Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Reviews

I work daily on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in my current field. I use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as a daily task, including OS upgrade and patching activities.

What I like most about Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is that it is very easy to handle and very user-friendly. As a non-technical person, I find it very easy to understand.

The documentation in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is very helpful for every issue. I have accessed the documentation multiple times, and it has helped me, especially when we are facing issues in OS upgrade and patching. Some steps are already mentioned in the Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) documentation, making it very easy to handle and solve the issues.

What I dislike about Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is that it has high-cost licensing, which makes it unaffordable for me to purchase a Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) license myself.

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

I have not seen any instability in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), such as lagging or crashing.

I have had to contact the technical support of Red Hat multiple times, and I find that their support is very quick and instant and also provides an instant correct alternative solution. For Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) support, I would rate them 9 out of 10.

The installation of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is easy. I have already completed a Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) installation, so it was straightforward for me.

I have not used any alternatives to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

I have been using Leapp in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). The maintenance does require updates on my end, and our company takes care of that. I would rate this review 9 out of 10.

I still have experience with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), but I mainly work with SUSE Linux. The solutions are for on-premises deployments.

From what I have heard, my organization is going to use SUSE Linux as a standard. For Red Hat, the people who deal with servers have a few of them and are probably migrating them through VMware.

The part that my group deals with the most is SAP, and all that we have on them is SUSE Linux.

The main differences between Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and SUSE Linux may be in some commands. The heart is very similar with logical volume manager and other components, but there might be commands that change, such as command line interface commands that might change even when they perform the same thing.

I believe that the best features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) include the interface with logical volume manager and file system management, since I work more with storage administration.

I used to deal more with Unix, and the way Unix performed things was better for me. For example, at the Linux level, all the partitioning is difficult for me in the way it uses certain terms, such as physical disk, when you call it SDB or SDBA.

From this perspective, I found this hard. I used to be more accustomed to Unix. However, they are very similar at this level with the device types and other components.

I believe that Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) can be improved in areas such as monitoring, storage, and virtualization.

Everyone today is talking about virtualization and there is a need for it. There are many virtualization implementations, and everyone is moving toward that area.

I have used Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for several years in total.

I assess the knowledge base for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as good. The documentation is nice and good, and it is available. The documents I have seen are self-explanatory, and the explanations are clear.

On a scale of one to ten, I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) support as good. I know it is good, but since we usually look at the documentation, I have not placed a request for an error or similar issue. I probably have not had the need to do that. I would rate it a nine or ten. In our case, I have not dealt so much with that part, as there has not been a need to request a patch or upgrade.

Positive

I personally have not used Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Image Builder or Red Hat system roles. I know that some of the people who give us support do use them. I know it is helpful, but I do not have details about them because my group is dealing more with the hardware parts, such as HP physical servers and storage.

We are dealing more with that aspect.

I believe that the most important security features in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) include the standard ones, such as user and password authorization and read and write access, which are standard in Linux.

I believe that you probably want to use additional software. My company has many tools, and another team works with the security part. However, you probably need integration with that. The basic features that every Linux software has are standard and robust.

I would rate this review a nine out of ten overall.

The primary use case for our company is for deploying applications.

The most valuable aspect is for deploying applications.

The ease of use works well and is what I appreciate the most about the solution's most valuable features.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped me to automate my process to mitigate downtime and workloads.

The solution has improved my organization, especially with the ease of deployment, as it's mostly just a better user experience for our users.

The challenges that we've had with different servers that don't have access to the internet require an installation, and keeping track of all the different versions on the different deployments is a challenge. I would love a feature that could manage the agent versions.

On the Ansible side, from what I've seen, there are certain templates and playbooks that can be used for specific use cases that I'd like to see in the next release.

I've been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for a couple of years.

The stability and reliability of this solution is very good.

In the environments that I work in, I've had no downtime, crashes, or performance issues.

It scales well with our growing needs and organization, and it's been pretty easy to spin up new servers as we require them.

The other users of the solution in my company are probably more on the operation side.

I think it would be suitable for a couple more roles.

I've been made aware of some of the latest announcements that were made today; for a large organization, it takes a while to get there, so we might not be able to realize those for another couple of years, but it seems there are new features that are coming out.

