Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Reviews

My main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are for work and business-critical applications.

My company benefits from these features as our systems must remain operational. When systems go down, it results in significant monetary losses per hour, so having RHEL running and security patches available quicker than other distributions is crucial for maintaining satisfaction.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps me solve pain points. It's a good server operating system, better than all the alternatives, with full support and stability whereas many other Linux distros may be more flighty and not as stable. 

It's more reliable, more stable, and doesn't break down. Stability is the feature of RHEL that I appreciate the most since systems remain operational without rebuilds. Security and stability are definitely important aspects.

We manage our Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems for provisioning and patching using Red Hat Satellite for patch management, which is acceptable but could use some modernization, and we also use Ansible for configuration management. I'd prefer to see those two tools work better together, and if we could use configuration as code for Red Hat Satellite, it would make it even better.

I have been involved in RHEL upgrades and migrations in general. The process typically involves rebuilding and migrating; we rebuild the OS and migrate. We have tried the upgrade-in-place method, but it can be very lengthy and has more room for errors. Generally, we build new and migrate over first, and if we can't do that, we'll do the upgrade-in-place for applications that people understand, really just needing the same setup as before.

I would suggest to RHEL to maintain vigilance on vulnerabilities and resolve them more quickly. People compare other operating systems based on vulnerabilities. I know that RHEL is stable, but other teams might look at the overall vulnerability counts. Maintaining performance is also important; RHEL has very good performance, so maintaining those fundamentals is crucial as that's what people sometimes seek.

To make it a perfect ten, I would suggest there is always room for improvement; reducing the frequency of changes would help. There are always significant changes, such as with SystemD, and I understand that's more of the community driving much of this change. Other changes are coming through, such as changing command names. Maintaining backwards compatibility would help turn a nine, which is already very good, into a ten.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for approximately 12 years.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is stable and secure; these are the two biggest factors that drive our usage.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales very with the growing needs of my company. It can natively handle however many servers we need to deploy. 

We can manage anything we need to do, and now that we can do it all as code, that enables scaling. RHEL natively works very with code, and everyone that manages Linux in our company does it either through command line or code, which differs from the Windows experience and helps us scale.

The customer service and technical support of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is good. That said, it depends on who you get and how they understand our problems. Sometimes our problems are simple and sometimes very complex. Generally, we're able to get our issues resolved with minimal intervention or administrative burden.

We consider other solutions while using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), and we're constantly looking at other vendors. Their products aren't as good; they might be less expensive, however, they aren't as fully developed.

Cloud licensing is confusing. We have subscriptions available to us, which is why we opted for bring-your-own-subscription. However, even then, the options make deployment difficult since we need to ensure the OS is registered to our satellite system for subscription management, not through the cloud services.

We decided to bring our subscription instead of purchasing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) on AWS Marketplace.

From my perspective, the biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is its stability and support, with stability being a core fundamental.

My experience with pricing and setup costs indicates that licensing is confusing in the cloud. We have subscriptions available to us, which is why we opted for bring-your-own-subscription.

Some other solutions we consider include Canonical and Ubuntu, which sometimes perform better in the desktop world since they have support for desktop distributions. SUSE is another option we consider; those are the big three, and we wouldn't consider anything outside of that group extensively.

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

My main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) at this company include the development environment, where the dev environment is all in Linux. It's a server where you connect to via PuTTY, and it's currently running on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 7.

My favorite feature of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is that it's a Linux server with Linux commands. These features have benefited my company by making it feel lightweight. If you know Linux commands, you can connect to it and still be able to navigate within that Linux environment. The benefit is that if you onboard a new developer and they know Linux commands, they could just jump on it immediately.

From a user standpoint, every time they do an upgrade or they bring down the Linux server, I have to re-clone all my repositories. Perhaps they could just migrate them over so I don't have to do all that cloning again, because I have three different repos that I have to clone. This has happened twice. I am uncertain how Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) can be improved beyond this.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) at my company for two and a half years, ever since I started.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped mitigate downtime and lower risk for what we use it for because we use it to host a Docker container and for the development environment. From my standpoint, it has been beneficial because we're using it as a development environment to test out new features, which helps mitigate unwanted bugs.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales with the growing needs of my company because there have not been any issues with deploying different servers.

