPMs I'm looking for. For example, if you want to recognize a Windows file system in Red Hat, you have to download a package outside of Red Hat. I searched on Google and found the RPM, but I struggled to find it. Once I put it in, everything worked fine. When Red Hat doesn't have something, and others develop it as open source, they should include that RPM in Red Hat's repo so it's not a struggle to find it.

I have been using Red Hat products for more than 20 years.

The product is very good. Very mature.

We intend to increase our use of Red Hat Enterprise Linux. We are using it more for new stuff.

I barely call Red Hat when I run into problems. I Google them and find out the solution and move forward. You can find fixes for most of the issues online.

Positive

I also use Oracle Linux which is the same as Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Everywhere that I deploy Oracle Linux, if I deploy Red Hat it works fine.

I was involved in the initial testing. We tested it until we could make it work fine and then we provided documentation for the people who would put it into production. But we only did the testing. We work on how it is deployed and document any problems we run into and how to fix them.

The ease or difficulty of the setup will depend on a number of things. 

The solution is self-explanatory. Most applications run on Red Hat Linux and related products.

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

We also use OCS for security compliance.

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

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

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

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

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

We have been using RHEL since 2016. 

This is a stable solution.

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

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

I would rate their support a nine out of ten.

Positive

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

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

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

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

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

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neutral

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Positive

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

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

The solution is pretty easy to troubleshoot. 

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

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

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

We use Ubuntu, but not much. 

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

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

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

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

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

I rate the solution a ten out of ten. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Positive

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

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

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

I would rate it a nine out of ten.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Positive

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's the operating system for different applications we have that are related to telecommunications such as VoIP, DNS, and many others including identity management.

We are using it based on virtualization, including VMware, Red Hat Virtualization, and we have some OpenShift Virtualization.

RHEL has improved things a lot when it comes to automation. Creating a virtual machine was not an issue, but when it comes to the post-configuration of the workload, the solution has made life way easier. For instance, we created an automation chain that creates a virtual machine from scratch right through until the post-configuration is done. We managed to group different applications in this one chain.

In terms of speeding deployment, we have playbooks that are supported by Red Hat, where we can automate deployment and configuration. That helps a lot, making things much faster. It has accelerated our deployment of cloud-based workloads because of the availability of the modules that help us to create playbooks for post-configuration. It's not only creating a VM but, after that, we still have to do the post-configuration manually; rather that's all automated now. Where post-configuration used to take one or two days, it now takes a couple of hours.

In addition, so far the applications are consistent, regardless of the infrastructure. That's especially true when you automate it. Even if you have an issue, the consistency of deployment helps a lot.

In addition to Red Hat Virtualization and Red Hat OpenShift, we use Red Hat Satellite. We decided to base our entire stack on Red Hat because most of the vendors we use want us to have our applications on the Red Hat operating system. With our whole stack on Red Hat, it makes communication easier because we aren't ping-ponged between different vendors. In addition, there is a good knowledge base for different Red Hat products. The integrated approach among Red Hat products has helped us in that when it comes to identity management, for instance, because we don't need to wonder if Microsoft will support this or not. It has also helped to automate patching as well.

The most valuable feature is the Identity Management. You pay almost the same subscription cost for normal RHEL and you get the central Identity Management. You would need to pay much more if you were using other applications or products like Active Directory from Microsoft.

It also enables you to deploy current applications and emerging workloads across bare-metal and private cloud, which are the only environments we have. The applications are very reliable, across these environments, with RHEL.

In addition, we use the solution for monitoring using the features like PCP and that is helpful indeed.

An area for improvement in RHEL has to do with security policies. I know they are doing something about this in RHEL 9, but I haven't worked with that version yet. When it comes to security policies in RHEL 8, it is a bit behind. It would be better if we could just enforce a certain security policy such as CIS Level 1. That was not available, out-of-the-box, in RHEL 8.

We have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) since mid-2010.

If it works the first time, usually it will work forever. It's only when you patch that you need to do some regression testing to make sure that it's working.