I'm not sure if there was one specific feature that stood out to me today; I'd have to look back at my notes, but it seems there's more functionality that's being offered.

I would rate this review a 9.

I am a platform engineer, so I help build out the infrastructure for app owners to use. I manage the OS.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) provides us with a standardized Linux that has controlled package versioning so that there's no scope for issues when we're applying patches. It's pretty stable and gives us stable releases.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) benefits my company overall because compared to other operating systems, it has a lower TCO. It's lighter weight than Microsoft Windows and simpler to use in some aspects, making it easy to use without having to worry about a graphical interface and similar elements.

The features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) I appreciate the most include the management, specifically that Red Hat Satellite is nice. This management feature is great because it centralizes what I need to do to keep an eye on all the systems in the environment. 

There are some features of Red Hat, not just Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), that have a higher cost of entry, which prevents us from trying out things such as Ansible Automation Platform due to its high cost. We are still deciding if we're going to go that route.

There are some positive aspects to the consistent packaging of Red Hat, which is great. However, there are times when the latest and most exciting releases available online are not included in the version of Red Hat that we have. For example, the version included in Red Hat can sometimes feel outdated compared to the open-source versions that are currently available.

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

Its stability and reliability are very good.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped us to mitigate downtime and lower risks, not necessarily due to its nature but because we design our systems to be highly available. We have multiple nodes and we only bring down some nodes, leaving others up, depending on the application, which sometimes dictates how it becomes highly available.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales pretty effectively with the growing needs of my company.

They are pretty knowledgeable. If they don't know it, they know someone who does, so they can always route me and my questions to whomever is able to answer.

I would evaluate the customer service and technical support of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as good, although sometimes opening a case and waiting hours seems excessive, depending on the severity of the issue. It may be a P2 to us, but a P2 with a 4 to 8 hour response seems too long sometimes, and they won't escalate. However, once all that's completed, I would still rate them at least a solid eight.

Positive

My experience with deploying Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) involves lots of scripting and golden images, but there's a newer version of creating the images, and I'm looking forward to using that.

We have a hybrid environment with on-premises and cloud deployments.

We use Red Hat Satellite for provisioning and patching, and I am satisfied with that. 

Upgrading or migrating Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) from on-premises to the cloud went mostly well. However, there were some caveats to consider when moving to the cloud that we hadn't anticipated. For instance, some migration tools had hardcoded values that shouldn't have been fixed in that way. We did encounter some issues that required remediation, but for the most part, the process has gone smoothly.

Our upgrade or migration plans to stay current involve evaluating Red Hat 9 now, and we will be evaluating Red Hat 10 afterwards. I don't think there are any other Red Hat products with a major upgrade upcoming. We are still using Red Hat Satellite, currently at version 6.16, and it needs to get upgraded to the next version pretty soon. The version of Ansible within Red Hat can sometimes feel way behind the version of Ansible that's available open source. Some migration tools hardcoded certain values that shouldn't have been hardcoded.

The biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for me is its consistent nature, as it has stable releases. I don't have worries when patching because everything is backwards and forwards compatible depending on the version.

We don't consider other solutions in our company that do the same thing as Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), nor did we use other solutions before choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). We stick with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), and if anything comes up that looks different from our OS, we heavily push back because we've established a relationship with Red Hat, and we're not looking to introduce a new flavor of Linux and a new support model after all the training we've had already.

My assessment of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)'s built-in security features for simplifying risk reduction and maintaining compliance is that while I haven't used OpenSCAP much, the documentation of their CVEs and vulnerabilities is pretty easy to use through the website. It helps me identify if a CVE is applicable or not applicable, which is useful in case an event occurs and I need to research its impact and remediation.

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

I use it for a commercial platform for a bank in Ecuador. We have a product development for development in JBoss. We can have multiple channels on the left side in TBM and ES. 

I have a product in development that serves as middleware. We have multi-channel on the left side and multi-database on the right side. We don't use an AMQ yet. It's broad.

The valuable features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for on-premises are its flexibility and compatibility; it works exceptionally with JBoss. 

We find that the performance of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is very good, and the deployment is very easy. On YouTube, for example, they processed nearly 10 million transactions over nine years. 