I have worked with Goldman Sachs and Bank of America, and they all use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for their Linux servers. I haven't heard of any other solutions being used, though I haven't worked on the DevOps side to set up these systems. In all the environments I've used that are Linux-based, it has been Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 6 or Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 7.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps solve pain points by being very easy to connect to, and it has an easy setup, though I didn't set it up as the DevOps people handled that.

I don't manage the Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems when it comes to provisioning and patching; there's a DevOps team that handles that. When there is an upgrade, they handle all that after work hours. They bring everything down and then bring up the new servers.

My advice to a company that's thinking of getting Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is, as a user, go for it. I don't know any other product besides Linux and Ubuntu, but I think Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is good. 

On a scale of 1-10, I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a 9 out of 10.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The maintenance is handled by the IT team.

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

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

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

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

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

Our primary use case for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) revolves around running and managing critical enterprise workloads. We rely on RHEL’s stability and security to support key applications, including Oracle databases, EBS (Enterprise Business Suite), and NMS (Network Management Systems).

One of the standout advantages of RHEL in our infrastructure is its integration with Ansible, which allows us to automate configurations, streamline patch management, and reduce manual intervention across multiple systems. This automation helps us maintain consistency, enhance security, and minimize downtime.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has significantly enhanced our organization's efficiency, security, and automation. As the foundation for our enterprise workloads, RHEL provides a stable and scalable platform that ensures high availability and performance across critical applications. One of the biggest improvements we've seen is through Ansible, which has helped us automate configuration management, deployment, and patching processes. This has not only reduced manual workload but also minimized the risk of human errors, leading to a more resilient infrastructure.

One of the most valuable features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for our organization has been its simplicity and automation capabilities. Managing enterprise workloads can be complex, but RHEL streamlines this through Ansible, allowing us to automate configurations, deployments, and patching. This has significantly reduced manual intervention and improved operational efficiency.

Security is another critical factor, and RHEL’s robust vulnerability management ensures continuous updates for Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVEs), keeping our systems protected. The integration of Red Hat Insights allows us to proactively identify and mitigate risks, strengthening our overall security posture.

Additionally, the stability and scalability of RHEL have been essential for supporting key applications like Oracle databases, EBS (Enterprise Business Suite), and NMS (Network Management Systems). The long-term support and extended lifecycle maintenance ensure smooth operations, minimizing downtime and disruptions.

Overall, RHEL’s combination of automation, security, and reliability has enabled us to optimize infrastructure management, improve security, and maintain seamless operations for mission-critical applications.

One significant area for improvement is SAP certification and compatibility. Many large enterprises rely on SAP workloads, and RHEL’s limited official certifications for certain SAP solutions create challenges for businesses looking for seamless integration and performance optimization. Expanding certification coverage and tuning RHEL for SAP applications would strengthen its positioning in enterprise IT landscapes.

Another key improvement would be user-friendly patch management. While RHEL provides strong security updates, further enhancing the patching process—especially with live-patching options—could minimize disruptions and make the update workflow even more intuitive for IT teams managing large deployments.

Additionally, expanded cloud-native support would be beneficial as organizations continue shifting toward hybrid and multi-cloud environments. Strengthening native integrations with cloud service providers, optimizing containerization tools, and improving Kubernetes compatibility could boost RHEL’s efficiency in cloud deployments.

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

One of the key contributors to its stability is the predictable release cycle and long-term support. Red Hat provides extended lifecycle maintenance, allowing organizations to run workloads without unexpected disruptions. Additionally, the continuous security updates and proactive vulnerability management reinforce system integrity, reducing potential risks and downtime.

Moreover, RHEL’s robust package management system, combined with Ansible automation, further enhances stability by ensuring consistent configurations across multiple deployments. The ability to automate patching and system updates significantly reduces errors that could impact performance.

Overall, RHEL stands out as a highly stable and dependable solution, making it an excellent choice for enterprises seeking a secure, scalable, and resilient operating system.

The knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is excellent. You just need to search for your concern, and the answer is right there most of the time, and it's accurate. If something isn't there, support is also good. If you log a ticket, the response and the level of attention that you get on a support ticket is very good.

