Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Reviews

Red Hat Enterprise Linux serves various functions, including operating system tasks, satellite management, and OpenShift deployments. Additionally, we utilize Red Hat's Insight and Subscription Manager products.

Our organization utilizes Red Hat Enterprise Linux, both on-premises and in the cloud. While we maintain on-premises systems, certain departments also leverage Red Hat Enterprise Linux in a cloud environment. As the license manager for Red Hat in our organization, I can confirm that we have a substantial number of Enterprise systems operating in the cloud.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux offers key benefits for enterprise management, including features such as patch management, resource isolation, enhanced stability, and improved performance through automation. Unlike its earlier versions, Red Hat now provides these functionalities out-of-the-box, eliminating the need for extensive scripting and streamlining administrative tasks. Red Hat introduced an online patch management system in Red Hat nine, similar to what AIX offered years ago. This system, which likely will be included in Red Hat ten and eleven, allows for online patching without requiring a reboot. This is a significant advantage for enterprise companies who cannot afford downtime, making Red Hat an even more attractive option for them.

Looking beyond a Red Hat-centric view, hybrid cloud computing significantly enhances customer service. Whether through new service offerings, modernized workflows, or improved scalability, automation, and high availability inherent in cloud solutions, the benefits are clear. Furthermore, Red Hat Enterprise Linux provides stability, avoiding the reboots and challenges often associated with Windows environments. Therefore, hybrid cloud adoption is a strong strategy for enterprise companies, offering substantial advantages.

To enhance future development centralization, our development teams are transitioning to Red Hat Enterprise Linux on our development servers.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has robust built-in security features that effectively contribute to risk reduction, business continuity, and compliance maintenance. Red Hat demonstrates a solid commitment to security by providing timely updates and fixes to its customers. While the operating system itself is secure, it's important to note that Red Hat Enterprise Linux provides a foundational image that requires further hardening through the implementation of security controls. Red Hat empowers users with a platform and a range of hardening options, enabling them to tailor security measures to their specific application needs. Furthermore, Red Hat's rapid release of fixes and updates, often within a day or two of a vulnerability discovery, ensures that customers have access to the latest security enhancements.

The portability of applications and containers built on Red Hat Enterprise Linux fosters organizational agility by enabling a continuous cycle of learning, trying, adapting, and iterating. Containers offer a streamlined approach to development, allowing for rapid deployment and effortless updates. If a containerized application doesn't work, it can be quickly destroyed and recreated with updated components, significantly reducing deployment time compared to traditional methods. This rapid iteration aligns perfectly with agile principles, enabling organizations to respond swiftly to changing needs and requirements.

Red Hat Satellite provides patching information and compliance percentages for our systems, but in a multi-departmental enterprise environment, Red Hat Insights offers a more comprehensive view. Insights synchronizes data from Satellite and provides a centralized platform to monitor compliance across different application sectors. This addresses the limitation of Satellite, which may not be accessible to all stakeholders. Insights' API-based functionality allows integration with ServiceNow, creating a single pane of glass view of compliance for various teams. Furthermore, the Insights client provides granular visibility into vulnerabilities, further enhancing transparency and management capabilities. This integration streamlines compliance monitoring and improves overall efficiency.

Red Hat Insights provides vulnerability alerts and guidance. While it doesn't necessarily affect uptime, the severity of the vulnerability determines the response. High-severity vulnerabilities require immediate evaluation to assess their impact. Multiple security layers within the environment may mitigate immediate risks. However, vulnerabilities should be addressed promptly. Insights enhance transparency and provide detailed information for timely action.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux offers many features I appreciate, especially the increasing maturity of the operating system and its automation platform. The automation platform, in particular, has significantly evolved over the past three years. Satellite, now known as Insight, is another excellent product, providing easy and convenient patch management for both managed and unmanaged systems. Its reporting on users, vulnerabilities, and other key information is also quite valuable. Having used Red Hat since version three and now working with versions eight and nine, I'm consistently impressed by its progress. The preview of Red Hat ten looks amazing, and I plan to implement it soon after its release.

