Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Reviews

Our main use cases for using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) revolve around building managed services, as all of our Linux workload runs on Red Hat, and there isn't a different Linux distribution in our company. For most customers, it really depends, as we handle all kinds of business applications basically.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps us solve pain points by allowing us to offer support for our managed services, including very high service-level agreements in terms of availability and everything around CVEs, which is also what most of our customers are interested in. The features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) will benefit our company by addressing certain customer use cases we haven't explored yet, particularly with functionality rollbacks and making patch management a bit easier. As we are moving a lot to cloud-native technology, having a similar approach for our Linux operating system as we have for cloud resource orchestration containers is very useful, especially since the German market is a bit slower than the US market.

To manage our Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems regarding provisioning and patching, we use Ansible and also Red Hat Satellite as we are a Red Hat partner, and we are very satisfied with that management experience.

I am really excited about the new Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 10 and the Image Builder, which are the features I most appreciate and am definitely going to check out.

We consider security requirements a top priority due to the highly regulated nature of the German market and the sectors we work with, including automotive and financial institutes, so it really depends on the customers, however, having a secure operating system is crucial.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) supports our hybrid cloud strategy by allowing us to deploy virtual machines in both clouds without really feeling the difference between a private or public cloud.

The knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is pretty good and we use it heavily. We also contribute to it by raising issues so that they may be solved and verified.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) could be improved slightly even though the new RHEL 10 just came out and there are many helpful features in it. For instance, while Image Builder is good, improving the image mode could be beneficial, although it might have already been improved in RHEL 10. 

Additionally, for using third-party software, such as security scanners or patch management systems not from the Red Hat family such as Azure Patch Management, sometimes there could be improvements regarding support, as it can take a year or one and a half years to receive support for certain RHEL major versions, so partnerships on the Red Hat side and collaborations with Microsoft would help.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) internally for our managed services functions and for our customers since it became available. We are a partner of Red Hat where we do consultancy and resell RHEL and Red Hat Ansible, making the answer to this question complicated since we have been using it for about five and a half years.

The stability and reliability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are very good.

Regarding scalability, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales very well for our company needs.

Customer service and technical support for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are very good, as we are a platinum partner with some benefits. That said, even the regular customer support is most of the time very sufficient.

I did not use another solution before Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in my company.

My overall experience when deploying Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is simple.

We deploy RHEL in both the cloud and on-premise, utilizing a hybrid cloud strategy.Security requirements are definitely a consideration when choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

I have been involved in upgrades or migrations of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), especially during the significant shift from RHEL 7 to 8, which included many upgrades and migrations.

We have many customer projects where customers use us as consultants to migrate from other Linux distributions.

For the Red Hat internal migrations, we use the tool 'convert2rhel' all the time.

The biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is stability, which benefits both us and our customers, since we do not have to use as many human resources to administer those machines.

I don't have too much to complain about pricing, setup costs, and licensing since we handle everything via a distributor in Germany and we work closely with them on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

I did not consider another solution while using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a nine out of ten. To make it a ten, improving the ecosystem with more support from third-party software would help.

Our main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are running application servers, specifically database servers, and caching servers for our applications.

Many features benefit my company by ensuring the uptime is really great.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps us solve pain points. It is much more configurable, increases our performance, allows us more flexibility in management, and the automation for it is much greater. 

It is very stable.  

Flexibility and ease of use are great. I'm very familiar with it and I have a good team. It allows us to manage it with very little downtime. 

When we switched from Windows to Linux, we got about an instant 20% increase in performance, which was a very big deal. 

My favorite feature of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the way the disk management works. I appreciate the fact that it's all text-based.

My assessment of Red Hat Enterprise Linux's (RHEL) built-in security features is that the security is fine.

All of our systems are internal, so a breach would have to go through firewalls and other protections before reaching the system. We do patch them regularly and scan them for vulnerabilities, running the ADE product on them among others.

