Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Reviews

My main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are primarily our websites and applications that run on top of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) operating system platform.

What I appreciate most about Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the SELinux policy that has been introduced; I believe that is truly good security, although it was difficult initially to become accustomed to it. In the modern world, you don't want every user to have accessible permissions. It gives you a granular level of control over each and every file and directory, just as ACLs used to provide in the past. By using SELinux policy, you can actually secure these accesses and establish a strong security posture.

The main business problem that Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helped us solve is automation of tasks and scalability of the business. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped reduce downtime because in modern infrastructure, you do not face out of memory issues. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has affected the downtime by reducing it to a minimal level; the reboots are very speedy.

I think the support for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) can be much better; when it comes to something such as SUSE Linux, I feel those providers are doing a much better job in terms of support than what Red Hat provides. One area where Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) stability could be improved is with Ksplice; Ksplice is used for online patching. The problem I have seen with it is that it applies patches at the user level, but not at the kernel level. That was a problem in terms of our security architecture because it doesn't recognize that the patch has been installed. I evaluate the customer service or tech support for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as needing improvement; addressing the tickets takes a little longer and there has been a lack of consistency. Not every engineer who handles a case handles it correctly. Everybody has a different way of handling the tickets. So, the support needs to be a little bit more streamlined.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for the past three years.

My assessment of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)'s stability and reliability once it is deployed in production and maintained is that it's straightforward, but there's a huge functionality and learning curve. We started using it and actually understood the reason why Red Hat has implemented it and the level of granularity in terms of security posture that it provides. We understood that it's doing a really good job.

I assess the stability, availability, and reliability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as pretty stable and very reliable.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has crashed or failed here and there, but there were some settings that needed to be changed. We make sure that we match those parameters.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales to my needs pretty much up-to-date.

The support from a competitor I've used is Oracle. My experience with Oracle support is that Oracle on-premises support, what it provides with Oracle Enterprise Linux, performs very well, and many of our customers believe that something from Oracle is more secure. When they compare Oracle with Red Hat, it has a much better support system and a much more secure posture than what we get.

I evaluate the customer service or tech support for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as needing improvement; addressing the tickets takes a little longer and there has been a lack of consistency. Not every engineer who handles a case handles it correctly. Everybody has a different way of handling the tickets. So, the support needs to be a little bit more streamlined.

My experience with the deployment of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has been smooth because back then we were on-premises and all our information used to be on-premises, rather than run them completely as we do now.

I have evaluated a couple of operating systems including Ubuntu, Oracle Linux, SUSE, and then came to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) because Red Hat is considered the pioneer.

I have considered replacing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) with another solution; specifically Oracle Linux.

If I were to switch, I would consider factors such as security and support.

We are currently considering using the Ansible Automation Platform for configuration and patching; we are using a manual approach and a little bit of Ansible here and there, but not fully deployed an Ansible Automation Platform or command line approach. But today I had the experience in the lab with the Ansible Automation Platform. That looks truly promising. I hope to get a chance to do a proof of concept and show my company that this is the product we can use in the future.

I have used the in-place upgrades to migrate machines to a newer release of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL); I used LEAP which has been designed to upgrade Linux 7 to Linux 8, and it was smooth. I think that was truly good work, especially because it supports you in situations where you do patching.

The upgrade process for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is straightforward and we didn't have any problems.

We are planning on upgrading from Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 6 and 7 to 8, though we do have some legacy applications that would not support it. However, other systems which are web servers or Apache, we are trying to upgrade them.

I haven't found any limitations in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)'s security.

My assessment of the documentation offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is that Red Hat's documentation is top notch. You cannot compare that with SUSE.

My specific goals that led me to choose Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) include the security posture.

Current, I am using the standard lifecycle support add-on for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL); I think we are still sticking with the standard and haven't upgraded yet.

The advice I would give to a team considering Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is that one of the new features that it has is promising, and everybody promises great things with new features. My overall rating for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is nine out of ten.

My main use cases for it are servers, such as web servers, database servers, and any type of server that we need.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps us solve pain points related to security, CVEs, and patching. 

The benefit for my company is that it saves time on compatibility issues. I don't have any metrics of roughly how much time has been saved, but I just know we don't have the combat. I've done Ubuntu, and Ubuntu doesn't compare to Red Hat, so I just know when I need to install something, it works. There are very few times when I've had issues.