The area of improvement is patch management, specifically isolating kernel and operating system patching to prevent downtime for enterprise applications.

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

Red Hat Enterprises Linux is stable, and improvements are constantly made.

We are not extensively using the scalability features, but the documentation and technology are growing.

I am generally happy with Red Hat's customer service and technical support. There are challenges with different time zones, but overall, the service is satisfactory.

Positive

Red Hat Enterprise Linux offers a straightforward pricing and licensing model. The subscription manager provides clear visibility into license usage and facilitates tracking usage growth over time. Although the tool is still under development, Red Hat is actively collaborating with customers to improve its features and functionality. The subscription manager enhances transparency by enabling accurate tracking of license consumption and ensuring alignment with customer needs. Red Hat Insights, working with the satellite, further strengthens transparency by automatically calculating and reporting license usage. This comprehensive approach simplifies customer license management and promotes clarity in supplier relationships.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is a solid operating system, earning an 8 out of 10 rating. While no OS is perfect, and there's always room for improvement, Red Hat effectively meets the evolving demands of the business market.

While numerous open-source operating systems are available for development, enterprise-class companies require the stability and support of enterprise-level solutions. Red Hat Enterprise Linux bridges this gap by offering a forum for feedback and collaboration, allowing users to directly influence feature improvements and updates. Red Hat Enterprise Linux effectively combines the flexibility of open source with the robust support and reliability required by enterprise-class customers, unlike many other open-source operating systems that lack this level of responsiveness.

Our focus is on the enterprise support and open mindset Red Hat provides, looking to customer benefits and services.

We use it for SAP applications. We use it for web hosting, and then we use it for clustering.

We were previously using Windows Servers, but we had challenges with the compatibility with SAP applications, the support, and the frequency of patches. We had compatibility challenges when we wanted to go for an upgrade. We use the SAP HANA database for SAP applications, and the migration process from Windows to Linux was easy. We also got better support. While troubleshooting issues and doing RCA on unplanned events, the support we received from Red Hat was good.

Because of the reduction in compatibility issues, the number of downtimes was reduced. The escalations were reduced from the application side. The frequency of the patching was reduced, so such planned activities were reduced. With Windows, we were forced to go for patching even if the application was not ready for patching. Red Hat Enterprise Linux is a good platform for SAP applications and the database in our organization. We prefer Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

Patch management with the Red Hat Satellite server is also good. When it comes to automation, the automation tool for regular tasks on Windows was very backward compared to the Red Hat automation tool that we are now using. Red Hat Ansible is far ahead. We could automate many more tasks on-premises using the Red Hat platform as compared to the Windows platform.

Red Hat Insights helps us understand vulnerabilities and avoid any downtime and risks. If needed, we can easily reach out to the Red Hat support team for any help related to patching or changes.

The knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux is very good. It is easy to understand. It is not too technical to understand. New users and application support teams can easily understand the information given in their knowledge base.

Initially, we used to do installation and patching manually, but we later implemented the Red Hat Satellite server, which was suggested by their team. We started using the Red Hat Satellite server. It has made deployment, patch management, and lifecycle management very easy.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has affected our system's uptime. Earlier, the downtime was around six to eight hours, whereas now, it has come down to one hour. We also need less manpower for upgrades.

The file system is very good. We also have flexibility. We can scale the file system and add the mounts on the go without any downtime.

On Windows, for security, we need to have many applications and supporting tools installed externally whereas we get them with Red Hat Enterprise Linux without any issues. Application management is also easy compared to Windows.

Build management is also easier than Windows. When we had to deploy an application on Windows, the process was difficult compared to the Red Hat build process.

If someone wants to build automation, we can give them access to Red Hat Ansible Tower, which was not possible with Windows.

There can be a faster resolution. When we have production issues, they take around 30 to 60 minutes to come up with a solution. It would be quite helpful if their response is faster. They are also not reachable over the phone, so we need to wait for their callback for the ticket. If they are reachable over the phone, that will be quite good. Our account manager is reachable over the phone but only during certain times. Fast help would be quite helpful in the case of any urgent issues.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for the last nine years.