The improvements for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that I suggest are mainly around increasing reporting on how patches are applied as it all revolves around Satellite. Any product that Red Hat is developing to help with patch management would be awesome, and that's my biggest pain point. I would like to see better reporting on automated jobs, and once Red Hat Insights gets looped to Satellite and on-prem, I'd like to be able to take advantage of that.

At this company, we've been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for six years. I have personally been using it for 15 to 20 years.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has definitely helped to mitigate downtime and lower risks. As far as I know, we've not had a service outage with Red Hat in six years. We've had system outages if all systems fail, since we produce a high availability setup, Red Hat has been very stable, and there's been no unplanned downtime.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales with the growing needs of my company very well, as we've been able to maintain our footprint with an increase in performance. This allows us to actually do more work with the same amount of resources.

I haven't had to open very many cases with customer service and technical support. The documentation is excellent, and the few cases I've had were solved within a few minutes, with one exception regarding NFS, which wasn't their fault. 

I would rate the customer service and technical support a nine out of ten.

Positive

We switched from Windows to Linux.

Deploying is very easy. We run everything via virtual machines. We create a Red Hat template, and then we use Ansible to configure it from there. So we have a generic template we deploy and actually give the machine an identity to use Ansible. I can deploy a system from start to finish in about an hour.

The biggest return on investment for me when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the ability to get an increase in performance, which allows us to not have to scale our hardware so fast.

My experience with the pricing, setup costs, and licensing is that we get a very good deal through our third-party VAR or reseller.

I don't deal much with the pricing. I do know the price of some things, such as the AP platform, which allows us to migrate off other solutions that are substantially higher.

I have considered other solutions apart from Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), specifically evaluating Oracle Linux in the beginning. Between the price considerations, as they claim to be bug-for-bug compatible, it's questionable, however, the price of Red Hat Enterprise Linux was substantially lower than Oracle's, even though they claim it's free.

We generally don't use SELinux since it causes more problems for us than it solves. 

I actually recommend Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) to everybody. It's a solid product, and I stake my reputation on it. 

If anybody wants to learn Ansible next year, this is a good platform to use. 

Our upgrade or migration plans to stay current include rolling out Red Hat 10 as soon as it's available and once we get an antivirus product that's supported on Red Hat 10. My thought is that we'll probably try to test Image Mode to see if that works for us, as it may simplify our monthly process to keep things in sync. 

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

My main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) include application support.

Features benefit my company by allowing for cross-site administration, creating a solid baseline across our different environments and using Satellite for cross-site management.

One of the features I appreciate the most about Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the usability and satellite integration across multiple sites, which helps us significantly. 

Many of my current pain points are related to the automation portion with having Ansible building. I have been involved in upgrades or migrations for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), specifically for RHEL 7.

We manage our Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems using Satellite and Ansible combined, which automates all of our patches, meaning the server administrator doesn't necessarily have to do anything beyond checking online to ensure that automation is performing as expected.

For the compliance part in government environments, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is compliant with their cyber policies, and it has extensive integration for that. There are also Ansible templates being built up.

My upgrade or migration plans to stay current involve moving from RHEL 8 to RHEL 9, if not RHEL 10, as I know that RHEL 8 reached its end of support life a few years ago, so we do have some work to do while trying to stay on top of releases and upgrades.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped to mitigate downtime and lower risk in our environment; I've only been integrated with it for the last two years and we haven't seen any specific issues caused by Red Hat or Linux itself relating to downtime.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) could be improved by incorporating some of the third-party repositories, as different repos might show more options than one would get with a base builder for Red Hat, so having the choice to include those during install would be beneficial.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for the last six to seven years for the company, and personally, even longer.

I haven't seen any issues with the stability and reliability of the platform; we've been building up and tearing down our OpenShift environment frequently, and it consistently comes up and down and repairs itself.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales effectively with the growing needs of my company, as we're now utilizing OpenShift to deploy applications, databases, and other resources in a containerized environment, which reflects the direction the world is heading towards in terms of containerization.