Security is important, and it performs efficiently and is confident compared with a firewall and WAF, or whatever you use as a firewall to protect our deployments. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps with uptime and security; with every deployment, we evaluate security and apply vulnerability scanners, covering every vulnerability without any problem.

I don't know where Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) can improve; I just know that I don't use the cloud version, but I know the price, and I think it has many similar features to use JBoss with old features. 

In the last years, we have tried to quote a project using JBoss, but the license on cloud was cheaper than the on-premise license.

I have used the Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) operating system since 2016.

I use documentation and community forums for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). There's plenty of knowledge in many forums, and when I have trouble, I can find a lot of support on the web; there is a lot of information we can find.

Depending on the support I have to use, we didn't have a problem; we have a local reseller who helps with the Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) support directly. We use a partner for direct support with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). Our business in Ecuador is a local partner, and the name of the partner business is ASAP. Mr. Jimmy Rodriguez provides support and attends to our needs very efficiently.

Positive

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is more expensive compared with WebLogic, and I prefer JBoss against WebLogic. The main differences between the Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) operating systems and Windows and Solaris are concerning performance; the best performance is in the order of Linux, Solaris, and then Windows.

Achieving security standard certification is necessary for my business, and I'm always recommending Red Hat Enterprise Linux to my clients. 

On a scale of 1-10, I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a 10.

Our use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) involve a lot of infrastructure; we run Ansible on it, and we run any other containerized utilities we're using on Podman. We run OpenShift as well, so I don't think we have any RHEL workloads on there, but we definitely use RHEL for a lot of our internal infrastructure.

The Podman feature of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is very valuable; that's probably the core of it—just a simple containerized solution that allows us to stand it up in a server really quickly. This feature and other features benefit our company since we are able to quickly deploy containers to support our infrastructure with minimal management needs from our engineering team. 

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps us solve pain points such as automation, as well as supporting other file servers using NFS and other kinds of development workloads we're running on it.

My experience with RHEL has not been too complicated; most of our stuff is on RHEL 9 now. A lot of times, our security team comes to us for some of the patching and upgrades, so we're following their lead, however, it hasn't been too difficult for us. We manage our Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems for provisioning and patching using Ansible and Terraform a lot, so we've been happy with that management experience.

My assessment of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)'s built-in security features is that using SC Linux is helpful for us to lock things down, and our security team is pretty happy with it whenever they're doing their vulnerability scans. From a security standpoint, we're happy with it.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped to mitigate downtime and lower risk. If there ever is a problem, it's quick to stand up a replacement system.

It's pretty lightweight, so I'd much rather deal with a RHEL system any day versus a Windows system. If you compare it to a Windows system, which has a much bigger attack surface, there's a big reduction there.

When it comes to our security team having to scan for vulnerabilities and such, there is a lot less vulnerability scanning that needs to be done, so it's been a better fit for us for our infrastructure.

I am interested to see how Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) can be improved. It can be improved overall. Specifically, I'm interested in seeing some of the image incorporation with RHEL 10, as that might improve some of our upgrades and help in moving to the newer versions. I'm eager to learn more about that.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in my company for ten-plus years.

It has been very reliable and stable; I have not had any major crashes or outages with RHEL.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales very well with the growing needs of our company, as we can spin up instances quickly whenever we add new environments or data centers.

I have been pretty pleased with the customer service and technical support; it's infrequent that we have to engage support, but when we do, they've been responsive and we've gotten some answers, so we've been happy. I would rate the customer service and technical support as eight out of 10.

Positive

We have considered other solutions before or while using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). We've considered other Linux distros in the past, however, the ability to have a fully supported platform allows us to reach out to support from Red Hat if needed, which is the reason why we've stuck with Red Hat versus others.

In terms of deployment, it's been good standing it up and then maintaining it with patching through Satellite. Upgrades have been not time-impacted. They're pretty quick to get patching done. Everything is pretty easy. Migrations aren't too complicated. 

The biggest return on investment for me when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is certainly the ease of use for the engineering team; they can get things done without taking a lot of their time.