For reliability, I would rate it a ten out of ten. The downtime that we have is not because of the OS. That is generally because of the dependencies such as the network or VMware infrastructure.

I would rate it an eight out of ten for scalability.

We have around 4,000 users, but the Red Hat boxes that we use are around 2,000. 

In the case of any unplanned events, system crash, or something else, we get proper answers from their team. They help us with RCA, which is helpful in avoiding any such events in the future. We can also approach them when we want to implement something. When we were moving from version 7 to version 8, their support helped us. We could move a bulk of machines with a small downtime. The application team was quite happy because the downtime was for a very short duration.

Their support for urgent or production issues can be faster. I have had all kinds of experiences with their support. I have worked with their support for the last four or five years. We have had scenarios where we had to close a ticket with no resolution. We have also had an awesome and quick response from them. They have also helped us build up a process, which was quite tedious. Overall, I would rate them an eight out of ten.

Positive

We were previously using Windows Servers. We had challenges related to compatibility, support, and patch frequency. We were not very comfortable with Microsoft's support. Whenever we had any issues, they only asked us to reboot or wait for the patch. They kept giving us some patches. We were not comfortable with that because the applications were not ready for those patches, but they forced us to keep updating them with the patches. Red Hat support is better than Microsoft support. They do not just ask to reboot to solve an issue. They help us with a proper RCA.

We have hypervisors in the on-prem environment. We use VMware on that. We are using Red Hat Enterprise Linux on bare metal and hypervisors. It is quite comfortable. We do not see any issue with either of them. Initially, we had some issues implementing the cluster on VMware, but Red Hat along with the VMware team helped us overcome the issues.

Its deployment was quite straightforward. There was no confusion. It took us some time initially but that got reduced with the help of Red Hat Satellite and Ansible Tower. Initially, it took 30 to 40 minutes for deployment. With the help of Red Hat Satellite and Ansible Tower, it came down to 15 to 20 minutes. We also needed less manpower because the process was quite straightforward. Previously, we had a team of four, but the number was reduced afterward. 

Upgrades are generally quite straightforward because we have spent some time with Red Hat support and built a process for easy upgrades.

We had some challenges with the upgrade from Red Hat Enterprise Linux version 7 to version 8 because of certain dependencies, but the Red Hat support helped us build a process and automate it. It took some time, but it got easy.

We have not used Red Hat Enterprise Linux Image Builder. It did not match our requirements. We built our own images. After moving to the Red Hat Satellite server, image building was quite easy.

It is not fairly priced. If they can reduce the price, it would be nice. 

I understand that they do not have any big competition as of now. SUSE Linux is there, but Red Hat Enterprise Linux has overcome all the drawbacks that it had earlier. Initially, SUSE Linux was a quite comfortable platform for SAP applications, but Red Hat has improved in terms of development. Its kernel suits SAP applications very well. If they can also improve the pricing, it would be even better. They generally do not reduce the price, but they give add-ons. We can get licenses for the Satellite server, Ansible, etc.

I would recommend Red Hat Enterprise Linux because of its support and reliability. In my career, I have worked with various Linux flavors such as Red Hat Enterprise Linux, CentOS, or Ubuntu Linux. Overall, the Linux platform is very reliable for most applications. With Red Hat Enterprise Linux, we get support when we need it.

We do not use the web console much on the support side, but the application team does use it once in a while. They find it comfortable because, for application deployment, they require a GUI. We provide them with the console, and they complete their task. We do not use it ourselves. We are quite comfortable with the command line interface.

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

As an end user and a trained engineer working on field development, I am required to use a Linux-based system for all aspects of our work. This includes everything from logical design to design verification, and physical design, all the way to integrating data into the silicon database at the foundry. Since all of this occurs in a Linux environment, I must ensure we have the right platform in place. The performance we achieve with the tools we use can vary significantly across different platforms. Additionally, the support provided by these platforms is crucial. In the field of silicon design, we rely heavily on electronic design automation (EDA) tools, which are continuously being enhanced. As this area evolves, it’s essential for our operating systems to keep pace with the migration of the latest tool versions. If I become stuck with an outdated version of the OS, it can adversely affect my productivity and the quality of my designs. Therefore, I need to be reasonably familiar with various operating system providers and understand the pros and cons of each. This includes comparisons between Red Hat, SUSE, and Ubuntu, which is essential for meeting my requirements.