We haven't had any issues with scalability at the OS level for years.

I'm very satisfied with the technical support for RHEL. They are helpful and knowledgeable. I don't have any complaints.

Positive

I used to have Ubuntu, but I didn't like it. The beauty of RHEL is that you can easily find support, unlike Ubuntu. While Ubuntu has free subscriptions, unlike RHEL, you cannot get support for Ubuntu easily.

With Ubuntu, when I had an issue, I would have to go to Stack Overflow and check the internet. With RHEL, I like that I can go to IRC and post my question and they answer me.

We are using Satellite, which is considered to be a subscription manager, in a way. In the beginning, it was complicated. Now, they have created something called Simple Content Access  (SCA). We buy a subscription for audit purposes and for legality to have a legitimate copy. On the other hand, Satellite itself issues subscriptions once you have a new OS system. That has made things way easier.

We used professional services back in 2009 or 2010. But once we found that every vendor was looking for Red Hat Enterprise Linux, we added that skill in our department and now we are doing everything ourselves.

Because it's a very stable solution, if you have the knowledge in-house, go for a regular subscription. Otherwise, buy the Premium Support.

We had some AppStream versions for different OSs, such as CentOS, but we decided to go for RHEL because it would make life easier in terms of lifecycle management. If we had RHEL and CentOS, it would make patching more complicated.

The biggest lesson I have learned with RHEL is don't complicate your design. You can always find an easier way to do things. Sometimes you'll think, "Oh, we can do this," and you start thinking about very complicated processes. It's better to think and start simple.

With RHEL, we have patching in place, automation in place, and we already know the support. We are very satisfied. We have done a lot of work on it and now it's easy to deploy VMs immediately. We are not looking to implement any other version of Linux.

Our primary use case for RHEL is running our front-end web servers. When you visit our site, all of the front-end servers are Red Hat. The databases that are hosted are Oracle and they predominantly sit on Red Hat 7. We're trying to migrate those to version 8.

We also use it for BI.

We have a digital footprint in Azure and AWS, as well as on-premises. Things for us are very fluid. We're always changing and adapting to our environment, based on what the needs of our faculty and students are.

The experience depends on the user and what it is that they are doing. If somebody is a Windows user, they're not comfortable with Linux, even if it has a GUI. The graphic user interface can be off-putting to users that are familiar with Mac or Windows. It's not as fast, snappy, and showy as the Windows or Apple graphical user interface. So, those types of users for office production, probably, will not be happy with the Red Hat product line.

If on the other hand, you're a developer or you're a database administrator (DBA), it is different. My experience with my developers and my DBA is that they love Linux. It's easy for them to use. It's easy for them to deploy things like Oracle databases and web servers. Continuous development integration tools like Maven or Tomcat or any of those frameworks are already put in place.

For all of the backend tools that do the work to build the infrastructure, Red Hat really does a good job to make it easy to deploy those consistently, securely, and upgrade them in the same way. There are a lot of pluses for the developers, the DBAs, and the like. But, if you're a regular office user, Red Hat is probably not the tool or the OS that you want to use.

When using RHEL for tracking or monitoring, they do a very good job with respect to the impact on the performance of existing applications. The nice thing about Red Hat is you can get very granular with your logging. We do log aggregation, we use Elasticsearch, and we use Filebeat. These things are part of our log aggregation applications and services that run on the backend of our Red Hat boxes, and it does a very good job of that. We also add bash logging into our hardened Linux deployments, so we see everything. We want to monitor everything, and Red Hat does a really good job with that.

RHEL has given us the opportunity to accelerate the deployment of our cloud-based workloads, although because my organization is a very small college, and we don't have a lot of funds, we can't afford to have all of our workloads in the cloud. It's actually cheaper for us to run most of our applications and servers on-premises.

The workloads that we have in the cloud are typically mission-critical, like student transcripts and stuff like that. These are the types of things that we need to have backups of, which is something that Azure does with Red Hat very well. We are moving in the direction of using Red Hat in the cloud, with the caveat that we deploy only as we can afford it.