My experience with the pricing, setup cost, and licensing of the Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) platform has been pleasing; it's pretty straightforward and we haven't had any major concerns with costs on it compared to others, so we've been happy.

Currently, we don't have any upgrade or migration plans to stay current with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as far as moving to RHEL 10; that's going to be coming, I'm sure. Most of it involves keeping on the latest versions, and sometimes it's just a driver for keeping Podman up to date whenever Ansible needs to run, as Ansible is core for us.

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

What could make it a ten comes down to us being able to have time to dig into some of the features we're not using, so it's probably just on us to get wowed by some of the stuff we're not doing today. 

My main use case for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) at work involves using the EKS Kubernetes cluster on AWS, which is hosted on managed nodes based on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 9.4.

On a daily basis, I manage these nodes, execute commands to check connectivity, investigate network issues, and gather metrics such as CPU and RAM usage. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is integral to my daily work, as I regularly log into these nodes to execute commands, check network issues, and monitor capacity.

One of the best features Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) offers is the premium support, which is particularly noteworthy in version 9.4. If we encounter an issue, we can contact the support team anytime, and a technical support representative works with us to find the root cause. The support team helps us find and solve issues quickly and effectively.

While many features in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are common to all Linux distributions, RHEL stands out due to its vast community and comprehensive feature set. Red Hat has the largest market share among Linux distributions, and its exceptional support distinguishes it from other distributions. Additionally, it is renowned for its stability, security, ease of use, and community engagement.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has positively impacted our organization by improving our environment, enhancing security, and enabling the implementation of best practices. We chose RHEL 9.4 for its stability, security, and excellent support. When running our Kubernetes cluster on AWS, RHEL proves to be an excellent choice for deploying our applications in a secure environment.

Using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 9.4, we enhance our security through features such as SELinux, which significantly improves our environment's security and stability. We have used RHEL-based nodes since the inception of our organization and the My Vodafone app project in Greece, contributing to improved security, performance, and stability throughout our operations.

The primary area for improvement in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) relates to accessibility and training resources rather than the operating system itself. Red Hat should provide more training opportunities and make learning materials more accessible to users and customers.

Specifically, the documentation should be more accessible, and Red Hat should consider offering free training or virtual machines beyond just ISO files. A free virtual machine on the cloud would be valuable for people to try and become familiar with RHEL, as installing a virtual machine from an ISO can be complex. A pre-installed RHEL virtual machine would make it easier for people to learn and experience the distribution.

I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) eight out of ten because while it's an excellent score, there is room for improvement in accessibility. Unlike other distributions such as Ubuntu or Arch Linux that are readily available, Red Hat should create more opportunities for users to try their system through easily accessible virtual machines on their website or other public platforms.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for eight years, starting before my career as a DevOps and system admin engineer.

The scalability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for my organization is exceptional, and it handles growth and increased demand effectively. The support system particularly enhances its scalability capabilities.

The customer support of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) deserves a perfect 10 out of 10, as it is one of the most valuable aspects of the system.

Positive

I did not use a different solution before Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). We started with RHEL 7, upgraded to 8, and are now using version 9.4.

The pricing, setup cost, and licensing process for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is straightforward, and I have not encountered any challenges in conducting these operations.

My advice for others considering Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is to strongly consider it as one of the most secure, stable, and efficient options compared to other distributions. I have always chosen RHEL as my first choice without evaluating other options. I rate this solution 8 out of 10.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My main use cases involve using it to run our Ansible automation platform and various workloads, depending on what Development decides based on the project. We also use it for our Kubernetes clusters.

The features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that I appreciate the most are focused on stability. It is a reliable system that I can depend on more than anything else. That stability benefits my company by providing more uptime and more satisfied gamers.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps us solve pain points related to stability and documentation. It is very easy to find solutions to problems or access official documentation, whereas with other Debian-based distributions, one often finds themselves searching through random forums.

Regarding built-in security features for risk reduction and compliance maintenance, some features are straightforward when following standards and installation profiles. However, the development side frequently mentions challenges with SELinux, as it is more difficult to understand and somewhat esoteric. Some features are very well-developed and easily understood, while others are more complex to implement.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped to mitigate downtime and lower risks. While there is not much technical difference between RHEL and Oracle Linux, compared to other alternatives, it provides benefits.