Since it is widely used, I believe the knowledge base is fairly good. In my own organization, which has three vertical companies, two others were already using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for production. They were asking me to go with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) unless I had a compelling reason to go to SUSE or Ubuntu. This indicates that the IT team within my company preferred Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for support and documentation purposes. The company has been around for more than a decade, so familiarity might be one reason, or resistance to change may have been another reason to stick with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). In my role as the design manager, I have not heard anything negative about Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

My decision to go with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) was influenced by three main factors:

1. The IT team’s familiarity with Red Hat due to its previous deployment in other units.

2. Competitive pricing, which was 25 to 30 percent lower than other options.

3. The perception that Red Hat offered long-term service pack support for an additional fee; something that other providers like SUSE may not have offered.

Ultimately, the first two reasons were strong enough for me to lean towards Red Hat.

To some extent, I am speculating, but at the end of the day, the main thing we care about is how the resources are getting scheduled and utilized. Without an external load-sharing application, the number of cores in our servers and the memory should all be utilized effectively. If they can do very good dynamic resource allocation, maximizing the number of cores and the memory without external applications, that would be beneficial

Additionally, this is not just for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), but for any OS - I would really love to make sure that their security features are robust and getting updated regularly. I believe at a given point of time, they may be very good, but hackers are also improving their techniques. I would definitely expect Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) or any OS provider to constantly monitor, understand if there are any new vulnerabilities in their OS, and provide patches or fixes so that we are always guarded from any security threat because what we are developing consists of very important IPs that have to be protected from malware attacks.

The most important thing is that it has to be stable. If it is not stable and we have to reboot it because of something, that would be problematic. The kind of tools it provides natively is important. For example, if I am doing development, I want to have a checkout process. If they have well-developed documentation and the ability to work with the code itself, along with good support for developing, then the performance of the OS would improve. If I see that one of my runs for any workload is taking five days, I immediately question why it is not completing within a day. If the load sharing is not happening correctly, there might be switches or features that the OS provides that can help use more memory or similar resources. Being developer-friendly would be beneficial. One thing managers hate is nasty surprises, so even if something is not working in the OS, it should provide some ability for IT to observe potential issues three or four weeks in advance.

I have only been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for a short duration of time, about six to eight months because the migration happened very recently.

I am working for a startup company. We used to use open source SUSE because that was kind of easy to use and we did not have to spend many dollars. When we reached the point where we had to go to production, we needed to ensure we were using something more reliable because open source is open source. When I go to a newer version or a production version of the OS, some of the designs we are developing will be around because our startup is focusing on accelerators for the cloud. Some of these can be around for seven years, 10 years, and beyond. Hypothetically, even after 10 years, somebody who is using our silicon can find a bug, and we are obligated to fix it through software or other means. If we do not have the OS support at that point in time, because 10 years is a long time, it becomes problematic. When we go towards production, the kind of analysis that I do involves determining how many years this OS is supported and whether they will support it for an extended period, provided I pay them extension money. I am an end user, and I try to look at the facets of the OS based on my current business needs.

When we were using Ubuntu, I initially found it sufficient for my EDA tools under the evaluation licenses I had. However, as I progressed into silicon design and needed to purchase production licenses, I realized that the older version of Ubuntu wasn’t adequate. The question arose: if we were to upgrade to a paid version of the operating system, which one should we choose? I conducted some research comparing Ubuntu and Red Hat, and ultimately decided to go with Red Hat. Once I made that decision, I simply needed to explain my reasoning to my IT team, stating that I wanted to upgrade the twenty or so servers I was using to Red Hat 9.1, or whatever the current version was at that time. They took over from there.

