Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Reviews

My main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are patching and automation.

The features of RHEL that I like the most are Satellite and Ansible, as those are the only ones I really work with so far.

They benefit our company by providing solutions that are quicker and save money overall, which reduces time spent overall and saves us resources.

I use Satellite for patch management of our Linux devices, including our Red Hat devices, which helps my company navigate security risks.

I think RHEL could be made faster.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for about a year.

I have not experienced any downtime, crashes, or performance issues with RHEL, as everything runs smoothly, and we do not have many tickets regarding our RHEL products or RHEL VMs.

RHEL scales well with the growing needs of our company, as anything we add automatically gets pulled into Satellite.

I would rate the customer service and technical support a 10, because I have not used it much, but my coworkers who have opened tickets have not reported anything negative about their experience.

Before adopting RHEL, we mainly built the operating systems ourselves with a mixture of different Linux operating systems. For patching, we were using Ivanti before that.

The biggest difference between Ivanti and RHEL is that both have automation, but it is more seamless with Satellite, as it is owned by Red Hat and already integrated. We do not have to build out as many tasks and workflows inside Satellite, as it picks everything up and sends it out automatically.

From a technical point of view, the biggest return on investment when using RHEL is the time spent in work man-hours, as it has reduced our patching time by a very large amount in the Linux environment.

I would estimate that the patching time has been lowered by about 50 percent.

I have not considered switching to another platform that is not RHEL, as I am not part of those discussions.

We are using RHEL in the cloud.

RHEL supports our cloud environment mainly for patching right now, as we have not started using it for migrations yet, but we will probably start doing that eventually.

I have not done any AI workloads through RHEL.

RHEL does not play a role in our company's implementation of Zero Trust; it would be more for workloads and data running on our Linux VMs, as we do not use it for identity or access at this time.

I have used Ansible Automation Platform somewhat and am learning it. My experience with it is good; I do not use it that much, but other people on my team are using it a little more, and we have not used it in production yet, although it is definitely something we will be doing soon.

We do not use RHEL for auditing, as far as I know; my boss sends me a list of things to fix, and I fix them.

RHEL has definitely helped to mitigate downtime and lower risks at my company, especially with patching, as we do not have to manually patch or reboot our VMs as much while managing the patching process.

The knowledge base that RHEL offers is pretty good; I use it personally the most for the training platform while trying to learn all the different systems they have, and I use that a lot.

I would rate this review a 10 overall.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) serves as the base operating system where all applications run. It is the platform I manage, and all applications run on top of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). I run IBM FileNet on top of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) offers excellent security, reliability, and stable security as a secured operating system. Security features have helped my organization because Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is already a locked down version of enterprise Linux distributions and is managed by Red Hat, with timely release of vulnerability fixes and patches that give a lot of security and peace of mind for enterprises.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has positively impacted my organization by ensuring that timely release of vulnerability fixes and patches keeps the system secure. All the latest versions and new features with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as an image and with AI capabilities add more value for enterprises using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

A specific outcome showing how Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has benefited my organization is improved security, and I am not aware of any downtime. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped to mitigate downtime and lower risk, as I have not heard of any server reboot or crash throughout my career when it comes to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), which speaks to its reliability.

SELinux is the most important security feature in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), as it is the most security-oriented feature. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps me solve pain points such as management of servers with Ansible automation, security capabilities, and timely release of vulnerabilities and security fixes, which combined create great value for enterprises.

An AI assistant specifically for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 10 or the latest version of Red Hat Enterprise, such as an AI-assisted tool to get assistance on commands and syntax, would be beneficial.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for almost 17 years.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is stable.

I have not seen any issues with the scalability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL); it is good or great.

Customer support for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is great.

I have only used Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and did not previously use a different solution.

I have not seen a return on investment, and I do not have that level of management information since I am an individual contributor.