Security requirements were a major consideration when choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in the cloud because they have secure patching. We review all RPMs and stuff that we import, and that's the major reason.

The feature I appreciate the most about Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the DNF, yum updates, and RPM, which make it easy to install applications and customize it.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) can be improved by making the licensing easier for Amazon EC2 instances. When we try to do auto-scaling, the licensing is hard to automate.

I have been using it since Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4, so probably 2005.

It's very stable. I haven't had any issues. We don't have to worry about it crashing.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales very well with the growing needs of my company. I've done from one or two to thousands, so it's not a problem.

Their knowledge base is great. Anytime we have patching issues or anything else, we reach out to support, and they always have an answer.

Their technical support has been great. I haven't had any issues with that as they respond right away.

Positive

It has been very good. I've done from one or two to thousands, and I've never had a problem. The only issues were hardware-related. They've been able to support drivers and things like that.

We have a hybrid environment with both on-premises and cloud deployments. I specialize in AWS.  Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) supports our hybrid cloud strategy. When we have things that can't go into AWS, we can spin up a Red Hat Enterprise Linux EC2 instance in AWS to run legacy stuff or stuff that's not compatible with AWS.

We usually use Ansible for provisioning and patching. I am 100% satisfied with the management experience of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems when it comes to provisioning and patching, and I have no issues.

From my point of view, the biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is probably stability, as I don't have to worry about it crashing. I've had issues with other forms of Linux, so it's been pretty stable.

It's been good, but I don't really get involved with that.

We did consider other solutions, such as Ubuntu, Amazon Linux, and Rocky Linux. but Red Hat Enterprise Linux was the one we went with. The biggest reason Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) leads the way is support and security.

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux a 10 out of 10 because of the stability and security. That's the main reason I use it.

My main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are that previously, I used it on database servers, and right now, we are using them for web servers, JBoss, and JDV servers.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales well with the growing needs of my organization because RBC always needs new servers, whether they can be Linux or Windows servers, but mostly we are using Linux since we don't use JBoss or JDV on Windows.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps me solve pain points because it is very versatile and stable, and we always use it for our new business.

Specifically, I can say that if we have a subscription, we can make installation easily and access repositories easily.

This benefits my organization significantly because Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is really useful, very stable, and very versatile.

In terms of additional features for the next release, I saw it comes with AI integration, but we don't know the architecture yet. We want to see it first, then we can say. AI will be important for us.

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

I would assess the stability and reliability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as nine out of ten.

I have experienced downtime, crashes, or performance issues, but it happens only maybe once a year or something. There is not very much downtime.

I'm not sure if we have expanded our usage at all.

I am very satisfied with the technical support experience; it is very nice.

I would evaluate customer service and technical support as nine. I can give a nine because if we have any problem, we can get a response in a short time, but sometimes it is not the relevant solution; that can happen one or two times in a year, which seems normal.

Positive

I have not used another solution to address similar needs prior to adopting Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

Our deployment model is that RBC is using all of them—on-prem, cloud, and hybrid.

I would describe my experience with deploying Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as limited because mostly it is our Linux team working on it. They are the ones deploying it while we mostly are ordering servers and using them.

I have not seen an ROI with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), as I'm not on the finance side and I'm not calculating it.

My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing indicates that if you compare it with other operating systems, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is cheaper than them.

We are not on the selecting side before choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) because if you want to use Linux, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is always our first option. We don't check other options.

What stood out to me about Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is that I remember Oracle released a Linux for their database installation, but I don't see anybody using that, as we are mostly using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

I prefer Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as an operating system.

I'm not sure if Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped to mitigate downtime and lower risk.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has improved since version five, then six, seven, right now eight and nine; it always comes with new features, sometimes new application security enhancements. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is improving, and it has improved.

I would assess the knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as very nice because if we have any problem or error, we can find it easily at the portal.

Nothing is perfect.

My advice to another organization considering Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is that I prefer to use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) always. I recommend Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

I gave this review a rating of 9 out of 10.

My main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are server virtualization.

It allows us to stay more in line with our mandates.

What I value the most about Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are the patching capacity and the patching capacity with Ansible. The patching capacity of RHEL has improved my company significantly. It allows us to stay more in line with our mandates for our infrastructure. I assess the knowledge base offered by RHEL as fantastic.

Security requirements were a consideration when choosing the solution. We liked that the patching rules were straightforward. We've had good experiences with provisioning and patching.