We experienced some initial challenges when we moved to Red Hat, mainly due to the tools' versions. At first, we struggled to navigate these issues, but once I contacted support, they were able to resolve them quickly.

The maintenance is handled by the IT team.

Most of the studies that I did were between Ubuntu and Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). I did not check extensively on SUSE Enterprise.

I was inclined to choose Red Hat for a couple of reasons. First, the IT team’s familiarity with Red Hat was crucial since it had already been deployed in other areas of the organization. This existing knowledge made the transition smoother.

Additionally, I did not inquire about pricing immediately because, ultimately, my business unit would be responsible for the costs. I recall that the price for Red Hat Enterprise Linux was less than one lakh rupees per license per year. The annual cost might be around 1.2 lakh or slightly more, but it was certainly under that threshold. Furthermore, I believe that if we were to negotiate for a larger number of licenses, we might have received a better rate. Regarding the initial pricing I received, I remember it being about twenty-five percent lower per license per year compared to other options. 

For my use case with EDA tools, Synopsys EDA tools' local AE team said that support in India is better for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). Additionally, Ubuntu and SUSE support for 10 years, whereas Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) supports for 10 years plus an extended two to four year period for a cost. Since our chips will be in the cloud market for at least a decade or more, this long-term support influenced my decision.

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

The main use cases with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for me are hosting Oracle databases, Oracle server database, and MariaDB. When we need to install Oracle, we put it on Linux, and it usually was Santos in the past. Then we moved to Oracle Enterprise Linux or Red Hat, and when Oracle released the Linux distro, we moved to Oracle because the devices are really open source.

Some of the best features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) include stability; it doesn't break. Stability, along with management tools and users for management tools that they add to the Linux distro, are important. The main reason is stability. In the server area, we don't want change. That's why we're trying to move back to Debian, because Debian is stable—old, but stable. 

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) does help save time because the setup and general installation experience is very optimized and well-established. I made tests installing and setting up radioactive environments for virtual machines, and it was a very good experience, fast.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is for on-premises only; we try to avoid the clouds as much as we can. In Brazil, we are seeing an interesting movement with small cloud providers because Amazon, Google, and Microsoft are too expensive. I am noticing the rise of many small companies that build small data centers and offer cloud services to small companies. They prosper with a better price and a simpler solution—not a fancy data center with sophisticated security. Just a small space with a decent Internet connection and a stable energy source, and they are good to go. People are prospering with this model of small cloud providers.

The main difference between Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and some of the others that I'm evaluating now is that Red Hat tries to use more recent packages. The problem with Debian and some of the stable distributions is that they are too conservative, and they keep the version progress very slow. I sometimes develop and create things that need more recent packages and libraries, and with Debian, I usually struggle with that. Red Hat usually provides the new ones—stable, but new. That's one of the best features of using Red Hat. Ubuntu also upgrades some important libraries from Debian.

I have used Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for more than fifteen years, because we have some infrastructure on it.

I assess the knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as excellent; they have a great technology base on their website, but it requires a subscription. You might think you get free access, but I really don't prefer it. I usually find other sources. I know they have a very good knowledge base with excellent documentation, but I usually don't get access to it. I have not reached out to their support, so I do not have any personal experience with Red Hat support. The support that we really use from time to time is Oracle. My clients use the Oracle database, and they all pay for support. We use it because my partner, who is an Oracle database administrator, frequently deals with problems with Oracle and uses their support, and it works very effectively.

Positive

My thoughts on the deployment with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are that it's easy, there are no problems at all. It's very easy, including in the cloud; they offer many partners, and it's really easy to move your loads to the cloud with Red Hat. I believe it's easier than with Microsoft. However, my clients usually do not get involved with this; most of them are Microsoft-based.

The ROI with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is useful if the company requires accountability or a formal contract, because they usually need someone involved in some kind of accountability process when lawyers get involved. Only in that situation does it make sense to pay that price. Usually, companies that are required by law to have licensed products, such as banks and insurance companies, have obligations by law. This is especially true in Brazil, where the insurance market is very regulated. It makes sense for these companies to have a license contract, particularly in the case of security leaks and similar issues.