All recent capabilities introduced in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 10, including the AI inference server, are already great. I use Ansible for the management of servers and patching, and I find that management experience quite satisfying. I have not used much of the knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), and I have not used much of the documentation recently, so I cannot speak to that with certainty. I would recommend making use of Ansible automation with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and automating as much as possible. I rate this review a 9.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is used primarily to build AWS servers. A specific example of how RHEL is used to build AWS servers involves purchasing licenses from third-party vendors like REL and also from AWS. Once an AMI is obtained from the Marketplace, the AMI is customized by injecting all organization standards.

After internal tools have been built on the AMI, that AMI is used to build AWS servers.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has positively impacted the organization by helping track everything, such as how many users have access to the server, which is easy to monitor. RHEL also offers better options for downloading repositories easily, and the ability to stripe the EBS volumes has allowed for pulling more IOPS and throughput.

The impact on the team and organization has been significant, as it has helped improve application performance and backup performance. Since AWS backend is used for backups, RHEL striping has proven very useful.

By using RHEL striping, throughput and IOPS have increased, which reduced the backup completion time from fifteen to sixteen hours to just fifteen to sixteen minutes. The main reason is the backend and the striping implemented for EC2 instances.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) offers several valuable features, including being secure and standard, and making whatever commands are executed easier to manage. When security and standardization are considered, no other person can access those RHEL servers.

Another good aspect is that whatever is downloaded comes from the repository, and every command is tracked, including the person who entered the command. Tracking on RHEL AMIs and OS standardization is very effective.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps mitigate downtime and lower risks by using the Pacemaker role for high availability. The primary and secondary systems are managed by the Pacemaker role, which helps reduce downtime for applications.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) could be improved by including a better app stream module experience or simply phasing out modules in favor of straightforward version repos. Red Hat could also integrate more common tools directly or integrate EPEL more seamlessly. Additionally, enabling AI-based operational tuning for kernel parameters, file system parameters, and network stack optimization could enhance the experience.

Regarding needed improvements, simplifying the subscription and licensing would help reduce complexity in subscription management. Clear visibility of consumption and unused subscriptions and compliance is also important.

Seven years of experience have been accumulated in the current field.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is stable.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) offers great scalability and supports very large memory.

The customer support received is good.

Positive

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has been the only solution used, and no switch from any other solution has occurred.

In comparing the business value of RHEL to other Linux distributions, no other Linux distributions have been used; only Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has been utilized.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems are managed with a dedicated cloud support team that handles provisioning and monthly patching. Additionally, focus is placed on security hardening and optimizing it with cloud-init, instance tuning, and subscription activation.

Image Builder has been used, but the AMIs are not built personally. A dedicated support team handles the building of the AMIs.

A return on investment has been seen, as it has saved a tremendous amount of time.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps save time; for example, the Pacemaker role facilitates faster task completion, and it optimizes backup processes.

Regarding pricing, setup cost, and licensing, the pricing is good; however, licensing is a bit confusing.

My advice for others looking into using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is to be aware that subscriptions can be challenging to manage. When a server reboots, the subscription goes to open, which can lead to others consuming the subscription, creating a challenge regarding the subscription and licensing part.

Security requirements were a significant consideration in choosing RHEL in the cloud because it is not open source and is highly secure.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is assessed as having a better knowledge base offered through its tuning capabilities. By better tuning, the documentation is referred to, which helps in day-to-day work.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) entitlement management can be confusing, as converting systems between subscription modes is not straightforward.

I would rate this review a nine out of ten.

My main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) include everything from apps to web servers to HPC.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps me solve pain points primarily because the ecosystem has already been approved for use with our customers. That's probably the main thing. It's a single, trusted source to get everything from. That's really our main thing.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped to mitigate downtime and lower risk using Satellite because I rarely have any outages on my RHEL boxes. They're pretty solid.

Satellite helps reduce and mitigate risk through the quality of the packages that get put out and the dependencies that are already validated.

I've never really thought about how Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) could be improved, but the only thing I wish they had that I've asked Red Hat for so far is something resembling managed service accounts. Since we have to integrate with a lot of Active Directory, that would be beneficial.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) since RHEL 4.

I would assess the stability and reliability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as excellent because I've not had anything serious that couldn't be figured out.