It helps support risk reduction and maintain compliance. The user interface is very intuitive.

We'll be migrating more to RHEL 10. Some in our environment are still in RHEL 7.

It's helped us mitigate risk. Any time we've had to do a patch update, the patch time is minimal. The risk reduction has been significant.

The knowledge base offered by RHEL is excellent. 

Even though I don't have complaints, I would like them to focus even more on what they're doing with Lightspeed and the AI assistance, so they could look more into that.

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

I have never had any problems with the stability and reliability of the Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) platform.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps me solve pain points by being more scalable.

I have not yet had any experience with customer service and technical support.

We have not used another solution before choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), nor are we considering another solution; we've been staying a RHEL shop.

From my point of view, the biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is that it's very easy to scale up with regards to patching and updating.

I really dont have much to do with the licensing aspects. 

The advice I would give to other companies considering Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is to seriously look into it and really not be too stuck or hung up on one single platform, and explore your options. 

I rate RHEL a nine out of ten.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) serves as the operating system for virtual machines that our applications run on. I use RHEL as an operating system, and overall it is a quality product.

I use Satellite in RHEL to be able to download the packages inside our network because it is a closed environment.

I have tried using the Red Hat Enterprise Linux Image Builder or system roles.

RHEL plays a role in my company's implementation of the Zero Trust model for Application and Workloads.

We do use Ansible, but not much.

We went from RHEL 7 to RHEL 8, and now I am looking to go to RHEL 10.

RHEL helps solve our pain points by providing the benefit of having the Enterprise edition so we can get support when we need it. The support is probably the biggest thing, being able to get the repos and download the latest packages and security.

Satellite in RHEL is a big benefit in navigating our security risks.

I have a dedicated team that supports our account with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). I email them questions, and they get me support really quickly.

The availability of training for people to find information and work through and solve problems with their online documentation is valuable.

I would like to see improvements in RHEL for closed environments, as it is not straightforward to go from RHEL 8 to RHEL 10 without a seamless upgrade.

I have been using RHEL for the last 20 years.

I have not experienced any downtime or crashes with the stability and reliability of the platform.

Scalability is smooth.

I have a dedicated team that supports our account with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). I email them questions, and they get me support really quickly.

Prior to adopting RHEL, we were using proprietary solutions from vendors that addressed similar needs.

The deployment experience with RHEL is straightforward.

We have not used RHEL to do AI workloads as we are just starting that.

The biggest return on investment when using RHEL is the availability of training for people to find information and work through and solve problems with their online documentation.

The pricing for RHEL is fine. I get an enterprise discount, so our pricing is quite good.

I did not consider switching to another solution.

My experience with the upgrade was seamless with no issues.

It is straightforward to start up a new VM within minutes.

Somebody else manages that.

We use some playbooks. We do not really use Ansible too much, but there is a lot of information available.

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a 10 overall. There is a cost factor to it, but you get what you pay for. I would recommend Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) over a lot of other open-source products. I would rate the overall experience a 10.

My main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are for applications, primarily. We provide Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) to other teams because we are from the operations team and have infrastructure responsibilities. We provide Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) VMs for developers and other teams to run their applications on.

Before adopting Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), my company used many Windows VMs. From the time I have been working in the company, we have been a Linux shop with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) VMs, along with a few Windows VMs.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps me solve pain points because Linux in general is easy to work with. The automation is straightforward. Because we have an ecosystem of Red Hat OpenShift, Ansible, and Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), the integration flows naturally.

The features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that I prefer most are the security features, which are very useful. The domain join realm and SELinux are also excellent.

For navigating our security risks with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), we currently use SELinux for security. We do not use Lightspeed at this time. We have FirewallD and other services for security. For identity management, we have our own Kerberos agents that we use for identity purposes.

Satellite helps maintain our environment overall because we have integration with Ansible and the Ansible Automation Platform. When we need to create a new VM, we start with Satellite and have all the bootstrap processes integrated with Ansible. The VM then comes up automatically, and we provide it to customers or whoever wants to use it.

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

The capabilities of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that have assisted me with this are mainly the integration aspects, such as Satellite and the Ansible Automation Platform. Everything has helped us reduce downtime for customers and accelerate VM deployment.

The security portions of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) could be improved and made easier to work with. SELinux in general is not intuitive because customers and developers do not know how to work with the VM. This part could be more user-friendly.