I am not involved in pricing, setup costs, or licensing, but I can say the contract deal we have with Red Hat seems pretty fair, along with the support they provide.

Positive

We did consider other solutions in our journey, particularly looking into OpenShift, however, Red Hat is probably our number one choice.

The initial setup has been straightforward. We didn't have challenges. On top of that, you have the automation. It's getting easier. They continuously build in more tools and more automated processes so we can spin up the VMs easily.

We have been involved in migrations - specifically, RHEL 7 and Linux. The lead process is relatively straightforward.

For me, the biggest return on investment when using this product is automation.

While I am not involved in pricing or licensing, my understanding is that it's a pretty fair contract deal that we have with Red Hat and the support that they provide.

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

We mainly use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) to host containers. 

RHEL makes things easier for hosting containers and has really good integration with automation tools such as Ansible, which makes configuration management easier. Those were the two areas where RHEL helped us significantly. 

We haven't used Lightspeed yet; however, we are focused on containers. It's pretty seamless, and RHEL made it much easier for us to get things running when we moved. We were initially on PCF, Pivotal Cloud Foundry, and now we are on OpenShift. 

RHEL made development much easier, and we use it as a testbed to run our containers before moving them to OpenShift.

RHEL simplifies container hosting and offers excellent integration with automation tools like Ansible, making configuration management more straightforward. They have really good support, helping me adapt more easily because I already had a good understanding from working on open source technologies.

I find Lightspeed to be the most valuable feature about RHEL. It makes troubleshooting much easier. It's an LLM similar to ChatGPT, allowing me to query what my exact command is, and it provides me with that.

RHEL supports many different container runtimes and packages, making our job pretty easy to build images for developers to use on our container platform. Using RHEL as a base image simplifies our work compared to other options, as it comes pre-packaged with many necessary features. 

The fact that we also use a Red Hat-based container product platform, OpenShift, means it has everything needed to run on OpenShift.

RHEL is a pretty polished product, however, if it becomes more mainstream compared to other Linux distributions and if more people adapt it, it would be used as a much more universal product. This would make it easier for people to adapt to RHEL.

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

I would assess the stability and reliability of RHEL as good. I faced some issues due to the underlying platform on which they were hosted, but I didn't encounter problems with RHEL itself. Whenever we have issues, we have good Red Hat support, so it's very reliable.

I assess RHEL's scalability as pretty robust. Most of our footprint is on the cloud, and any new VMs we spin up happen quickly because of how easy it is to set up RHEL. Combining that with the capabilities of Ansible makes scaling up pretty easy on demand.

I evaluate customer service and technical support as excellent. 

They have a tiered structure for outage severity and type of environment, which is great. My experience has been positive, and we also had vendor engagements with Red Hat when implementing new solutions, with an engineer and architect helping us set things up. That was a really good learning experience for me as well, so my overall experience has been positive.

Positive

Prior to adopting RHEL, I used other distributions of Linux. I worked on Ubuntu and SUSE, and I even worked on some personal projects with Kali Linux. Every distribution has its pros and cons, but for an enterprise-level solution, I feel RHEL is a much better option because of the support it provides.

Security requirements were 100% a consideration in choosing RHEL in the cloud. Our company has its own setup with images we use, with our own vulnerability checks before pushing it. RHEL qualifies as one of the software solutions that has been vetted, and we use it as one of our primary operating systems.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has provided a return on investment of 100%.

I haven't worked on the RHEL side regarding pricing, setup cost, and licensing, however, I have worked on the OpenShift side. The pricing is competitive, especially when compared to our last vendor, PCF, which became quite expensive after being acquired by Broadcom. That's another reason why we started moving to RHEL.

In my current company, RHEL had a mature environment before I joined, but in one of my previous jobs, we chose between SUSE and RHEL. We felt RHEL was a much more polished option because of its larger user base and extensive knowledge catalog.