My experience with the pricing or licensing for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) indicates that our clients never chose to purchase a license. I watched the prices a few months ago while considering buying one for myself, and they were expensive; it's not a reasonable price, especially for small companies. The business value of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is compatible and on the same level as other Linux distributions I have used. They all charge the same for their products. I usually don't see much difference. When I compare the price of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) to that of Windows, they are basically the same price, just a little cheaper, a small fraction. All of these big corporations try to squeeze the clients as much as they can. The only exception is Broadcom, which seems to try to charge an absurd amount for their products.

My clients all have their own firewall solutions and network security solutions that they purchase. We usually don't deal with that. We just keep the built-in firewall running, and that's all. That's the main feature that we use on Red Hat and other distros, the built-in firewall. 

Security Enhanced Linux (SELinux) is something we do not engage with. Last week, I tried to install a new version of Oracle Enterprise Linux from Red Hat on an old HP server, Gen 5, but it did not work; I needed to go back to Ubuntu. Ubuntu, even in the new version, uses a kernel that works on old hardware, so we have to deal with this situation. If you have old hardware and need to repurpose an old server, you can't use these new distros. Even Oracle does not work with very old equipment, more than ten years old. 

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as a seven or eight out of ten.

I use Red Hat Enterprise Linux to manage pre-configured web servers, troubleshooting issues such as "524 errors" and missing configurations in EMV files. Furthermore, I constructed an on-premises Kubernetes cluster on Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9 and configured it for ELK.

The Red Hat Enterprise Linux knowledge base is excellent. When I encountered an error, they were able to quickly identify the issue and guide me through the necessary steps to resolve it.

The Red Hat Enterprise Linux Web Console functioned properly throughout the lab courses.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is excellent for commercial use and enterprise tools. It's best to use Red Hat for enterprises because it provides robust support available twenty-four by seven, which I have experienced.

To start working with Red Hat Linux was straightforward and user-friendly. I didn't encounter any complexities.

The most valuable feature of Red Hat Enterprise Linux is its comprehensive ecosystem. The detailed documentation eliminates the need to consult external resources, and the knowledgeable support team provides expert assistance with both technical issues and site navigation.

Improvement is needed for supporting Kubernetes clusters because it is less supported by Red Hat according to my experience. There are also some gaps in documentation which affect configuring Kubernetes clusters.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for four to six months.

I have not faced any downtime or stability issues with Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

I have not encountered any scalability issues with Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

The technical support is excellent. They promptly addressed my concerns regarding permission issues when I contacted them.

Positive

I used CentOS for non-enterprise purposes but switched to Red Hat for enterprise applications due to its superior support and stability. However, Ubuntu is generally preferred for Kubernetes deployments.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is nine out of ten.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux does not require maintenance.

Our mid-size organization has between 20 and 50 employees, including our DevOps team, who use Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

I recommend Red Hat Enterprise Linux due to its support and strategy.

My main use cases are related to Ansible, mostly involving software automation, software installation automation, and data collection.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has less overhead compared to other operating systems for my company. The command line interface is much easier to use—there's not as much navigating around screens. The command line interface is much easier to instruct and manage in that sense.

There's less overhead than using Microsoft products in general, as is the case with the Linux operating systems. I enjoy the command line interfaces a lot more than the UI. For me, that's a plus, but it's also nice to have the GUI interface on top of that if I need to.

The seamless integration with Ansible is always a plus. I can just get it running. Podman, as well, is valuable. Having it just there and ready to use is such a quality of life increase. I don't have to mess around with dependencies. 

It's been good and reliable. I haven't dealt with it much, but I would say Podman and containerization could use a little more work, although I don't know exactly how that would proceed. 

The UI could use a little bit of work. The graphical interface could be improved. I'm not too big of a fan of it right now, but some of that can be customized. Right out of the box, I'm not the biggest fan of how it looks, but that's personal.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for about two years now. I've been dabbling in it on and off. I started with Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 and went all the way up to Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9 most recently.

It's very reliable. It's fairly robust. I haven't had many issues with it.