In my company's implementation of the Zero Trust model, we have not yet implemented this with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). Because we are from the operations team, there is another team that handles other responsibilities. We do not necessarily handle that aspect.

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

We have occasionally experienced downtime, crashes, or performance issues with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), but not frequently. Overall, it has been reliable.

Scalability-wise, the scaling process for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is smooth. We have scaled many applications and have not encountered any issues. The performance has been solid.

I evaluate the customer service and technical support from Red Hat as very good. I have never had any issues with the technical support. I have created multiple tickets with the Red Hat team and they have been quick and effective at responding and fixing the issues. I would rate the customer service and technical support a nine out of ten.

The advantages of having Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) instead of Windows servers are that the development process is easier. I think Windows is limiting. Linux in general provides more opportunity to try different approaches, work on different projects, and avoid being restricted to certain functionalities that are imposed on clients who use the operating system. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has done an excellent job overall.

I would describe the experience of deploying Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as straightforward. It is not complicated. We use Satellite to deploy the VMs and the process is very straightforward with minimal complexity.

We have used the Ansible Automation Platform through a dedicated automation team who handles all the automation for us.

From a technical point of view, the biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the integration aspect. Working with OpenShift and having VMs on it is very smooth. Even though some features are not intuitive, the integration is seamless.

My company has not considered switching to another solution that does the same thing as Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). We are committed to continuing with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

I would assess the knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as very good. I believe there could be more information available. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in general is excellent, but counterparts such as OpenShift could improve with respect to documentation and the knowledge base.

We performed a major version upgrade of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) using the Leapp upgrade tool manually. Although the process has been automated, we have not used automation to upgrade many VMs. We successfully upgraded forty to fifty VMs from Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) version seven to eight and from eight to nine using the Leapp upgrade.

The advice I would give to other companies is that from the time of deployment until the customer uses the system, having a pipeline ready and integration prepared for every component makes it much easier to deploy and use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). I would rate this product an eight out of ten overall.

My main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) today include developing applications and managing server environments efficiently. I use Red Hat Satellite and Red Hat Lightspeed overall, which streamline our operations significantly.

RHEL helps me solve various pain points, such as ensuring system stability and security across our infrastructure. I particularly appreciate the advanced security features of RHEL the most, as they enhance our overall protection.

RHEL plays a crucial role in my company's implementation of the zero trust model by ensuring secure identity and authentication measures. Using Ansible Automation Platform has been a smooth experience overall, enabling better automation in our workflows.

I use features in RHEL such as identity management and Satellite, which help my company maintain compliance and security. The stability and scalability of the platform are commendable, ensuring our systems can handle growth efficiently.

Regarding improvements, I think RHEL could benefit from better user interface enhancements for future releases.

I have been working in my current field for several years now and have gained valuable experience during this time.

RHEL helps mitigate downtime and lower risks thanks to its robust design.

On a scale of one to ten, I would rate the customer service and technical support as an eight, as they are responsive, but there is always room for improvement.

I would describe the deployment process of RHEL as mostly straightforward, although some challenges may arise.

From my perspective, I have seen a return on investment using RHEL, primarily through improved efficiency and system reliability.

My company is still working on artificial intelligence workloads, as we are in the early stages of exploring this technology. I would not say that RHEL has directly helped those customers yet, as we are still gathering data on effectiveness.

Regarding the knowledge base offered by RHEL, I find it very useful and assess it highly due to its comprehensive information. I do not specifically handle insights on pricing, setup costs, or licensing, as that is managed by another department in my company.

On a scale of one to ten, I would rate RHEL overall as a nine. I advise other companies to thoroughly assess their needs before implementation.

I work with both the cloud version and the on-premises version of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). I have worked with Red Hat Cloud and Red Hat Enterprise on-premises.

For the cloud-based products, the main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) include deploying websites and complex software for customers, such as SaaS software on the cloud, specifically Red Hat Cloud.

When choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in the cloud, security requirements were not a consideration for me because Red Hat provides us with the SLA regarding security compliance. I am more than satisfied to use Red Hat Cloud for security purposes, while I manage some other forms of security, such as my own keys and access in Red Hat Linux systems.

I really appreciate the zero trust networking that Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has, and it also provides the WAF, along with certified images from Red Hat. For my current work on containers, Red Hat provides certified images that minimize vulnerabilities of CVEs, improving security significantly.

