Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Positive

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Public Cloud

Amazon Web Services (AWS)

Primarily, our use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are web hosting, but we have a lot of other IBM products running on the machine.

The feature I find most valuable about Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is security. For our company, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped us significantly. We used to be on Sun Solaris approximately 12 years ago, and we have migrated to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), on 7, 8 version, and now on 9 version, and I'm trying to go to 10 as soon as possible. This has resulted in faster app migration because we're running an elevation of many IBM products we had at the legacy, and we see significant improvement in how fast they can build services.

From the web app perspective, my experience with the deployment of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is that they are fast to market; when they request a new VM instance, they can do it very quickly, in a matter of minutes. Security requirements were a consideration before choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

Based on my personal observation over the last several years, there is definitely room for improvement on how to collect the troubleshooting logs, especially in live production. Many times my server team has to open a case with Red Hat to collect their dumps, and there should be a better way of live collection without shutting down or restarting the machine. If you restart, you lose the opportunity to capture the issue, and that should be much more improved.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for more than 20 years.

My personal observation is that Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales effectively with the growing needs of our company. We are currently migrating from VMware, which is showing more improvements.

We used other solutions in our company before choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). We had Sun Solaris and also IBM AIX, and currently, we are using both AIX and Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

The big difference between AIX and Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is definitely in how they interact with the application side, as the underlying hardware for IBM AIX runs on P-series compared to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), which runs on the Intel platform. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is extremely reliable.

We are deploying Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) both in the cloud and on-premises. Currently, we are doing upgrades from RHEL 7 to 9 and 7 to 8, but not directly. I manage and own at least 10 to 12 servers.

The biggest return on investment for me when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is not necessarily financial. The command interface and the way it offers faster response times make me feel much more productive working with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

From the OS perspective, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is very good at mitigating downtime and lowering risks; however, certain things when bundled with other components show significant dependency. I definitely recommend using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as long as the financial cost is acceptable.

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) an eight or nine out of ten overall. To make it a perfect 10, from a system admin perspective, my only concern is that for an actively reproducing issue, I should have the provision to collect live logs without needing to depend on a Red Hat support case for minor issues, as that takes time. Other than that, I'm very satisfied with the usage perspective.

My main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are primarily for IT services, as well as supporting Army programs. We use the OpenSCAP project in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) because we have a lot of security compliance requirements that we must address with STIG compliance.

Increased security posture through running minimal base images for critical services. Scalability through automated OS deployments.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps us solve the challenges that you potentially have with the Windows operating system being a much larger attack surface with services running which often are not needed. RHEL is a security-focused operating system.

I appreciate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)'s feature of supporting minimal installs because for a lot of our use cases, we do not need a full operating system with office productivity tools, which makes it much easier to provide just the minimal installation.

The compliance tools in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) help our company because they are a mandated requirement, allowing us to use those tools to remediate the system and provide quantifiable percentages and scores to show that we are compliant.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) plays a huge role in my organizations implementation of the zero-trust model, as we always end up with requirements that force us to use Windows. Traditionally, we use Active Directory for identity management, and Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has been a staple for all of our server infrastructure. For anything that needs to have a long uptime or anything that provides a service, we always gravitate to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as opposed to Windows, which is primarily for office productivity-type purposes.

My organization's process for managing regulatory compliance involves working with the cyber team to provide a checklist and show that we are compliant with all the controls or at least document why we are not or tailor them out. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped us with that because out of the box, it is in pretty good shape, so there is only minimal work we have to do on top of it.

The biggest struggle we have with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the cost and the fact that a lot of our user base wants to gravitate to the free upstream offerings. I believe more competitive pricing would be my primary feedback.

My insights on the pricing model for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) go back to the annual recurring cost. At the end of the day, anything Red Hat can do to lower that to make it more competitive would help push people to a more stable enterprise product and not be so tempted to use the upstream free alternatives.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) since RHEL 5 or around 15yrs. 

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped us with the mitigation of downtime and lowering risks because it is a stable operating system, and we are able to keep the uptime on our servers, with everything working great. We could not be happier with it.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is very scalable. We have systems where we have 2,000 users logging into it, and we have environments that are both online and on closed, restricted networks, so it is a very easy-to-scale product with everything where it needs to be.

I would rate the customer service and technical support for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as a nine. Everything is solid there, and I am happy with it. There is always room for improvement.

Every company starts off with Windows, and that is where we were at. There was a lot of use of CentOS for a while, but I definitely got involved with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) pretty much early in my career and have been with it through the evolution of the product.

The deployment process of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is straightforward. We are able to do it at scale, having used Kickstarts for doing bare-metal installs and virtual machines, and now with containers using Ansible to roll things out. The automation built-in makes it very easy.

We have used Ansible extensively and use it a lot. We also use the Automation Platform in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), which is part of our build pipelines and what IT does for patching.

From my point of view, the biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is definitely the relationship that we have with our account management team. I would say that is something we do not have with a lot of other vendors, so that is probably one of the big advantages we get with this product versus others.

My insights on the pricing model for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) go back to the annual recurring cost. At the end of the day, anything Red Hat can do to lower that to make it more competitive would help push people to a more stable enterprise product and not be so tempted to use the upstream free alternatives.

Ubuntu is still used a lot but I've found their distributions while more upstream, boated, and move likely to be impacted by CVE. 

We have not used any AI workloads with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). We are just beginning in the world of AI, and I saw the keynotes that looked promising. We have provided some OpenAI chatbot-type solutions, so I need to look at pricing for that and see how we can potentially shift some of the things that we have done on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) to more of an enterprise offering such as Red Hat AI.

My thoughts on the efficiency of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are that it is a great product. We could not live without it, and I do not see it going away anytime soon, so I believe it is a staple of the offerings.

The knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is solid, and it is what we always go to first before we open tickets. Red Hat is doing a great job of keeping that up to date and current, making it definitely a good resource.

I would rate this review a nine overall.

On-premises

Other

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have been using this solution for approximately sixteen years.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On-premises

Amazon Web Services (AWS)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've used the solution for 11 years. 

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

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

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

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

Positive

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

The initial deployment was very good. 

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

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

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

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

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

Hybrid Cloud

Amazon Web Services (AWS)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Positive

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My main use case for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) at this point is lab machines for students in the engineering department.

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.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps me solve pain points such as getting students the access they need and supporting all the software they need to use.

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.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is doing a good job by drawing back on the dependencies to keep things running smooth, and that is the biggest strength.

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.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for at least 15 years.

I do major version upgrades using RHEL and Ansible Automation Platform all the time.

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.

Regarding scalability, I tried to expand its usage, and we handled scaling up with the hardware and scaling out by multiplying the resources.

I would rate the customer service and technical support a seven because sometimes it takes a bit to reach someone at your level.

Prior to adopting RHEL to address those needs, I was using Linux from Scratch.

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

I would describe the experience of deploying RHEL as it works well for the most part; the kickstarts were quite nice coming from building from source.

From my point of view, the biggest return on investment when using RHEL is that it works and is supported by all the niche software that they need at the university.

My experience with the pricing, setup cost, and licensing of RHEL is that from my end I am removed from where I am at, but I know that the site license allows us to use the product.

I have evaluated other solutions instead of RHEL.

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 want to look into Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Image Builder or system roles for sure.

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.

Hybrid Cloud

Microsoft Azure