We manage our systems for provisioning and patching using Ansible automation controller for patches and mirror repositories as needed.

What is lacking is better FS support natively in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). It has many nice features, however, XFS is becoming outdated. That is the major improvement that would be relatively easy to implement, perhaps around version 11. Fedora has already introduced it, so it is in the pipeline.

When it comes to its stability and reliability, it is great.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales fine with the growing needs of my company. I do not see much difference between RHEL and any other real distribution in those terms. 

As far as scalability, it is all Linux at the end of the day and will scale equally. The management tools and features on top of it provide the value-add, but regarding the base operating system, I do not see much difference.

We do not use customer service and technical support frequently. It is more about getting that checkbox for insurance, compliance, or whatever regulation we need to follow. 

If I had to rate the customer support, I would give it an eight as it is quite good. 

Positive

My experience deploying Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has evolved. In the past, it used to be more complicated, however, with current development tools and methodologies, it is far easier. Using Packer and initialization files that build every time, it functions smoothly.

My team deploys the solution on-premise, and we have varying departments and organizations for on-prem.

From my perspective, I have seen a return on investment while using this platform. It is beneficial to have that stability and reliable package repositories that we depend on, rather than using something more open-source and community-driven. There is definitely a good return.

My experience with the pricing, setup costs, and licensing has been satisfactory. It aligns with business expectations.

I consider all distributions before or while using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), however, the application team ultimately decides what fits their development cycle and needs best. For our on-premise workloads that need to be stable and operate over years, it is our default choice.

For upgrades or migrations, I recommend building new and migrating. My team operates both on-premise and in the cloud, and we have purchased Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) through AWS Marketplace. 

Overall rating: nine out of ten. To make it a ten, I would want to see more features. As someone who considers themselves an open-source zealot, the locking down of package repositories behind subscription paywalls was upsetting. It used to be a ten out of ten before that change.

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

The feature of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that I appreciate the most is the stability. 

I used to use Ubuntu quite a bit, however, the stability of RHEL is the main thing that I enjoy about it. 

RHEL benefits my company by providing a stable platform and strong support behind it, which are the motivating factors of using it in general.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps me solve pain points such as support stability, so maintenance and operations are much easier. I manage my Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems for provisioning and patching using Ansible, Satellite, and Puppet, and I am satisfied with that management experience.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) supports my hybrid cloud strategy by looking into Openshift. Currently, we are independently deploying between the two environments because we do not yet have a platform to bridge those into a true hybrid.

Security requirements were not necessarily a consideration in choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in the cloud since we have our security team for all of our security compliance, so it is just our standard that we use.

The solution can be improved, especially for user-provided solutions; they could be vetted more thoroughly by Red Hat. I cannot think of anything specific that could improve Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), aside from my thoughts on support, particularly since I have not yet tried version nine. Better support would make it a ten.

At this company, I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for two and a half years.

The stability and reliability of the Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) platform are great.

I do not know if we have run into scaling problems with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). Typically, our app people work directly with the vendor and request a few VMs, so we do not really have issues with running out of compute resources.

The customer service and technical support I receive are mostly good; sometimes it is hit or miss, but mostly good. If I had to rate them from one to ten, I would give them a nine.

Positive

Before I came to the company, they were using Ubuntu, and I tried to convince them to switch over to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). While I am using it today, we still support Ubuntu because there are certain researchers that prefer it, but for the operations of the hospital, it is all Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

I have been involved in updates for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), going from version eight to nine. I typically just deploy the next version and migrate whatever application or system may be to that instead of jumping to another version. It is more about deploying a new system and migrating the old system over, to avoid any dependency issues.

The biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) from my perspective is probably security and performance. We run a lot of Windows, which comes with costs to keep it constantly updated, while RHEL seems to have fewer vulnerabilities and is one of the more performant platforms among Linux distributions.

My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing has been fair. I have looked for virtual data center licenses and it seems fairly priced compared to alternatives such as Windows.

The knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is hit or miss. Sometimes people provide answers that exactly solve the problem, and sometimes it is for older versions that are not applicable.

I have not purchased Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) through AWS Marketplace. We are looking into that option.

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