Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Reviews

My main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are on the infrastructure side, including patching, building, engineering, administration, and a little bit of everything.

The feature I appreciate the most about Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is its installation, which includes numerous capabilities. The installation process, especially when automating tasks, provides great satisfaction when it works. These features benefit my company because they enable tasks to be completed quickly.

I cannot identify specific improvements needed for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) at this time. We are currently using version 9.6, and it is performing satisfactorily. I would need to work with it daily to provide specific feedback. However, the documentation could be more user-friendly and comprehensive. Instead of simply stating procedures, it should provide more detailed explanations through multiple layers of implementation. The documentation could be simplified for beginners who are unfamiliar with the system. In our organization, we write our own documentation to address these needs.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) along with CentOS throughout this period.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps me address vulnerabilities, particularly high CVEs with scores of 10 and nine. The build-out capabilities are beneficial, and Ansible integration works effectively with RHEL.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales very effectively to meet my company's needs.

The customer service and technical support are good, though they have declined in quality compared to previous standards. Currently, support often responds by sending PDF documentation, and scheduling direct calls can be challenging.

Security requirements were a key consideration in choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) due to its ease of use, robust security features, and comprehensive experience and support. Support availability was particularly important among these factors.

From my perspective, the biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has been its excellent performance and issue resolution capabilities.

I am not considering alternative solutions to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) at this time due to our current three-year contract commitment.

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a 9 out of 10 and advise other companies considering RHEL to proceed with implementation. They should complete their customer assessment and work with Red Hat representatives. The solution is highly recommended, despite minor support-related concerns.

I was working on Azure cloud migrations using Azure Discovery tool and AWS Endeavor tool. 

I worked with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Azure discovery migration tool. I have worked on-premises for 16 years and on the cloud for four years.

I like that there is no downtime during operations. We work to mitigate downtime, but it typically ranges from two to three hours for upgrades and up to four hours for migration work.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) now uses satellite servers, though we are not getting many materials or awareness about that aspect. Containers have also been implemented in Red Hat Enterprise Linux, but we need more materials and documentation for these features, based on my work experience. 

I have used Red Hat Enterprise Linux in hybrid environments including physical, virtual, and cloud deployments.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is now integrated with RAN engineering, supporting telecom applications. Features such as Ansible and container applications come built-in since RHEL 8.

I find information through seminar websites and seminar links. With satellite servers, I receive links through which I share and gain knowledge, including online resources, PDF materials, and Udemy courses.

For telecom products and technical platforms that support RAN engineering, we expect more features to be added to satellite, as it is currently quite complicated.

I have been working with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for 16 to 17 years. The upgrades and materials have been consistently good.

Initial container deployment is difficult because the application matters more than the Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) server.

I would rate the scalability at eight out of ten.

Technical support from Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has been very good.

Positive

The implementation took approximately six months because it was a RAN application.

Using the framework, I can upgrade directly from 7.9 to 8.1. I have completed upgrades for approximately 2,000 servers using Leap.

I perform server migrations, including physical to physical and physical to virtual transfers. I work on application upgrades and Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) server upgrades. 

I rate this product 8 out of 10. I expect more Ansible features and container features in future releases.

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for our workloads, DevOps and SRE workloads, to manage our application and CI/CD pipeline runs.

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in our DevOps and SRE workloads for DevOps and CI/CD pipeline runs and also for managing our infrastructure.

We mostly use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) to automate our infrastructure, and we use it to automate our image cataloging and all those things.

The best features Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) offers are that it is very easy to use, and the commanding is also straightforward. It's easy to install, easy to configure, and easy to manage all aspects.

When we need to install or upgrade our version of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), we have straightforward commands. Using the DNF command, we execute the commands. When we upgrade the OS version, it is without downtime. We can run that in minimal time.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has positively impacted our organization because all of our enterprise applications run on Red Hat RHEL only, which is the enterprise version. For our application runs and application connections, we use Red Hat, which is very helpful for managing our entire application.