Positive

We are in both the cloud and on-premises with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). On the cloud, we use Azure. On-premises, we have VMware and Nutanix.

I wasn't involved in discussions about considering other solutions before choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for my company, however, if that decision came to me, I would have chosen Red Hat since I have previous experience with Red Hat in my last organization. 

We did have SUSE before we chose Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). We still have SUSE since SAP workloads run on SUSE, as they have better collaboration between SAP and SUSE. We tried changing that to Red Hat maybe a year ago, however, the response from the SAP team was not supportive as they wanted to go with SUSE due to some licensing and support models that were not clear to me.

The transition is straightforward. The documentation is great. It's accurate. If you have a Red Hat account, you have access to knowledge articles. 

We're on the cloud and on-prem.

We don't use AWS for purchasing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

One of the key areas where we see ROI is through automation with Ansible, which has helped us streamline deployments, patching, and configuration management. This has significantly reduced manual effort and minimized human errors, leading to higher productivity and cost savings.

Another major factor is security and vulnerability management. RHEL provides continuous updates for Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVEs), ensuring we remain protected against emerging threats. The ability to implement proactive security measures has reduced downtime and the costs associated with mitigating security incidents.

When considering setup costs, pricing, and licensing for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I always advise others to evaluate their organization's scale, workload requirements, and long-term support needs.

RHEL follows a subscription-based model, which ensures access to continuous security updates, patches, and support rather than a one-time licensing fee. While the upfront cost may seem higher compared to some alternatives, the value comes from its predictable pricing, enterprise-grade security, and extensive support ecosystem.

For organizations with large deployments, leveraging Red Hat Satellite and Ansible automation can help reduce administrative overhead, making the investment in RHEL more cost-effective in the long run. Additionally, Red Hat provides different pricing tiers based on usage—ranging from standard support to premium offerings, allowing businesses to tailor the subscription to their specific needs.

For startups or smaller teams, I often recommend exploring Red Hat Developer subscriptions, which provide access to RHEL for development and testing at a reduced cost. Similarly, cloud-based RHEL instances through AWS, Azure, or Google Cloud offer flexible pricing models, allowing businesses to scale efficiently without heavy upfront infrastructure investments.

Ultimately, I advise organizations to conduct a cost-benefit analysis, factoring in security, automation, and long-term stability rather than looking solely at initial setup costs. RHEL's value extends beyond pricing—it’s an investment in reliability and enterprise support."*

No

Our main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) currently involve general server workload, including numerous Oracle-based workloads.

The features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that I appreciate the most include the most recent iterations such as no-downtime patching, live patching, and the ability to snapshot or snapshot LVM's; these features are more of a Linux capability, however, they have been really beneficial to us. 

High availability has been extremely beneficial for us to support. These features benefit our company by providing less downtime. We are not taking downtime to do patching on tier-one systems, and we spend less manpower and time to perform the types of automation and management that would normally take considerable time to accomplish hands-on, resulting in significant time savings.

Security requirements are always a consideration in choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in the cloud. Anytime we make any decision, security is definitely one of the foremost considerations we have taken place.

The biggest thing we look for is the ability to abide by STIG, as we do, and then apply our NIST policies as well as our defined HIPAA policies; Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) makes that a really easy process through the automation aspects.

We manage our Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems for provisioning and patching using a combination of VMware vRealize for actual deployment, and then we use Ansible Automation for the day-two configuration and lifecycle. Once software deployments and configurations are all Ansible automation, it couldn't work any better for us. As long as you have a coding background and understand YAML, Ansible works fantastically.

If I had to suggest one improvement for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), it would be clearer licensing information. There could be easier licensing paths for Red Hat; currently, it's included with many different things, yet just more clearly defined skews would help. That's the main consideration.

We have used Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for a total of about a decade now.

Regarding stability and reliability, our experience is that we don't have to reboot our Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) servers as we do with Windows servers every 90 days for something bad. 

We only have to reboot our Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) servers for updates or some unusual code push. We can count on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) just as we can count on Cisco UCS.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales fantastically with the growing needs of our company. We have clustered our Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) servers, and as far as size, they far outweigh anything else in the environment. 

Our largest clusters run on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), and we continue to see that as we grow, it is able to grow with us.

I would evaluate the customer service and technical support of this solution as being excellent when we need them. 