For other organizations considering RHEL, my advice is that if your organization is operating at scale and requires good support, RHEL is a great product. 

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

I use OpenShift as part of my system because most clients require it. I work as a forward engineer. For ten years, I've worked for companies where I'm deployed to their site to do one-day to six-month projects, similar to Geek Squad for coding. My specialty is architecture, so I've used Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), mostly Ansible and OpenShift. In instances where I'm working with a VPC directly and everything runs Linux and I'm running RHEL, I'll have some workloads. However, I don't manipulate the OS itself. I use the tools built on top of it.

My specialty is finance and medical, so with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), it's all hybrid. Those two sectors have significant compliance requirements, especially medical. I do many hybrid clouds and must build two or three redundancies. That's why all of the nuances of the Red Hat platform stand out to me in a way it wouldn't for someone else. For example, in a hospital system, they have emergency generators for power. The same concept applies to data, HIPAA, and transferring. I notice things that others may not. It means I'm always concurrently running two or three clouds for disaster recovery for compliance. All of the clouds have nine nines, 11 nines, whatever they're marketing now for reliability, but the time from start to production, the shorter that is, and the better it plays with the rest of my tools and system, the better. Red Hat really excels at that.

The main benefit is time savings, which is something that can't be easily quantified. By not breaking or causing problems, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) saves time, headaches, money, anguish, fees, violations, and penalties. This becomes apparent when teams are happy to use a tool that doesn't slow them down. For high producers, having a reliable system that doesn't require extra steps or workarounds is crucial.

There are two big pain points that Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps me solve. First, Red Hat being interoperable and not taking a side is humongous. Every other platform has tricks and questionable behaviors for lock-in. RHEL is the only platform I don't have issues connecting. Everyone is running hybrid multi-cloud environments, so the fact that others make their products purposely not work with others is obnoxious. As a professional who has made money making APIs and connectors, those companies being stubborn benefits me financially. However, from an efficiency or executing on an idea standpoint, it's frustrating. The fact that Red Hat isn't that way is excellent.

The second aspect I really appreciate, and I don't think they get credit for this, is how Red Hat's interfaces, design choices, and options work very well for producers. For example, Amazon Web Services' approach is to add 200 features a year. They throw everything at the wall to see what sticks, resulting in a confusing experience when logging in, using CLI, or setting up a bastion host into VPC with PEM keys. On the other side of the spectrum, some clouds are too simple. Red Hat hits the perfect balance.

The only thing I can think of is the RHEL AI, which has only been announced for a couple of months, so I'm still sorting it out. The way that gets implemented will be very key to the future of the company and the stack. Until I listened to the seminar, I wasn't even sure what RHEL AI meant. What I understand now is that RHEL AI is the regular RHEL with pre-installed, AI-specific tools and tooling. That's fine, but as a company, they should make that more obvious. Additionally, it seems to only save a few minutes of typing in the terminal. It sounds similar to how people took Ubuntu and made flavors, where they changed two apps and called it a distro. Red Hat should make something actually different because they have that capability, and users would definitely use it. The AI implementation is the future, and it's just a matter of how that gets used.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for production for approximately five to six years.

I have extensive experience with stability issues in Linux systems. Since 2017, I have run Debian derivatives on my personal machines. However, for work, it's always RHEL. The built-in security, secure groups, and overall architecture make it a more robust and stable system. Linux did not become stable for home users until after COVID, when everyone was at home fixing issues. RHEL's advantage lies in its architecture - it's harder to break the system due to its notifications, invisible files, and pre-reboot checks.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) solves stability problems in two ways: the architecture of the software stack is exceptionally stable, minimizing downtime and risk, and when issues occur, the recovery time is minimal. Using OpenShift, I can spin up new instances quickly and seamlessly.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales effectively. An OS by itself doesn't determine a company's success or failure; it's about the usage. While Windows, Linux, and Mac have their differences, they share basic components such as a kernel and a user interface. RHEL excels in stability, preventing system crashes even when inexperienced users interact with files, which saves time, money, equipment replacement costs, and prevents employee downtime.