We have very minimal downtime, which is beneficial for us. We can improvise our application connectivity and interconnection. Everything performs exceptionally well.

As of now, there are no notable things to advise, from my understanding. As per customer interaction, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) listens, every word is counted, and it is improved. At this point, everything performs as expected.

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

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is always stable, and I definitely recommend choosing RHEL.

In terms of scalability, reliability, and application upgradation, I am satisfied with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

The customer support is very interactive and provides quick responses. It is very helpful for us to improve our system.

Positive

When we need to install or upgrade our version of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), we have straightforward commands. Using the DNF command, we execute the commands.

In terms of investment, we have saved both time and money.

In terms of hourly and weekly savings, we save almost six to seven hours per week with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). This is based on user experience, deployment, configuration, and high availability perspectives.

At the enterprise level, the pricing, setup cost, and licensing for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is as expected. It's quite standard - not very high, not very low. It's appropriate because the support is provided within and depends on our SLO and SLA.

Everything is set as expected, which is quite good. We are also expecting the same kind of support from Red Hat. All aspects look good.

On a scale of 1-10, I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a 9.5.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is stable.

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

The customer support received is good.

Positive

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would rate this review a nine out of ten.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Positive

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) now are mostly traditional workflows, web applications, and web servers.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has benefited my company by offering great features such as Satellite and all the enterprise features that provide us value, which enables stability and maintainability.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped me solve pain points by providing significant maintainability compared to other Linux distros.

It is very stable and enterprise-ready, giving me substantial stability and manageability. 

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped mitigate downtime and lower risk significantly.

With Satellite and everything else, we can effectively control which patches go to specific servers and reduce risk with different CVEs and insights, providing us with substantial control.

We manage our Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems using Satellite, which works really effectively, and we also use Ansible Automation Platform.

My assessment of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)'s built-in security features shows many cool features in the new version. From what I have used in 8 and 9, there are good features such as built-in firewalls.

Although SELinux is complex as it does a lot. I cannot fully understand it, so that could be simplified. The only thing that I really have difficulty with is SELinux, so perhaps there is room to make it more accessible.

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

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has been able to scale to the growing needs of my company. We are not a huge company, so it works effectively.

The customer service and technical support for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is pretty good. We have used them extensively and they work effectively.

Positive

Before choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), we were using legacy systems running on AIX, but all new implementations are now on RHEL. The main difference between AIX and RHEL is the support from third-party applications. When installing third-party applications, there is always support for RHEL and almost never support for AIX.

I would describe the experience of deploying Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as really easy. It is similar to other systems, and I am really excited to explore Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 10 and try Image Builder.

The biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the manageability we receive, with numerous features in the packages that free up substantial time from the operations side of things.

The pricing, setup costs, and licensing for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are within normal operating system pricing ranges.

While using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I did consider other solutions. There are always many other options, such as another RHEL distribution, but RHEL is the only one that has extensive support for numerous other systems.

We have not fully implemented Ansible Automation Platform yet, but we are starting to integrate it and we really appreciate it. 

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) from one to ten overall as probably a nine.

I mainly use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as a financial application.

I appreciate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for its stable product and good support. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps me solve pain points through automation with tools such as Ansible. It helps mitigate downtime and lower risk because you can recover.

Regarding security requirements from my side, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is somewhat satisfactory, but in most organizations, they are asking for more enterprise solutions for security. If Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) can invest in monitoring, it would be great. For example, Instana is an IBM product, and since IBM owns Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), if they invest in Instana, it will be a great improvement.

I have been working with Red Hat Enterprise Linux for more than five years.

For Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) stability, I rate it a nine. It is really stable, with no issues. I found one server running for more than two years without any issue.

For scalability, it depends on the hypervisor you're using, and if you have a template, you can clone it. It doesn't matter which OS you are using, even in the cloud, it's the platform that can scale.

I am satisfied with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)'s knowledge base. They have one of the best knowledge bases for their products with good documentation and articles that help solve issues without needing to open a case.

The initial setup for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is simple.

I don't think Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is saving money because it is expensive, but saving time is a benefit because they have a lot of automation and good documentation, and it is a stable product.