Regarding scalability, I've never had a problem there. We run HPC on it, and it's pretty rock solid.

I don't really have an answer for the customer service and the technical support of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) because we have to handle most things in-house.

Before adopting Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), my company was using a lot of Solaris, other flavors of Unix, and other options, but I think we've pretty much standardized on RHEL.

I think the deployment process for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is straightforward.

If you're doing a network install, it's easy. It's easier than the Windows side.

I'm brand new to Ansible Automation Platform. We're just rolling it out.

From my point of view, the biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the fact that it's well-curated and it's a one-stop shop for most everything you need.

My experience with the pricing, the setup cost, and the licensing of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has been pretty good. I have no complaints.

Though there have been talks of going to other distros while using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), that's a big ask to switch everybody over.

The features I prefer most about Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) relate to my broader appreciation for Linux given all the history behind it and open source for all that it represents.

For navigating security risks, I use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Satellite for patch management and deployment. We don't use Insights. That's probably the main one we use.

Regarding the role Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) plays in my company's implementation of the zero-trust model, it's pretty new to us, so I can't really answer that yet. We're still in the learning process.

In terms of managing regulatory compliance, we do use Nessus and other tools for auditing in our applications. That's probably about it.

You can usually find a good answer on the knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

I've always been happy with Red Hat ecosystem, using it since before RHEL, and I just appreciate the flavor of it. I've tried other Linux distros and I just keep coming back because I'm so familiar with it. It's so helpful, and it's hard to beat. I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a nine out of ten.

My main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) involve a custom Linux security module, and I use RHEL as my upstream and repackage it as my own distro.

To navigate my security risks, I use features in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) such as Satellite, Ansible, IPA, or IDM, and I also perform STIGging with a lot of my requirements coming from the government telling me to ensure I have all these things done. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) makes it easy to do that, with the biggest thing being their documentation because I can find any question I type into Google and find a Red Hat link, log in, and see it.

I use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) on-premise.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps me solve pain points because it's open source, so it's easy to modify, and there's the support that I need, especially since I work with the public sector a lot where they want support provided, updates, and patches on CVEs almost immediately after a zero-day is released, and that's the big thing that Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps me with.

What I appreciate most about Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is that they're open source, and I take what they have and repackage it. I appreciate RPMs, Mock, and a lot of the tooling that's in that community, in the Fedora world, but Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) makes it easy to get to and work with.

The knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is something I love, and it's very helpful. That is probably the most useful part of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) can be improved by getting more upstream packages from Fedora because they don't have enough packages, and it's problematic that I have to maintain a separate repo from what comes from Fedora. I don't understand why Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) doesn't package it as the base, as Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) only has a subset of packages from upstream.

The desktop environment is another area that needs significant improvement because it is barely usable and meets just the bare minimum of what's needed. There are people from Red Hat giving presentations on Windows, Macs, and other distros, which to me would be embarrassing. If I was the CEO of Red Hat and my employees aren't using our own product, that should be a major red flag. Why would you present to customers of all people? Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is great as a server operating system distribution and the support is the number one thing that makes Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) stand out, but it really falls short as a client workstation.

I have not experienced any downtime, crashes, or performance issues with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). I've had servers run for three years straight without crashing, so Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is very reliable.

In terms of scalability, I get a lot of complaints from customers, and when I start getting a lot of machines running, I start to see problems in production, which my customers experience as well, so then I'm supporting it. I don't know how much to blame Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for that, but it does seem to become a headache once it gets larger.

I evaluate customer service and technical support from Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as pretty good.

Prior to adopting Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I was using another solution, specifically Solaris as my upstream. I think when Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 6 dropped, I switched from Solaris to Linux, and it was Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as the solution because of the support.

The deployment process of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has been straightforward and easy for me.

I am probably not considering switching to another product while using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

I have tried neither Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Image Builder nor system roles, and I'm not a big fan of them because they're not part of my use case. They are useful in a sense for reproducibility if I'm going to create a golden image and deploy it, but that's not really my use case.