I have had limited experience with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) customer service and technical support. I've used email support, which is efficient and quick. I once needed phone support while working in a data center basement without internet access. I called RHEL for assistance, and the service was excellent. I've had no issues with Red Hat or IBM service, whether it's resolving login issues via email or getting help with critical situations in front of clients.

My experience with the deployment of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) tends to work well. Due to the nature of my work, I rarely build from scratch. I typically join existing projects to iterate upon or fix something. I'm not usually the decision-maker, though I can influence clients through my expertise and trust. The migration path is relatively smooth, even when jumping two versions, and it doesn't break everything.

The pricing, setup costs, and licensing of RHEL are reasonable. While some people complain about the subscription model, I understand and accept it.

The main difference between other solutions and RHEL is configuration and security, which helps maintain stability. Since RHEL is used on web servers, both public-facing and internal, security is crucial. While any modern OS can run without crashing, RHEL's advantage is its resilience against external threats and operations that might compromise other systems.

RHEL is a reliable solution that saves users from numerous technical headaches, though these savings aren't easily quantifiable. The system's reliability speaks for itself.

My advice is to dive in and use it. There are no gotchas with RHEL. There's a large ecosystem, many knowledgeable users, and a strong community.

My review rating for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is nine out of ten.

My main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) include supporting engineering desktops, and when I was working in the healthcare industry, we also used it for picture archiving, such as when cardiologists would take chest x-rays. I have been supporting it in many different ways, including working on the program where we are doing Linux desktops for the developers who are writing code for some of the planes that we build.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps me solve pain points by always being consistently good, and the support is really there for us when we need it.

The features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that I value most include its ability to take innovations from upstream, bringing them down and making them stable.

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) features including Satellite and the Ansible Automation Platform to navigate our security risks and deploy patching. We also use OpenSCAP in Satellite for security. Satellite helps us do provisioning to maintain a consistent build across the enterprise.

In my company's implementation of the zero trust model, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) plays a role by ensuring consistency among the groups that we use to control security on the devices.

Things built into the operating system, such as rescue mode, give me the opportunity to fix issues before we spend about two weeks deploying a new machine, since it requires certification before going on the network. If we can save a machine using rescue mode, we save ourselves that two-week hassle. Additionally, if we get locked out of a system, we use a specific remote execution user that allows us to unlock the system or provide any necessary fixes, based on best practices found within the Red Hat community.

From the perspective of versions 8 and 9, one area I think Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) could improve is being careful about ABI, particularly backward compatibility. Some improvements between versions seem to leave people scrambling; for example, the updating of crypto policies has forced some to run in an insecure manner to continue using their authentication systems. While I understand this is not Red Hat's problem, it is something they could consider improving.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for probably about 18 years.

Regarding the stability and reliability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I have not experienced downtime, crashes, or performance issues, except I remember when they went from version 7.5 to 7.6, which broke the ABI; however, I think this issue stemmed more from Intel changing their chipset in the background than from Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) itself.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales well.

I would rate the customer service and technical support a nine or a ten because every time I have not been able to solve something, I usually call them, and we get to the root of the problem. They collaborate well with me, even when some problems are complex.

Prior to using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), we were actually using a plethora of different Linux distributions, and some of them lacked someone to hold accountable for support, leading to more challenges, longer downtimes, and related issues.

I describe the deployment process of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as straightforward.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)'s biggest return on investment, in my view, is when you get on the line with their tech support; when you submit an issue, the folks really know the product, so you get back up and running fast, which is worth its weight in gold.

In my experience with the pricing, setup cost, and licensing of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I have been moved away from the pricing in this organization; at my old organization, we switched to a three-year plan instead of one year, and it improved significantly because we saved some money.