The information in the knowledge base is so readily available that we don't very often have to contact customer service, however, when we do, they are generally very knowledgeable and well-versed in our size.

Positive

Before we chose Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for the first time, we were mostly using Windows. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) was really our first enterprise Linux that we brought into the environment under the enterprise scale.

The biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the manpower; it's the ability to automate significant management tasks. That is the biggest ROI on the amount of time we spend managing this system, as we can take that time back and dedicate it to other types of innovation.

My experience with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)'s pricing, setup costs, and licensing has been pretty consistent, and honestly, compared to the rest of the market, it's pretty fair.

We've certainly considered other solutions before choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), including open source; we do use a bit of open source such as Rocky Linux, which most are going to be Red Hat derivatives. We also looked into other options, however, for anything tier one or most tier two, our current tier-one environment is Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). From a stability and supportability standpoint, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is a clear winner.

Currently, I can't say that Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) necessarily supports our hybrid cloud strategy; what it does do is make the deployment of several deployments and conception models much easier for us to consider versus having to do custom imaging for our cloud presence. 

It helps us bring down the amount of time it takes us to deploy.

On a scale of 1-10, I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) an 8.

My main use case for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is application servers, and it's all of our VMs. Most, if not all, of our physicals, on the Linux side, are Red Hat. The only thing that we run that isn't Red Hat is our Kubernetes nodes.

The feature of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that I find most interesting is image mode, which has ramifications far beyond just upgrading the OS. Speed to market and zero day could really be accelerated leveraging it. 

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) benefits my company at the end of the day by providing the foundation of Red Hat Linux, over 20 years and more. Coupled with the backing of a company such as IBM, you've got a company that can help solve pretty much any problem. 

It's the flexibility, almost the one-stop-shop nature, that Red Hat provides, that really creates an administrative-friendly environment.

The package manager is pretty solid now with DNF, which is the industry standard.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps solve quite a few pain points; I would say that in RHEL 8 to RHEL 9, when they went to AppStreams, it really helped simplify the repository structure and made package management significantly easier.

I wasn't part of the discussion about whether security requirements were a consideration in choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for our cloud operations, however, my guess is that it had to do with being able to do configuration management across on-prem and cloud in the same manner in both environments.

We manage our Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems through Red Hat Satellite, which we do not use to provision but only to patch, while provisioning is done through vRealize Automation. That's how we provision all of our VMs and custom builds, though there is additional infrastructure behind that.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) supports our hybrid cloud strategy as we are currently in the process of investigating different VM hypervisors, and as that investigation goes on, OpenShift is definitely at the forefront of the things we are looking at.

My number one request for improvement would be better Kickstart functionality, as I feel the Kickstart notation is outdated and it's not programmatic, so that would be my focus point, based on what I do.

From my perspective, I would prefer to see more of the knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) be freely available and not tied behind a Red Hat account, as there's a lot of common knowledge content that would be really helpful to many people. Now, I have a Red Hat account, so it doesn't matter to me. Still, that would be a great show of faith on Red Hat's part to open up many of those knowledge articles and make them freely available.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for probably 12 years.

My thoughts on the stability and reliability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are quite positive; my stuff doesn't go down, so I don't have problems. 

It's one of those nice things, similar to your refrigerator—you don't notice it until it breaks. It just works, and that's really the key factor; I can't remember the last time we had a system go down and had to restore it due to a bad patch. Those things just don't happen. The way they have things set up with Fedora, CentOS, and all of that user testing and integrated testing feeds into a really good final product, one that's stable and that you can rely on.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales with the growing needs of my company effectively, as we are currently running approximately 11,000 Red Hat VMs, and we manage, patch, and do everything all the time without issue. 

I've seen a significant decrease over my twenty-ish year career of needing backup tools to restore files since files just don't get corrupted the same way that they used to, making me feel Red Hat has really kept up to date with all of the intricacies and small components of the OS to provide a great ecosystem.

I cannot speak to the customer service and technical support of the platform, as I don't have to open tickets; there's a whole other team that does that. My understanding is that we have a regular cadence with our Technical Account Manager once every other week or once a month, and we've had good successes to the best of my knowledge.