With respect to disaster recovery, Azure and Red Hat are probably one of the best pairings that you can get. It provides a lot of redundancy, it's easy to deploy, and the server support is excellent with Azure. There is also good logging, so if you do have an issue you can troubleshoot rather quickly and resolve the problem.

The integration with other Red Hat products, such as Satellite, is excellent and I haven't had any issues with it at all. Everything works very well together with all of the products that we use. For example, Ansible works very well with Satellite. We also used Salt at one time, and we used Puppet. We've moved away from those and just focused on using Ansible. All of the tools that we've used work very well with Rad Hat. The product is mature enough that there's enough support for it from all of the other vendors that run on the Red Hat platform.

There are lots of good features in this product. Because I am a system admin, I don't tend to use the GUI or end-user features. Everything that I do is executed from the command line, and this includes features like monitoring tools, such as netstat or iostat. These are the tools that are built into RHEL. Their toolboxes are good but I wouldn't consider them a great feature because there are things that they still need to work on.

The feature that I like the most is that we can integrate it easily with our existing infrastructure. We found that it is much easier to deploy RHEL in our environment compared to a competing distribution like Ubuntu. This is because we also use RHEL Satellite, which is the patching and lifecycle management application that binds all of our RHELs and allows us to push out new stuff.

Satellite is an important feature because it helps to speed up deployment. Satellite is Red Hat's solution to Windows, where the Windows equivalent would be Server Center Control Manager (SCCM), which is now Intune. Satellite is the lifecycle management application for deploying, maintaining, and upgrading your Red Hat systems, and it does a very good job of that. Satellite works in tandem with Red Hat, as you use it to deploy your server.

The main point is that Satellite makes it quick and easy to deploy, and it is also easy to automate the process. I'm the only Linux person at my organization, with the rest of the people working with Windows. Using Satellite, a Windows end-user can deploy a Red Hat server without any Linux experience.

The security updates are done very well, so I feel confident that I'm not going to get hit with ransomware or a similar problem. Their security patches are pretty up to date. Also, it's rather easy to harden a Red Hat deployment because they provide tools to help you do that.

Red Hat gives us the ability to run multiple versions of applications on a single operating system, although we only use this functionality for Java. Even then, it's specific to the underlying applications. For example, Oracle uses Java on the backend. Also, we have multiple versions of Java on some of our web servers and it does a good job.

The biggest thing that is crushing RHEL is documentation. Their documentation is haphazard at best. The man pages that you can use locally are pretty good, they've been fleshed out pretty well, but the documentation from Red Hat itself really needs somebody to go through it and review it.

The only real negative that I have with Red Hat is that you can tell that when you look at the documentation, they cut and paste documentation from the previous version. Because they update it that way, what happens is that there's nobody doing Q&A. For example, in Red Hat 7 and Red Hat 8, they changed the way they do deployments. Instead of using YUM, you use DNF but when you read the documentation for Red Hat 8, they intermix the two. This means that if you're a new Linux user, it's very difficult to distinguish between the two commands. The fact of the matter is that one is built on top of the other. DNF is backward compatible on top of YUM, and that can cause confusion with users and system administrators. However, it wouldn't be an issue if there was good documentation.

My job is pretty easy, but the documentation would really help me be able to communicate the things that I do to the rest of my team. They're all Windows people and when I go to the Red Hat documentation and tell them that we're migrating to this and we're using this tool, but the documentation is horrible, I get laughed at.

By comparison, Microsoft has its own problems with documentation, but it's a little bit more organized and it's definitely fleshed out a lot better. I commend Microsoft for its documentation. Red Hat may be the better product for the things that we do in our environment, but Microsoft has better documentation.

I have been working with Red Hat Enterprise Linux for the past four years.

This is a very stable product.

In terms of scalability, you can't beat it. It's easy for me to scale up and down, especially with Satellite. I can push out 10, 100, of the same servers for the same configuration and set up with the push of a button.