We choose to use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) not only because we believe it is the right choice but also because the federal government expects, especially for the projects I am involved with, that we use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in accordance with customer agreements.

I would advise other companies considering Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) to invest in the open source community, especially if they are paying a lot of money to other operating system vendors such as Microsoft. I believe that more workloads are running on Linux, and unlike Windows, which often runs one application per server, Linux allows multiple applications to run on one server, so they could save money in the long run by investing with Red Hat.

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a strong eight or nine; while they are not perfect, they are better than most.

My main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) include virtualization, day-to-day computing, general use cases, desktop use cases, and server use cases, treating RHEL primarily as a server system.

RHEL helps us solve tremendous pain points because we are a cloud service provider, and we do a lot of virtualization and networking. As a cloud provider, we basically rely on virtualization, networking, storage, and a lot of other things, so RHEL is a core platform for us that enables us to combine all these components together and provide a comprehensive solution.

Since we are a cloud service provider, we rely on RHEL's virtualization feature and sell these virtual machines to customers, making a significant profit from it.

RHEL supports our hybrid cloud strategy as we offer private and public clouds to customers and can burst into other public clouds. RHEL as an operating system provides in-built support that helps us burst into hybrid and other cloud ecosystems with our expertise.

The features I appreciate most in RHEL include virtualization, networking, and storage, and there is not a single feature that stands out for me because I appreciate pretty much everything RHEL offers.

RHEL acts as an enabler for running AI workloads, offering in-built security, particularly with features such as Podman that help secure the environment. With RHEL AI, there are many integrations, including Instacloud, providing significant security benefits.

RHEL plays a core role in our implementation of the Zero Trust model, operating many OpenStack clouds and utilizing systems for regulated industries such as financial services and government sectors. The good ecosystem of RHEL supports authentication, authorization, and zero trust, enhanced by features from OpenShift as well.

RHEL should cover more hardware, particularly since we face challenges with some hardware components, such as Intel VROC as a RAID controller, which RHEL has compatibility issues with. I acknowledge that it is difficult for RHEL engineers to cover all hardware, but collaboration with manufacturers such as Intel or Lenovo might alleviate some drawbacks.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) since my university days, and it has been almost eight years.

I have not experienced any downtime or performance issues with RHEL; it is a very stable operating system.

We have been able to scale well with RHEL; we run a lot of distributed storage, and scaling up is just a matter of adding resources without limitations, as the platform supports scalability indefinitely.

The customer service and technical support from Red Hat are perfect; they know what to do when we reach out, even when it is on behalf of customers.

We have also worked with SUSE and Ubuntu Pro, but our customers often prefer RHEL for general-purpose server workloads, while they go to SUSE for SAP workloads, indicating that RHEL has a strong customer preference for its compatibility and support.

My experience deploying RHEL has been straightforward; the deployment methods are easy, utilizing PXE boot and cloud-init within our OpenStack environment, which makes maintenance and deployment very efficient.

From our perspective as a cloud service provider, the biggest return on investment with RHEL comes from the margins we make after selling licenses to customers. We operate clouds with RHEL as the core, and we see a good amount of margin through virtualization services provided to customers.

The pricing, setup cost, and licensing of RHEL work out for us as a cloud service provider, so we are satisfied with them.

We sell other products such as OpenShift that do similar work to RHEL.

When it comes to navigating security risks with RHEL, we rely on SELinux as the main security feature, and we are also looking at Lightspeed, which provides a nice command line assistant. We also utilize PQC for core cryptography in RHEL as well as its TLS functionality, and container sandboxing is another major feature we leverage.

I tried the Image Builder in RHEL, and my experience with it was quite good. The image mode is beneficial because it allows us to create many portable images, which I find really good for our needs. I use the Image Builder in the cloud for internal purposes as well as for our customers.

I have used Satellite. Satellite helps manage and maintain my hybrid cloud environment, although not to a very good extent because we operate a single environment that we consider an on-premises or private cloud. Some customers use it to manage a fleet of systems across various instances, but for me, it is more focused on on-premises.