I can say about pricing for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is maybe a two on a scale where ten is a high price.

I think of Ubuntu and SUSE Linux as the top in my mind competitors to RHEL.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) can run anywhere, everywhere, so it is easy to run on any platform. On RHEL, it is a more general OS, so I don't know if there's a particular feature to consider.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps mitigate downtime and lower risk because you can recover, but upgrades require downtime. We mostly do in-place upgrades and haven't used migration much.

We are involved in upgrading RHEL 7 because it has reached end of life; sometimes we upgrade to eight or nine. I am already a Red Hat Accelerator and a reference.

Overall, I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) eight to nine out of ten.

My main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are mostly as our platform, control plane, and for VMs.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped me mitigate downtime and lower risks. Anyone coming from security will tell you that more patches in a timely manner will save you a lot of time.

What I appreciate the most about Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the DNF feature. DNF benefits our company since it's my personal preference; that package manager makes sense to me. I've also used it longer than other ones, which contributes to my familiarity.

Package managers in general are a core component of our operations, keeping our platform clean and running smoothly, and it's essential.

Insights is nice since I get information on my background and security matters, and it's been helpful to have it there as well.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) can be improved regarding security-side integrations that can be tightened with the releasing of images compliant with CIS controls or DISA STIGs, so they're built in and not an extra step.

To make Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a ten out of ten, the best Linux OS solution in the market, the only immediate change that comes to mind is security-related; releasing images available at different security levels would be helpful. If something is locked down to DISA STIG Level two or whatever environment, having that as a baked image to pull down and deploy would save a lot of time for many companies since building that pipeline is difficult and time-consuming.

There's also a limited number of those they'll have to deal with for Red Hat, so it's a lot of work. If they're doing those images for each level for STIG and then CIS, there will be a finite number to go through, and if anyone else needs to tailor them beyond that, then that's on them. It should be pretty small changes; it's kind of locked in.

I've been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for seven months.

My thoughts on the stability and reliability of the Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) platform are that it has been excellent. When I consider reliability problems we have had and how much relates to RHEL, most of the issues aren't Red Hat-related; something else fails, and the Red Hat side has been consistently reliable.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales with the growing needs of my company very effectively. My specific team is not on a huge scale right now, however, it's growing quickly, and we haven't had any issues with RHEL so far.

My experience with customer service and technical support for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) so far has been really good. I haven't encountered just a create-ticket-get-a-response type of interaction yet since we still have a consultancy going on for different pieces identity management and AAP. That remains to be seen in terms of what it will be when we don't have somebody readily available. So far, the response times and helpful responses have been good.

Positive

I've used other solutions. The main difference between Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and the other Linux solutions we use is a level of comfort. I sleep better knowing I have official support and can call someone, or there's probably a consultant or somebody on Red Hat's side ready to help me figure things out. If I'm running a Debian system, I'm really relying on the community, which can take time, and if I'm running something at work on that, then that can hurt.

Regarding usability, I've gravitated towards RPM-based Linux systems in general as I find them more intuitive.

The deployment is super straightforward. We do some environmental stuff, and that gets a little bit trickier based on the core running on top of it. 

From my point of view, the biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the number of things tied together in a somewhat neat package. There's something to be said for setting up Satellite or the other pieces of the infrastructure, AAP, or whatever it is I'm going to be using, however, all the tie-ins are there, and once I've done some initial footwork, having those things work in tandem and reliably with support on hand when they don't is really helpful.

We consider different solutions while using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). Actually, we use a few different Linux OS solutions. There's some Canonical in our environment through VMs, and there are tools particularly suited for deploying on bare metal that we use. So, we have a bit of a mixed environment within Linux.

My upgrade or migration plans to stay current depend on where it's at or the platform team; our stuff is going to be separate, and I'm unsure exactly what the cadence is for release and into the patching cycle. That'll be a pretty quick turnaround. We have situations where it needs to stay on older systems since the team using it needs that to prove out or test whatever they're working on. 

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