On the cloud side, Azure also allows us to scale very nicely. This means that we can scale locally if we need to because we use Hyper-V for our VM management and we can spin up 10, 15, or however many servers we need, relatively easy with the push of a button, and you can do the same thing in Azure. We haven't done that in AWS.

Most of the servers that we spin up are proxies. We use a product called HAProxy, and we can deploy those proxies as needed. There are also busy periods where we need to scale. For example, when it's the time of year for students to register for classes, we'll see an increase. 

Another thing that is nice is that Azure will scale as we see more users come online. It will automatically spin up Red Hat boxes to accommodate, and then it'll bring them back down when that surge is over.

Overall, scalability is very nice, either in the cloud or on-premises. As far as setup and configuration, you can make sure that it's consistent across the board, no matter where it is deployed.

I would rate their frontline support, where I submit a ticket, a seven or eight out of ten.

In terms of support that is available through their documentation, I would rate it a three out of ten.

Before I started working for the organization I work for now, I used a product called the FOG Project. At the time, we used Ubuntu Linux. FOG was the equivalent to Satellite and Ubuntu is the equivalent to standard Red Hat.

Comparing the two are apples and oranges. The FOG Project is not as mature as Satellite; it doesn't have the bells and whistles that Satellite does. In general, their lifecycle management tools cannot be compared. Satellite outperforms the FOG project, it's easier to deploy and easier to use.

When comparing Ubuntu and Red Hat, the big difference is that the releases for Red Hat are more stable. They do lag a little behind Ubuntu, as Ubuntu is more bleeding edge. This means that they're pushing out updates a little bit faster, but they're not clean in the sense that they may push out a patch, but then five days later, they have to push out a patch to patch the patch. This is in contrast to Red Hat, which is a little bit more consistent and a little bit more stable. What it comes down to is that Red Hat is much more stable than Ubuntu in terms of patches, updates, and upgrades.

Those are the key differences for somebody who manages that infrastructure. You want something that's easy to diagnose, troubleshoot, and put out solutions. Ubuntu may push out a patch or an update that's so bleeding edge or so out there that vendors haven't had time to come up with solutions on their own, so if it's a driver issue or something like that, with Ubuntu, you may have to wait around as a user for those kinds of solutions.

With Red Hat, they make sure that when the product goes out, that there is some Q&A, and they've done some testing. They make sure that there's compatibility with other products that depend on that particular feature, functionality, or service.

RHEL is very easy to configure and deploy.

When we're talking about RHEL in the cloud, Azure is probably the better platform for RHEL. AWS has some licensing issues. The business end of using RHEL on AWS is not as mature or fleshed out as it is on Azure.

Incidentally, I'm not a big fan of Azure. Rather, I have most of my experience in AWS, but Azure deploys Red Hat without issue. We don't have to worry about licensing and connecting things. Everything is already bound to Azure AD, and that makes it really nice because on-premises, we have to do that manually.

For the on-premises deployment, part of the deployment package requires that we add our Red Hat servers to our local AD. But in Azure, it just does everything for you all within one PowerShell command. Ultimately, deploying Red Hat in Azure is much easier than deploying it either on-premises or on AWS.

We have seen a return on our investment. Our organization is probably going to stick with Red Hat because the licensing fees are low enough to offset the maintenance and support cost of that OS.

Pricing is always a critical factor for all IT departments. The cost of doing business is part of the nature of the job. If you're going to buy a bunch of Dell servers, for example, you have to take into consideration not just the licensing, but the hardware support and other things. The licensing with Red Hat is on par with other organizations like Microsoft.

We buy our licensing in bulk, meaning we buy perhaps 1,500 licenses at a time. They changed their licensing structure over the last couple of years. It used to be per system, whereas now, it's all or nothing. We don't have a subscription, as they used to offer, because they moved away from that. We have a site license, which gives us a certain number of servers, perhaps 25,000, for the type of license that we have. That works really well for us.