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

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is great on the server side and not as strong on the client side, with the workstation and desktop environment needing a lot of work. As far as adopting it, if you're willing to pay for all the licensing, then go for it because you'll get the support you want. On a scale from one to ten, I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) overall as a seven or eight.

My main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are Virtual Desktop Interface (VDI) for the server, supporting Telco work workflows, manufacturing software for manufacturing, and travel software. I have a huge base for what we're targeting around AWS or Red Hat solutions.

I favor the network manager feature of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL); I appreciate the versatility and flexibility of network manager. I appreciate that we can make super-fast modifications to networking solutions, and I value the support for IPv6. 

I also value the support for working with the community very specifically. Bringing the solutions we need for customer problems to reality tends to result from our conversations with Red Hat. Normally, if I need help making a customer experience better, I can have a conversation with the business teams at Red Hat, and then we can find a collaborative solution.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped to mitigate downtime and lower risk; although it's hard for me to say that I really understand it outside of an analyst report, I can say that I truly believe it has increased uptime based on my experience. 

There's a consistency, and my example is that I trust the kernel and the quality engineering, which leads me to more favorable results in places where other distributions might make changes that slow down my networking or storage network in unpredictable ways.

For a new release of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), the main improvement could be in the pricing models, particularly understanding how to better present those pricing models in a more predictable manner. It is very difficult from a partner perspective to figure out how to position software to a customer when the pricing may or may not be competitive, so that's my biggest 'how could I fix this?' question.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for 25 years.

When assessing the stability and reliability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I can say that on every operating system, there are always exceptions and new issues to fix. 

However, if I have software validated for RHEL, I know I can expect a certain level of certainty that issues will be ones that have either never been seen before or are the result of our new approaches.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) by itself scales incredibly. However, the problem tends to arise where increased consumption raises total costs. 

As the total cost increases across the operating system distribution, my requirements for support decrease, making it difficult to gauge a return on investment, which complicates the situation for me as a representative of an entire fleet.

I would evaluate customer service and technical support as generally positive; I've never had a problem with my support. Sometimes, individual support agents might not know what they're discussing or misunderstand the question, possibly due to my clarity or other factors. I would say that it is at least at the same level or better than any support group I've ever engaged with in technology.

Positive

Prior to adopting Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I was using another solution within the RHEL family. I often test workloads using Fedora or CentOS as a foundation and then move those production workloads to Red Hat.

My experience with pricing, setup costs, and licensing has been confusing; it feels different every time. The complications often arise from being unable to predict exactly what is necessary for a deployment, as the build-out and sales cycles are significantly more complex.

I have most definitely seen a return on investment with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL); I don't think my job would exist if there wasn't a return on investment.

By policy, I am required to use Amazon Linux for everything, however, by necessity, I am replacing that with Red Hat solutions where we have space during my evaluation process.

My business relationship with Red Hat is that I am a Partner.

The knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is still hard to search, but I recognize that AI is probably making that easier during this period. I think Lightspeed is an important part of our structure for interacting with the knowledge base information, and I look forward to making that work better.

I typically advise other organizations considering Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) by asking how important their workload is to them. I question what happens if it goes down and how much time they have to spend fixing it. If they value that aspect, then it's their choice to determine their path. 

My biggest question often relates to how much they would pay to replace the community, and if they are willing to understand the significant number of partners and open-source champions contributing to Red Hat, they will see how that community cannot be replaced in terms of how software fits their business needs.

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

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux to host web applications written in the Java programming language, along with an Apache server. We deploy applications using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for both internal and external customers. Additionally, we utilize Red Hat Linux to host our Oracle database.

It provides us with long-term stability, meaning we often don't have to reboot servers for months. This contrasts with Windows, where we typically have to reboot every week. Red Hat Enterprise Linux offers long-term stability and security, allowing for prolonged periods without reboots. Moreover, the Linux operating system is regularly patched, ensuring a secure environment. We receive timely updates from Red Hat whenever there is a new patch available.