Positive

While working with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), we actually considered other solutions, specifically SUSE Enterprise Linux, which we were running for quite some time until their pricing model changed. Red Hat offered a better pricing model, a more mature product, and it was just overall better in my opinion.

I have been involved in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) upgrades and migrations in my company, and it depends on what your approach is, however, we don't do in-place upgrades, as they're just dangerous, no matter what anybody says.

I always say a fresh install is always the best thing, so for us, it's a matter of leveraging Kickstart and Packer to generate the VM images or Kickstart to generate ISOs and install them on physicals. It's just a matter of taking and being able to easily set it up for repeatability, although it takes probably more time than I would prefer to get that consistency.

The biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for me is its close coupling with Ansible, which I am a big fan of. I've been here since the beginning, and Ansible is a great marrying tool with RHEL to really manage those systems at scale, allowing me to do pretty much anything, which I do every day; it's awesome.

Assuming you can leverage virtual data center licensing, I don't see the costs as being terrible. There are a lot of viable ways to decrease those costs while increasing the value you get from RHEL by leveraging CentOS and lower environments. 

Overall, I don't end up having to write the check at the end of the day, however, I've heard that the licensing models have changed a bit since I've had to work with them directly and that they're less painful than they had been before, with a lot of moving licenses from one pool to another pool, which I've heard you don't have to do now, so that's nice.

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

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is used in my organization primarily to install platforms and middleware, such as WebLogic or WebSphere. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) makes it easier to install and run platforms like WebLogic or WebSphere because the installation is more transparent and less complex, and it can be automated more easily with commands.

The best features offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) include scalability and ease of use. The aspects of scalability and ease of use that are most valuable for me in my day-to-day work with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are that it integrates much more easily with automation applications. Java-based platforms run better on those platforms. Antivirus solutions are less invasive on that type of operating system, and the code is more stable and less prone to crashes or instability of the operating system.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has positively impacted my organization as we have practically migrated to installing middleware applications on Red Hat. It is much simpler, there are no library conflicts, there are no conflicts with antivirus, and they are more stable.

A concrete result I have observed after the migration to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is that deployments are now much easier. They went from about six to ten days down to three days for delivering a complete environment across different environments: development, testing, and production. Additionally, the incidents that always caused conflicts with antivirus issues, library blocks, and application blocks that were not allowing installation or access to the operating system were completely eliminated.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is an extremely stable operating system. It is very open in terms of integration with other applications and migrations, and the applications developed for this type of operating system or that support these operating systems are more stable for a financial company like the one I work for.

At the moment, I do not think there is any functionality, documentation, or support that could be optimized. I have not had any problems with it. In fact, external documentation is very extensive, which is a big advantage because you can find documentation through searches on the internet itself.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in my organization for approximately four years.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is an extremely stable operating system.

The aspects of scalability and ease of use that are most valuable for me in my day-to-day work with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are that it integrates much more easily with automation applications.

I give Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a rating of 10 because I used to work with Windows and found too many integration issues. Even though it is visually easier, I prefer working with the command line and the stability and scalability.

I use VMware as the private cloud provider to deploy Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). I hardly handle patching in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), but Satellite is used for patching and updates, and I am satisfied with that management experience.

I have not tried tools like Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Image Builder or System Roles, so I cannot speak to how useful they are.

The knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is extremely useful and truly well documented.

The most important security features in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) include user levels, which have very good restrictions at the file level and at the execution level and obviously at the modification level. Additionally, viruses are still very restricted.

An example of a specific situation in which these levels of restriction and security have made a difference for my organization is that end users try to delete files, and it does not allow them. The audit features, which it handles very well, allow you to track down any problem, any execution or modification.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps me solve challenges and pain points in my daily work regarding integration and interaction with artificial intelligence. I gave this review a rating of 10 out of 10.

I am currently working with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as I administer a lot of Kubernetes clusters installed on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

For Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I use it as an operating system for our platform which powers all our company's software, mostly for Kubernetes or for IBM BPM or IBM PEL.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is a robust operating system, and I believe it is much better than Windows. I work with Windows and Ubuntu, but Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the best distribution I have worked with.

The knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is excellent. Red Hat documentation is the most valuable documentation in the market.

For Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I think the most time-saving aspects come from Red Hat Ansible because we use Ansible to automate many tasks and repetitive tasks on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and Windows. Ansible automation and the Ansible automation platform are the most valuable products that save us time and money.

Overall, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps me save time through automation using Ansible. For OpenShift, the core of containers saves time by automating the DevOps processes using the Red Hat pipeline built into OpenShift, Tekton, and source-to-image build. All of this saves us time.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps to mitigate downtime and lower risks for me, as most of my work is with OpenShift which enables us to do a zero downtime deployment. The deployment is done without any downtime. Red Hat OpenShift is a stable system. Red Hat OpenShift and Linux are very stable and the downtimes are very minimal.

I think Red Hat needs to implement more AI features in the operating system or Red Hat OpenShift.

I have been working with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for about 14 years.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is very stable. The product is very stable and very mature. All issues are documented in documentation or in the support portal and support knowledge base. When I have an issue, I primarily search the knowledge base and the support portal and find the solution. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is a very secure operating system, and they provide security patching every month.

I find Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scalable.

We have many cases where Red Hat helped us with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) or OpenShift, and their support is great. On a scale of one to ten, where ten is the best, I would rate the tech support a nine.

Positive

Most enterprises work on Linux, and as I am a DevOps and platform engineer, most of our systems run Linux, including Kubernetes, OpenShift, and the DevOps pipeline, all working on Linux. This is why I switched to Linux.

For Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), the setup is very straightforward. OpenShift is a little complex, but once you do it once, you will master it.

I performed the deployment all by myself.

When it comes to our business value, most of our customers are enterprise-grade customers from banking and government sectors, and they prefer to use an enterprise-grade operating system, not Ubuntu or CentOS. Additionally, in many cases, we need enterprise support from Red Hat as Ubuntu does not provide this.

My main use case for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is server management and cloud operations.

I use RHEL for server management and cloud operations to perform multiple tasks, such as user access management, user management, patch management, and troubleshooting.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) offers multiple features that are really accessible and stable, providing security and compliance, hybrid cloud compatibility, enterprise-grade container support, task automation through cron jobs, and an overall good platform.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has positively impacted my organization through automation, as my recent task saved a lot of time by reducing the work from months to a day using scripts developed in RHEL, thus boosting our productivity and cutting costs while empowering a skilled workforce, enabling scalable and secure infrastructure, and fueling innovation and digital transformation.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) could be improved with a modernized knowledge base and documentation, better performance under high load, and possibly a reduction in the cost of the professional subscription. Apart from that, I don't see much need for improvement.

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

In my experience, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is perfect in terms of stability.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) handles increases in users, applications, or data smoothly, which is why we use it for all our projects, as it provides us with confidence. We also use Amazon Linux, but primarily it is RHEL.

I have reached out to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) customer support multiple times, and I've found the experience amazing, as issues get resolved in a lesser time compared to Amazon AWS.

I have majorly worked on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) only and did not use a different solution before switching.

We have seen a return on investment with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), having saved a lot of money and time due to the automation and scripting we perform, resulting in savings on man-hours as well.

I have mentioned earlier that the pricing, setup cost, and licensing for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) could be reduced a bit, indicating a scope for improvement there.

Before choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I evaluated other options like SUSE and AIX, but I don't think any of them are better than RHEL.

We do a lot of automation using Bash scripts. In a recent task, I had about 2,500 to 3,000 EBS volumes that I needed to change from GP2 to GP3 and calculate their throughput and IOPS, which would have been impossible manually due to time constraints, but we accomplished it with a Bash script thanks to RHEL. It's really very useful.

My advice for others looking into using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is that everyone working on Linux should at least give it a try because it's a great platform.

On a scale of one to ten, I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) an 8.5 out of 10.

We have our in-house applications. We have several edge applications at our store locations. There is an in-house written app that we host on a basic Linux VM. Additionally, we have a few on-premises installations at headquarters. One of our major applications is being rewritten to be hosted on a Linux server, so that's in the process of migrating.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps me with configuration management. It has become a standard in many ways. There's substantial support and different applications that we run on it. The available options for configuration, maintainability, and stability are valuable, and it's not a rapidly changing base that we're working with.