Although I do not have much knowledge about virtualization technology, I can say that for the hybrid cloud on OpenShift with the operators provided by Red Hat, the ready-to-use operators take care of underlying security, patching, and updates, so I do not have to handle monitoring or security myself.

Security is highlighted as an advantage across various aspects, such as the zero trust networking feature and the availability of certified images, which are instrumental in minimizing vulnerabilities and enhancing security.

While there are good aspects, I would appreciate improvements in the command-line interface (CLI). Red Hat could do more on the CLI side instead of focusing so much on UI development.

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

Regarding stability, I have not experienced performance issues, crashes, or downtimes with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL); any problems usually arise from my applications, not from the Linux system.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is definitely scalable.

Whether I have expanded the usage of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) depends on the business requirements, as RHEL comes with a cost that my company can afford because IBM owns Red Hat, so everything scales on RHEL.

Regarding my experience with Red Hat's technical support team, I find that they come very quickly with answers. However, sometimes the first person who responds might be a technical support agent without in-depth knowledge, so for more complex issues, a specialized engineer comes to the rescue, depending on the criticality of the subject, especially if it is production or a staging environment. They answer according to the SLA and support terms.

Positive

Determining whether Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is cost-effective depends entirely on the business. If your business faces compromises leading to significant losses, then investing in Red Hat Enterprise is truly necessary. However, if your business is small or medium-sized, you can manage with the free versions.

Regarding the deployment aspect, my experience has been straightforward because it is all automated with Ansible; all I need to do is provide an IP address, and it takes care of all the variables and boots up automatically.

Regarding the pricing, setup costs, and licensing costs of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I have heard that the licensing cost is significant compared to free alternatives such as CentOS or AlmaLinux, which are managed by Red Hat. I previously used CentOS, which is free, but I had to manage everything, including security, patching, reboots, and storage.

The key differences between Red Hat and other Linux technologies I have used include the advantages of excellent technical support, good documentation, and a large community for problem-solving. A disadvantage is that it is not open source, meaning limited flexibility, and the high cost associated with Red Hat compared to others.

I would advise other organizations considering Red Hat to start using it as their applications grow larger, rather than waiting for their business to become huge, as delays can lead to complications.

Currently, I am working on bare-metal services where I install Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). Using AWS for Red Hat is indeed a good option, as you can get the image directly from AWS with a subscription cost per hour for Red Hat licensing.

Red Hat helps keep applications operational because it provides built-in monitoring tools that offer a good overview of all running services, including built-in agents that come with the Red Hat subscription to identify potential breakouts. Regarding reducing risks, Red Hat also provides secure images that indicate the latest security patches available worldwide.

The knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is excellent; the documentation is fantastic and is supported by a large community that answers questions effectively.

When comparing the business value of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) to other Linux distributions, I find that RHEL is more stringent with its security, requiring users to be careful not to trespass, whereas other Linux systems do not enforce such strict security measures, and users must manage security themselves.

On a scale of one to ten, I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) overall as a product and solution at eight, possibly eight and a half.

My main use case for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is as the operating system for all of our applications. I'm our Ansible SME, so we install on top of that and then use that application to manage the RHEL for the enterprise.

The features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that I most appreciate include the easy package management and the straightforward upgrades. The stability and support are also impressive.

The benefit that my company sees from these features is significant. In my particular applications, it's not allowed to be down for more than five minutes consecutively, so it's helping me meet my requirement.

When considering how Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) can be improved, I would say for the enterprise, having easier hooks for these air-gapped lab environments would be beneficial. The reason why these lab environments are air-gapped is we want to test new things, and we can't have it interact with the rest of our network until it's fully vetted. That's why we have these labs to fully vet those types of things. It's normally a hassle to get RHEL up in those environments until we work out the right treatment.

The improvement would be if there's an easy way to, through that air-gapped environment, entitle the RHEL images.

In terms of assessing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)'s built-in security features, I find that out of the box, we are able to manage golden images and that keeps us in compliance.

It is very easy to manage.

I haven't had experience with customer service and technical support for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) items, but I have on the Ansible side.

The portal is excellent. They integrated OpenShift AI, so sometimes when I'm filling out the ticket, it already has the solution there and I end up not opening the ticket. When I do have to open the ticket, I get a good response. That's on the Ansible side, but I'm sure it's the same on RHEL if I ran into something.