Security requirements were significant consideration in choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux. As a bank, security and performance are our top two priorities. We are promptly notified by Red Hat whenever any zero-day security vulnerabilities or loopholes are discovered. This allows us to quickly inform our team and make decisions on whether to apply patches immediately or to wait. We prefer not to experience any downtime during the week, so we typically wait until Saturday to perform any necessary shutdowns for patching. For some patches, Red Hat offers hot patching, which means we don't have to shut down our servers. This allows us to apply patches while the servers are still running, minimizing downtime.

Multithreaded environment is a standout feature. It enables Java to execute multiple workloads simultaneously, which speeds up processes. Instead of executing tasks sequentially, we can handle them in parallel. It allows us to deliver more code execution in the same period through parallel execution, providing real-time benefits. We can monitor our progress in real time.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) can be improved, particularly in the documentation side. 

I would also suggest improving performance and allowing the OS to be run on Intel and optimized for Intel as well as AMD CPUs. Improving compatibility with hardware is also important so that we can run on any hardware. 

Additionally, we would appreciate Red Hat offering a built-in monitoring solution so that we don't have to depend on third-party tools such as Dynatrace and others. Better integration with built-in solutions would increase reliability on Red Hat.

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

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has indeed helped us mitigate downtime and lower risks. We can run for months without needing to reboot, which contributes to its stability.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales efficiently with the growing needs of our company because we have a recovery time objective. We have Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) installed in our primary data center as well as in the disaster recovery data center. When we do a failover and fail back, it meets the timing that we specify.

If we run into issues, such as OS-level issues, we raise Internet tickets with the Red Hat team. We have a dedicated account manager who helps track the ticket status to ensure it is resolved within a timely manner.

I would rate them an eight out of ten because sometimes we get very experienced people. They resolve issues quickly, but sometimes we get a junior person, so there is a different level of response. They can offer a consistent level of service. Rather than mix junior and senior engineers in the same team, and just give us more senior engineers.

Positive

Our overall experience deploying Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has been positive. However, we sometimes encounter challenges with documentation, as it may not always be up-to-date. There are occasions when our OS version is ahead of the corresponding documentation. We patch our OS, and that version may be newer than what the documentation reflects. This can lead to inconsistencies, so we often request that they refresh their documentation to ensure it is in sync with the OS. On the plus side, another benefit is that there are many online discussion forums available due to its wide usage, where we can seek answers if we encounter issues.

We operate on-premises due to regulations and compliance requirements, as we are a bank. We handle many personally identifiable sensitive information, which we cannot deploy to the cloud, so everything is hosted on our servers.

We host Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) on our servers and use VMware to virtualize them. On a single physical server, we can run three or four virtual servers. This approach enhances server utilization and allows us to manage more workloads on the same hardware.

I've participated in upgrades from version 6 to 7, 7 to 8, and 8 to 9. The only issues we encountered were related to the Samba file-sharing system, where we had to uninstall and reinstall it instead of migrating directly. This was frustrating because we expected everything to be backwards compatible. Additionally, we faced challenges when upgrading from version 6; we couldn't jump directly to version 9 and had to go through intermediate versions, which was a pain point for us. We wish we could upgrade from version 6 to 9 directly instead of having to go from 6 to 7, then 7 to 8, and finally 8 to 9.

Regarding our upgrade or migration plans, we recently migrated to version 9, which is a long-term service version. We plan to stick with version 9 for the next year or so.

The biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is that it's a very stable overall operating system and is really optimized for running Java-based workloads, meaning we can get more workloads done. This stability gives us a consistent performance which translates into a strong SLA service level agreement.

We receive volume licensing as part of our IBM relationship. We use many IBM servers, so we get a volume discount. We tend to go through a value-added reseller to secure that volume discount.

In India, we prefer Red Hat because it offers the industry-leading container platform, Open Shift. As a result, we are gradually transitioning away from VMware and exploring other options to better meet our needs.

I would recommend Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) if you're looking for a very stable operating system and if you happen to run Java-based workloads and you want high performance, high stability, and high availability. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has been around for more than 20 years, and you're looking for an excellent track record. If a bank can trust Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I'm sure that all other industries can trust it because we require the most stable, secure platforms. 