My favorite feature of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) isn't narrowed down to one specific aspect. As someone who grew up using command line interfaces, the ability to access a command line and have the system at my fingertips is beneficial. There are multiple options and different ways to approach tasks with Linux, allowing for creativity in the process.

The command line feature of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) specifically helps me find ways to address problems. If there's a bottleneck, something slowing us down, or a manual process that we're spending significant time with, I can determine ways to either script around it or use an Ansible playbook. Having these different tools at our disposal is particularly useful.

While I don't have an immediate answer, there may be ways to lighten up the underlying system. There are many components I haven't investigated, making it difficult to pinpoint specific areas. It has always been reliable, and I haven't encountered many major issues. I've been content with Red Hat since I started using it.

We don't use SELinux because it gets in the way too much. It's a good product if you have the time to devote to it. A lot of management is involved in it. We typically set it to notify rather than completely disabling it, though vendors often request reduced security settings during application setup. Regarding areas for improvement, I can suggest streamlining SELinux, which currently feels heavy-handed in its approach to security. It's a system that requires deep immersion to understand. While there's probably justification for its current implementation, making the security component less intimidating for users would be beneficial. This is a recurring observation, as many users working on Red Hat systems or Linux systems tend to disable SELinux because it becomes an obstacle. With proper knowledge and usage, it could be beneficial, but it's similar to training a wild dog - it can be loyal, but without proper training, it becomes an impediment.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) professionally since around 2011, though I've been using some form of it since the late '90s.

We haven't experienced many problems with downtime. Our operating systems have been consistently stable regarding uptime. Any downtime issues have been related to upstream factors, networking, and power infrastructure.

In terms of stability and reliability, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is very stable. I rarely recall having issues where the OS wouldn't boot up. Any stability issues have typically been hardware, network-related, or facility-related rather than OS-related.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales with the growing needs of my company very effectively. We implement it in any place where we can find a suitable application.

The customer service and technical support for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are very good. I would rate it approximately eight or nine out of ten. It has been particularly good recently. Though there were past instances where support initially took a hands-off approach due to gray areas in their support scope, which was disappointing, they ultimately delivered when crucial support was needed.

Positive

We are largely a Windows shop. I'm probably the only Linux person on the staff. We have legacy systems, including HP-UX and Stratus VOS, with some RHEL outliers that are being phased out. While Red Hat will likely absorb some of that capacity, many people coming from a Microsoft environment are bringing Windows .NET applications. We're currently evaluating Azure as a hosting platform, which is already in place but not actively used yet.

I've been involved in Red Hat Enterprise Linux upgrades and migrations since Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5. We still maintain one Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 server due to legacy applications. We have successfully removed all Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 installations and currently maintain a large base of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 at our store locations, which we're migrating from. We've implemented both Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 and Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9, completing the entire cycle. We've been through all the versions. We don't do in-place upgrades or anything like that. We just rehost the applications, which is probably pretty typical. This is largely a VM-based environment.

I use Satellite combined with the Ansible automation platform for provisioning and patching. I implement kick-starting via Satellite for most systems, with Ansible handling the final configuration. As Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10 approaches, I'm interested in exploring image options to streamline the process, particularly regarding CIS benchmark compliance.

We are going to move to Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10. We've been pretty good about getting up to the latest version once it's available. It took us a while with Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7, but we jumped to Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 fairly quickly. I had my process down, so with Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9, I got right on to it and rewrote my configuration. I'm hoping to streamline that to get Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10 up and going once it comes out. I'll have a new service based on that. Our footprint is shrinking a little bit because a lot of our apps are being rewritten in a Windows .NET environment. It's not going to be as big as it used to be, but we're still going to have Red Hat.

The biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is time. Time is a crucial factor, and attempting this level of automation with Windows would be challenging. While automation is possible with Windows, it comes naturally with Linux. Being able to transform common manual tasks that previously took all day into processes that take an hour, half an hour, or even less, demonstrates clear value.

Management handles much of the pricing, setup costs, and licensing for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), though I receive many of the invoices. While it isn't inexpensive, it has proven to be a worthwhile investment. The virtualized environment has provided good value. Each of our Satellite locations has its own physical license, which adds complexity, but Red Hat and our partners have worked with us to secure competitive pricing.

My rating for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is 10 out of 10.