We have considered different solutions, not so much Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) itself. Our company started with mainframe way back and has been long time RHEL customers.

We have looked at different container solutions and things in the Red Hat ecosystem, and Red Hat came ahead in those.

From my point of view, the return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is definitely significant.

If we were not able to meet our regulatory impact, we would not be able to do business. It is table stakes.

The advice I would give to other companies that are considering Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) right now is to do a comparison and get feedback from their engineers.

They will see that this is a much more stable platform with a lot of support. I would rate RHEL a 10 out of 10 because it's how we do business.

My main use case for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is hosting applications.

My company benefits from using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) by having more secure workstations and inviting more beginner users.

The feature of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that I appreciate the most is the new Boot C that's coming out. That's been pretty interesting. 

RHEL helps me solve the pain point of feeling disconnected from the community. I've been feeling more involved and considered. Previously, a lot of documentation was for connected instances, and I work for an air-gapped network. Now I appreciate seeing that the documentation actually has disconnected settings. It's neat to be included in there. 

I appreciate the documentation. The knowledge bases are pretty good. Usually, when I have an issue and find a Red Hat knowledge base, it addresses the issue.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)'s built-in security features are really well designed for simplifying risk reduction and maintaining compliance. I see many new technologies coming out are geared toward security or enhancing security. It's neat that it's continuing to evolve.

My upgrade or migration plans to stay current with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) involve leaning on our unclassified environment before we can upgrade, as I'm in a disconnected network. As soon as we're able to, I'm trying to upgrade as often as we can. It's because I want to utilize all the new tools coming out in 9.6 and now 10. We just got to RHEL 8, and I'm already ready to leap RHEL 8 to get the newest features.

Improving Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) can be tough, however, a significant area is collaboration tools. We have many Windows users that use Outlook and Skype or Teams to collaborate on our network. They want Linux desktops due to the fact that they want to use containers. Their biggest complaint is, 'I need two workstations to do my container work and one to collaborate.' If somehow RHEL can start introducing or collaborating with Teams and Outlook so their users can work with their Windows peers, that would be great. But I don't think that's available yet.

Regarding pricing, setup costs, and licensing, there needs to be more of an education piece to it. For instance, when purchasing 10 or 100 node licenses, they could suggest, 'We also offer this 1,000 node license instead, and it'll save you specific amounts.' Just more education on their offerings would be helpful, because usually, we're coming out with the requirements, and then they just provide it to us. They could inform us about saving by bundling it differently or using alternative approaches.

I've been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) since 2012, which is 13 years now.

The stability and reliability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) have been pretty good. We haven't had any issues, major crashes, or anything similar.

The scalability of the Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) platform has been able to meet my company needs for servers. The workstations are a little difficult, but overall it meets our requirements.

Regarding customer service and technical support of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I really enjoy it. 

With many other vendors, I have problems with support and back and forth, getting escalated, routed all over the place. Usually, when a case gets assigned to someone from Red Hat, it's handled in a timely fashion, and it's precise. There's no guessing or reading from scripts. It's direct to the point.

I would rate the customer service and technical support of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) an eight and a half to nine. The only reason for not giving a perfect score is that there could be more knowledge base articles or documents. There's not always a Red Hat instance for what I'm looking for, however, when there is one, it's always accurate.

Positive

Before implementing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I used CentOS and Fedora. The main difference between Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and those prior solutions is the support.

I would describe the experience of deploying Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as pretty simple and straightforward. The GUI is really interactive, and it's really easy to build from scratch.

The biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), from a technical point of view, is that it reduces man-hours. 

With Ansible, it definitely reduces man-hours in patching or being able to configure or manage systems across the country with hundreds of systems. The approximate reduction of man-hours that RHEL provides is in the hundreds. I couldn't imagine administering a couple of hundred servers one by one. 

We have to implement quarterly security checks and remediations that come out in bunches of 30 at a time. Having to do that on each box would take forever. I could probably only do four or five a day with our few hundred servers.

We did not consider any other solutions while using RHEL.

I have been involved in migrations or upgrades of RHEL, and I just completed a leap upgrade from RHEL 7 to RHEL 8. We manage our Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems when it comes to provisioning and patching by using templates from VMware to deploy our RHEL boxes, and for patching, we use Red Hat Satellite to provide the patches. We also use Ansible platform to run the plays, to kick off the updates and the reboots.

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