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

My main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) include database, Java applications, programming, and Python. We were interested in using AI workloads with RHEL last year but then realized the hardware cost was not going to permit us to manage that.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps me solve pain points such as having nicely packaged dependencies, so when we need to install dependencies, we can easily rely on Satellite to be able to get the packages from Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) to be able to then install without needing to track down everything that we need. This is more reliable and having the security of Red Hat verifying things is better.

DNF helps my company because Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Satellite has all the packages there, allowing us to patch our systems relatively easily and install any applications through the Yum repository makes it much easier than before.

Satellite helps navigate our security risks by providing us a dashboard of what systems we have, what their patch levels are, and where we need to go with them. It's a good dashboard to monitor. All the CVEs coming in from Red Hat are what we rely on. When Red Hat provides a CVE, we know it's safe to install it.

Satellite is very good in helping to identify quickly what we need, who's wanting what packages, and verify and go forward. It's a nice product to have.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) could be improved by including in-place upgrades, allowing us to go from Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 9 to 10 on certain hosts, such as database hosts, instead of needing to build a new system and then transferring the data, which would be a better way of improving it.

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

I have not experienced any downtime, crashes, or performance issues; it has been rock solid for us.

In terms of scalability, we grow our servers size-wise, both horizontally and vertically, so I have no issues.

The customer service and technical support I receive are really good.

Prior to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) at my company, I was using Amazon VMs at different companies, along with CentOS and Fedora. With Red Hat, I get the benefit of a company behind me that can support me, and if I run into an issue, they have the resources to figure it out and address it.

The deployment process of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) really depends on your environment because if you have VMware, you have one way of doing it, and if you have Nutanix, you have another way of deploying Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). We use Ansible to deploy, so we just have to configure it for the environment that we're using.

We did a major version upgrade with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and Ansible Automation Platform, going from 8 to 9, where we basically rebuilt new hosts and reinstalled on the new hosts, with a few systems we couldn't rebuild, so we did an in-place upgrade using Leapp. The experience was easy and nice. Tooling-wise, it was nicely done.

The biggest return on investment using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for me is standardization, relying on support and knowing there's a group behind it that can support us no matter what happens. It's easy to open a ticket, and easy for them to get back to us and help resolve issues.

My experience with the pricing, setup cost, and licensing of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is nice since we have a site license, but I don't know what the prices are.

I did not consider other solutions while using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

Overall, I think Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is a great product that I enjoy using, and my advice for other companies considering it is that if you have a need for support and are in a situation requiring audit and maintaining a certain level of uptime, having the safety net of Red Hat behind you is important. If you need recovery in minutes and hours, you should go with Red Hat; if you can't recover in less than days, go with something else. I would rate this product a 10 out of 10.

My main use case for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is for the central monitoring of the operations.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps me solve pain points by enabling faster transactions and more transactions.The feature I like the most about Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is its resilience.A huge amount of transactions benefits my organization because we use this cluster to include the performance of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped to mitigate downtime and lower risk.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) could be improved with frequent updates.I think frequent upgrades should be included in the next release of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

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

I would assess the stability and reliability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) by stating that it is very secure, reliable, and fast.I have not experienced any downtime, crashes, or performance issues with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales effectively with the growing needs of my organization.I have not experienced any issues with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

I would evaluate customer service and technical support for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as good, and we have vendor coordination with them.On a scale of one to ten, I would rate customer service and technical support for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as an eight because it needs the streamlining of things.

Positive

Prior to adopting Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I was using a platform from IBM initially, which was pushed into containerization.

I would describe my experience with deploying Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as not complicated and manageable, and that works well.

I manage my Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems with mass provisioning and patching, and I am very satisfied with the management experience.I managed the expansion on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as well.

I have not really seen an ROI with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is that pricing is heavy on this.The setup cost and licensing for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) involves a perpetual license.

The other solutions I considered before selecting Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) included open source options.What stood out to me in my evaluation process of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is that the main feature is security on top of the open source, and we are considering the open-source platform to be implemented.