The way our structure is set up is that we just buy it by the tier system that they have, so if you have so many servers then you buy that tier and then you get so many licenses as part of that tier or enterprise package.

There are additional fees for using other Red Hat tools, such as Ansible Tower. We use Satellite, and it uses Ansible on the backend. However, we use the vanilla Ansible out of the box, rather than the official Red Hat Ansible Tower, simply because we can't afford the licensing for it. Satellite bundles everything together nicely in their suite of tools but we have moved away from that because of the additional cost.

This is one of the downsides to any operating system, not just Red Hat. Windows, for example, is the same way. They try to bill every organization for every license that they can by adding on different suites of tools that they charge for. A lot of organizations, especially the smaller ones, simply can't afford it, so they create workarounds instead. In our case, Ansible is freely available and we can use it without having to pay the fees for Red Hat's Ansible.

The nice thing though, is that they give you the choice. Red Hat doesn't force you to buy the entire product. They still have Ansible entwined with their Satellite product. The point is that if you want the additional features and functionality then you have to buy their Ansible Tower product, but you can still use the basic product regardless.

The fact that RHEL is open-source was a factor in us implementing it. This is an interesting time for Red Hat. The great thing about Red Hat for us was that we could use Red Hat and then we could use their free, commercial version, which is CentOS. It stands for Community Enterprise OS. Unfortunately, they are no longer going to push out CentOS and I think that 8.4 is the latest version of their free Red Hat distribution.

When we first went to Red Hat, in all the organizations I've ever worked at, being able to test things was one of the key factors. We could spin up a CentOS, implement a proof of concept and do some testing before we actually went to use RHEL, which is a licensed version. The real plus was that we could do testing and we could do all these things on the free version without having to eat up a license to do a proof of concept before we actually invested money moving in that direction, using that particular product or service.

Now that this ability has gone away, we are going to see how that pans out. I think Rocky Linux, they're hoping that that's going to be the next CentOS or free Red Hat. We'll see if that pans out or not but right now, it's a scary time for people that are dependent on CentOS for their free development environments, where we can just spin that up and play around. Right now, we're looking at how we're going to resolve that.

It may be that we have to eat up a license so that we can spin up a machine that we just want to do a proof of concept. This is something that we don't know yet. I don't have an answer because we simply don't have enough data to make an assessment on that.

Everything considered, having a free commercial version available, in addition to the paid product, is a big lure for us. They worked really well in tandem.

We have approximately 14 servers running Red Hat 6 but we used Red Hat 6 all the way to Red Hat 8.

The AppStream feature is something that we have tried but on a very limited scale. We have had mixed results with it, although it looks promising. At this point, I can't say whether it is a good feature or not.

My advice for anybody considering Red Hat depends on the role of the person that is making the decision. If they're an end-user or their organization is using office productivity software, then they're probably not going to want to use it for the backend. This is because there are not a lot of users that are using Red Hat as their office productivity operating system.

If on the other hand, you're somebody that's looking for servers that just need what they call five nines or high availability, Red Hat is your solution for that. That's what I would say to anybody, any technical person that I've talked to, if you can afford it, definitely get Red Hat for your web development. Your web servers should be either Apache, or NGINX, which is their web server stuff.

Red Hat should also be used to host an Oracle database. We found that that works really well and is very competitive with Microsoft's SQL server. It's about the same cost; the Red Hat product is actually a little cheaper than Microsoft's SQL product.

Considering the cost, ease of deployment, and ease of use, Red Hat is the better product for your main infrastructure. For things that just have to be up and running, Red Hat is the product that you want to use.

I can't be strong enough in my opinion that Red Hat does what it does very well for the mundane tasks of infrastructure. For instance, when it comes to web servers, no other OS does a better job than Red Hat for web servers or databases. Similarly, it does a very good job for proxies. For things that just need to run and have very little human interaction, Red Hat's your solution. If you're looking for something that's for an office, such as for accounting, then Red Hat is not the solution to choose.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.