I haven't had any issues with customer service and technical support for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). Their customer service has been great.

Positive

It's seamless. When it comes to managing my Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems, I most often do manual patching, and it's not any more challenging than any other system I've dealt with, so it's standard in that sense. 

For me, the biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is ease of use and quality of life.

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

I have used Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for most of my career. It is primarily used as the base operating system on which various applications run. Currently, I am attempting to transition away from RHEL due to changes in the organization following IBM's acquisition.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is still considered better than Microsoft's offerings due to its superior handling of virtualization and faster performance. Microsoft often incorporates parts of RHEL's code, such as the networking stack, into its own products. The LEAP functionality for upgrades between versions is well-written and satisfactory.

RHEL has experienced a change in approach after being acquired by IBM, and the company has shifted away from open-source principles. The knowledge base is now outdated and lacks documentation for features in RHEL 9, relying instead on old documentation from RHEL 7. The introduction of unstable and undocumented products also detracts from the product's reliability.

I have used RHEL since it existed, so since 1991 or 1992.

RHEL has become less reliable due to undocumented updates and the release of unstable packages, which detracts from the product's stability.

Within the same vendor, moving workloads is easy. However, switching between vendors requires a significant migration effort.

The quality of Red Hat's support has declined in the past five to six years after outsourcing support to India. Complex issues are difficult to resolve due to communication challenges.

Negative

I have not switched from RHEL, but I am exploring alternatives such as Rocky Linux and Debian, which offer similar features without the high costs.

Setting up RHEL is quite straightforward, especially for someone familiar with it. The software asks the necessary questions for configuration, and the documentation generally explains these well.

The return on investment with RHEL is challenging to calculate but involves paying more upfront compared to Microsoft solutions for better reliability and stability, avoiding potential downtime costs.

The setup and licensing costs for RHEL are high, especially concerning support and associated applications. Red Hat charges high prices for support solutions like Ansible Tower, which can deter companies from using their products.

Other solutions evaluated include Ubuntu, Rocky Linux, and Debian. These alternatives offer similar functionality at a lower cost, especially concerning support.

Overall, I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a seven out of ten. People are now turning to other Linux distributions due to RHEL's declining quality and high costs. I suggest caution when considering Red Hat due to the divergence from its original open-source model.

My main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) include working with applications such as Middleware and databases to provide services to different technologies, including Middleware, databases, and applications such as SAP, while managing these in my company.

The innovation benefits my company by providing good support through Insights, which offers comprehensive vulnerability scanning.

What I appreciate the most about Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the innovation; it constantly drives the need to go faster. 

The TAM support is excellent with weekly meetings where the representative has extensive knowledge, allowing us to resolve all questions. 

The software consistently releases new versions with features and ensures stability compared to other systems, such as Ubuntu.

We have reduced downtime issues from patching by 30% over the past year, thanks to our TAM who provided a testing site where we can check patching in our test environment first, allowing us to find any issues before they reach production and thereby minimizing impact.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps me solve pain points due to their good support team, which usually has quick access to information, resulting in minimal downtime when problems arise. You only need to call, and they can provide a solution, often found in the Knowledge Base on the internet and web page.

I am not sure how Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) can be improved.

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

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales effectively with the growing needs of my company due to our global contract, which allows for more VMs than we initially anticipated, ensuring we receive the necessary licenses.

My experience with Red Hat's technical support and customer service is positive; they have good support, always trying to find solutions and understanding my requirements, which is important for me.

Positive

In the past, we considered other Linux OS solutions, specifically demoing with Canonical, however, it was not suitable for us.

I find the deployment of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) easy. We automate everything in one pipeline, so you only need to execute that pipeline and in a few minutes, you have your new server.

From my point of view, the biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the meantime to repair issues; with good support, our downtime is practically nothing, which is a significant return for us.

The innovation benefits my company by providing good support through Insights, which offers a good scan of vulnerabilities, and the TAM support is excellent with weekly meetings where the representative has extensive knowledge, allowing us to resolve all questions. 

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

To achieve a perfect score, we need more focus on version management.