The complexity of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) comes from the methodology, which is complex.Security requirements were a consideration in choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).My assessment of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)'s built-in security features is that it is effective when it comes to simplifying risk reduction and maintaining compliance.My upgrade and migration plans for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) to stay current include frequent patching and upgrades annually.I assess the knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as good for a few use cases.The factors that led me to consider the change to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) were stability and reliability.I would describe my experience with deploying Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as not complicated and manageable, and that works well.I have no advice to give to other organizations considering Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). I would rate this product a nine overall.

Our main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) at our company involve it being our primary operating system for most of our servers. We're about 80% Red Hat Linux, 20% Windows.

The feature of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) I appreciate the most is the ability to build images from the Red Hat pipeline, which is very effective. 

We also have an on-prem image management system that works really well with Red Hat. These features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) benefit our company since they allow us to perform life cycle tasks faster.

Our upgrade or migration plans to stay current with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are that our operating strategy is to put all net new on 8.10, and we are going to stay on 8.10 until 9.10. We typically just stay on the long-term release.

As for how Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) can be improved, besides being cheaper, I am uncertain. From a technical perspective, everything is addressed, which is part of the reason why we have as many systems as we do. It's probably one of the reasons why we moved away from SUSE Linux all those years ago, and cheaper pricing would definitely be beneficial.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for approximately ten years. I've only been with the company for three years, and Red Hat has been there since before I arrived.

Regarding stability and reliability, we haven't had any issues with Red Hat VMs crashing due to a Red Hat issue.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales with the growing needs of our company quite effectively, as we're still on-prem and a VMware shop, so it functions seamlessly. Many of our applications scale really well, with some having several hundreds of VMs, which we couldn't accomplish on Windows.

The customer service and technical support experience is good. We have many highly qualified senior tenured engineers with Red Hat, so there are very few instances where we need to call somebody for assistance. It's usually account-related or access-related, not normally technical issues.

Historically, we used SUSE Linux before choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

Our architecture doesn't get hands-on. We guide and influence, so we have done upgrades over the years. We've done upgrades on upgrades on upgrades over the years. We typically don't do cross-version migrations if we can avoid it. It's a lot cleaner to do migration from major revision to major revision.

From a technical perspective, the biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is that compatibility and supportability are easier to adopt. There's a wider range of things that support it, and it has a larger community for getting support compared to Windows. From a server perspective, it functions better, and there are better capabilities for getting things to work and supporting any issues that might occur.

I'm not involved in the pricing, setup costs, or licensing for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). I hear that it's expensive, but everything is getting expensive these days, so I don't think it's Red Hat specific. VMware's kickoff after the Broadcom acquisition has created a catalyst for everybody to increase their prices.

I haven't considered changing to other solutions since CentOS went their own route. For the most part, everything is Red Hat for us. It just depends on the capabilities that determine what version we run. 8.10 is the standard, but before eight, we would have several instances on 7.5, 7.3, depending on the features and capabilities the application needed. If it was just a generic application without special requirements, we usually put them on the latest version.

When it comes to managing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems regarding provisioning and patching, we are moving to Ansible. We are on VMware's vRealize operations and orchestration, and we are moving all of our management and deployment strategies to Ansible. We are transitioning to Ansible since we have so many different systems and ecosystems that we need to touch; having one platform rule them all makes it easier for life cycle management and deployment. Ansible allows us to do everything in one seamless pipeline versus having to run five different automations for standing up a VM, standing up storage, and creating firewall rules.

I'm not very familiar with Red Hat Enterprise Linux's (RHEL) built-in security features when it comes to simplifying risk reduction and maintaining compliance. Cybersecurity requirements are abstracted from us, and they have their own tool suites, but we do have integrations with Red Hat. We use CrowdStrike, Carbon Black, and Rapid7, and all of those tools have integrations or abilities with Red Hat, so we leverage those tools but nothing is necessarily native to Red Hat.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has not helped to mitigate downtime and lower risks any more than any other operating system. The contributing factors of downtime are typically external, whether it's power or networking or storage. In our ecosystem within a Red Hat space, crashes are very infrequent and usually something external.

On a scale from one to ten, I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) an eight.