We have tried out RHEL AI, using Instacloud and other tools as well as OpenShift, which is outside of RHEL. We are not using the Ansible Automation Platform for major version upgrades, but we do use Leapp upgrades because the Leapp tool is necessary for our upgrades, although it requires manual oversight to ensure there are no compatibility issues.

We use both open-source Ansible and the Ansible Automation Platform, and it has been good for managing our fleet of servers as we run virtualization. The Ansible Automation Platform is particularly useful for managing many CVE patchings.

I believe RHEL effectively mitigates downtime, and I do not see any significant problems regarding this issue. The knowledge base offered by RHEL is pretty good; the documentation is top-notch and very helpful, and the support portal, including the AI features, is also excellent.

We have been able to scale well with RHEL; we run a lot of distributed storage, and scaling up is just a matter of adding resources without limitations, as the platform supports scalability indefinitely. Overall, I would rate RHEL as a top-notch, superior product, and it is a very stable operating system.

I would recommend RHEL to other companies, emphasizing that stability is key, especially for running enterprise-grade workloads or server workloads because everything is tested and reliable, which minimizes the risk of breaking things during upgrades. I would rate this review as 9 out of 10.

My main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) include using it with VMs, particularly my company's SAP environment that runs with RHEL, and leveraging it into OpenShift.

To navigate our security risks, I use Satellite in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) to mitigate CVEs, so all our environments are managed by content views, and each month, I create another version. That is how I keep things updated for packages, and for security standards, I use Ansible, which is pretty much an Argo CD thing with AAP.

In my company's implementation of the Zero Trust model, every application runs on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), and while we are not using it much outside of that, approximately 90% of the application runs there.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps maintain my environment overall by acting as a repository manager where I set up everything, ensuring our servers are not directly connected to the internet to receive updates, thus keeping it safe.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps me feel very comfortable knowing that I have vendor support for whatever happens. I can open a ticket and someone will be there with me figuring out what happened. I feel very safe using RHEL.

The features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that I like the most are its reliability and how reliable it is, along with the integration with Ansible and OpenShift. I think it is the same environment, so it is all connected.

I cannot think of a point for improvement for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), but perhaps making it lighter in some way could be beneficial.

To be completely honest, I have no idea how Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) can be improved, as sometimes I think it is just perfect. Every iteration of RHEL seems to fix issues that were not a problem for me.

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

Regarding stability and reliability, I have not experienced any significant downtime, crashes, or performance issues with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). As with any systems, they crash from time to time, but there is nothing to complain about.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales great to the growing needs of my company, as I can just spawn whatever I need. I virtualize pretty much everything, so in a matter of minutes, I have a bunch of servers running RHEL, and I license the hypervisors too.

The customer service and technical support of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is great, as I can create a case with priority one, and someone will call me 10 to 20 minutes after that.

I think the reason I switched to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is primarily about pricing, as I needed to buy new hardware, and Oracle was bumping up prices little by little until it became unpayable.

In terms of the deployment process, I find it straightforward. Either spinning up a VM with a template gets it there, or using the installation wizard is also straightforward. I just click next, next, next, put my name, and that is it.

I have considered switching to OpenShift, which is the natural step for me from Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

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

The combination of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and Satellite has been beneficial, as they work together to mitigate any risks that come into Satellite first. I have all the tools to mitigate directly into the host or do it manually.

Regarding the knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), every time I have a doubt or something, I just search for it, and Red Hat articles pop up. Someone asked the same question one year ago, and there is the answer.

The advice I would give to other companies considering Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is that while I have heard of some companies running open-source free alternatives such as Ubuntu or even Fedora from Red Hat, they are doing so to bypass the payment of a license. I think it is worth the price, so if someone is thinking about it, there is nothing to think about. I would rate my overall experience with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a 10 out of 10.