Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Reviews

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.

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 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.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is used within our organization to orchestrate a multitenant, microservice-based architecture. This supports a distributed system of predominantly web-based applications and frontends. A typical deployment involves around 60 to 70 Amazon EC2 instances working in concert.

The primary use cases involve running interconnected applications with requirements such as low latency and high availability, often achieved through redundant, multi-tenant, and load-balanced architectures. These applications may utilize read or write-optimized instances or be memory or processor-optimized, depending on their specific needs. Optimization is achieved through the processor, RAM, and connected protocols. The foundation for these applications is Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux facilitates seamless workload migration between diverse cloud environments and data centers. In DevOps, workload portability between cloud and data centers is crucial, so we prioritize operating systems supported by multiple cloud providers and available locally. Key considerations include stability, security hardening capabilities, and the ability to obtain government or compliance organization approvals, which are incredibly stringent in sectors like banking and securities exchange. Red Hat Enterprise Linux meets these requirements by providing a secure, reliable, and consistently delivered operating system that facilitates approvals and ensures seamless workload mobility.

Regarding Red Hat Enterprise Linux provisioning and patching, both processes are generally straightforward. Patching can be completed within a few hours. Once the automation pipelines are properly configured, tested, and operational, provisioning can be fully automated. This applies to any operating system, not just Red Hat. Setting up a correct pipeline ensures smooth provisioning regardless of the OS.

Implementing Red Hat Enterprise Linux has resulted in significant resource savings due to its efficient usage of minimal resources. Compared to other operating systems, Red Hat Enterprise Linux requires less RAM and CPU allocation, which translates to cost savings. Additionally, its stability and minimal downtime contribute to operational efficiency.

The Red Hat command line interface is more user-friendly than the Windows command line interface. Red Hat makes it easier to perform tasks like reviewing logs, checking network connectivity, checking DNS, and setting up a proxy. Additionally, searching for specific characters within numerous log files is simpler in a Red Hat Enterprise Linux instance compared to other operating systems.

The implementation and limitations of SELinux should be re-evaluated. Its current configuration presents numerous challenges and restricts certain functionalities, hindering the overall usability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Addressing these limitations would significantly enhance the operating system's flexibility and efficiency.

I've been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for six years.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is almost perfect in terms of stability. It works consistently with minimal downtime and very few bugs or glitches, deserving a high rating for stability.

There are no issues with scalability when it comes to Red Hat Enterprise Linux. It scales efficiently, fulfilling our needs without difficulty.

My experience contacting Red Hat technical support was positive, with knowledgeable and supportive staff, particularly during early hours. However, I found more detailed knowledge through community interactions on platforms like Stack Overflow.

Positive

Before adopting Red Hat Enterprise Linux for production applications, other Linux operating systems like Ubuntu and Windows servers were used for monitoring and testing purposes. Red Hat Enterprise Linux became the choice for critical server applications.

The initial setup of Red Hat Enterprise Linux is straightforward. Once the images and database information are available, the automation process is simple and efficient, taking only a couple of hours to complete.

Using Red Hat Enterprise Linux can yield resource savings of 200 percent to 300 percent compared to Windows Server instances. Its minimal RAM and CPU usage allows for smaller instances, resulting in significant cost reductions.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is a more cost-effective solution than Windows Servers. Windows Servers base their cost on the number of users and have high licensing fees, while Red Hat Enterprise Linux offers free versions alongside its paid, supported versions. This makes Red Hat Enterprise Linux a good option for startups and organizations with limited budgets. While the free versions may lack direct vendor support, the availability of paid support options and the robust Red Hat Enterprise Linux ecosystem provides flexibility for growing businesses. Additionally, the presence of compatible open-source alternatives further enhances cost-effectiveness and choice. Overall, Red Hat Enterprise Linux presents a compelling advantage in terms of cost compared to other operating systems, especially for nascent organizations.

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

While Red Hat offers free license versions and CentOS provides a similar platform, the official Red Hat documentation may not be the most helpful resource. More valuable support can often be found in community-driven platforms like Stack Overflow, where users share their knowledge and experiences through questions and answers. This user-generated content often proves more practical and supportive than the official Red Hat resources.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is deployed in a multi-region configuration with three availability zones per region. Data is replicated from region one to region two, which serves as a read-only replica. Traffic is load-balanced across all availability zones within a region, ensuring automatic failover to the remaining zones in case of an outage. Similarly, if an entire region fails, traffic is redirected to the other available region. This setup provides high availability and disaster recovery capabilities. We have a couple of thousand users in our organization.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux requires periodic updates. To manage logs, a retrieval and deletion method is necessary, which can be achieved using built-in features like cron jobs. Red Hat supports these features. Additionally, security patches should be applied as they become available.

I recommend Red Hat Enterprise Linux, particularly for enterprise implementation, due to its lightweight and secure design. Its robust community support and extensive availability of solutions in forums and unofficial resources make it preferable to other operating systems.

The solution is used for on-premises data centers. Multiple private data centers run workloads on VMware Cloud solutions, and Red Hat Enterprise Linux is deployed on critical systems. We use KVM virtualization technology to host various virtual machines on Red Hat Enterprise Linux that run workloads and applications.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux improved our compliance by working with third-party security providers, like CIS Enterprise Internet Security. It's a nonprofit organization that provides many security solutions and benchmarking for each operating system. CIS and Red Hat jointly developed a CIS-approved operating system. They work with various public cloud providers like App Engine, Google, and AWS to provide comprehensive CIS-approved images in Red Hat Enterprise Linux. 

The US federal government has already certified the OS for FIPS compliance. FIPS is the organization that designs cryptography algorithms for federal agencies, and they approved Red Hat Enterprise Linux. 

It takes some time to realize the benefits. Some customers cannot see a direct benefit because the licensing is a bit complex. In a huge enterprise environment, you could see an immediate effect, but a smaller or medium-sized organization may take a while to yield a return on investment.

The most significant advantage is that it is more stable and secure than other operating systems. Years ago, we worked on Windows-based systems with more challenges regarding patch management and vulnerabilities than Unix operating systems. We get more frequent patch releases from the vendor weekly, monthly, and quarterly. It also has strong security features, is OIS and FIPS certified, and has built-in Linux security configurations.

In addition to Linux's built-in security tools, it has Red Hat Enterprise Linux configuration features that provide robust security controls. We also have third-party solutions that provide more in-depth solutions for our cloud and on-premises infrastructure. We have to provide security at each layer of the OSI models. For example, on the application layer, we have to provide web solutions or application gateways, but it provides good security features for the OS layer. 

We use another Red Hat product called Ansible to automate patching tasks and infrastructure deployment. We don't have a large number of servers, so we manage patching and configuration through Ansible. For bigger deployments, they have solutions like Satellite, but we use Ansible. 

We use Image Builder to create a Golden Image for our CICD pipelines. We have a CIS-approved image that integrates their security controls for our automation tools and some of the ones specific to our organization. We added some of the controls from the Red Hat management framework that govern how an image should be created and what controls must be integrated into this base image. 

The web console is useful for people without Linux backgrounds who lack experience working with the command prompt. The web console helps them manage the system better without knowing all the commands.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux licensing is a bit complex. The solution operates on a subscription-based model, which may not provide immediate return on investment for small to medium-sized organizations. It also has a steep learning curve for employees unfamiliar with Linux, and it demands a skilled team or a dedicated service center to operate effectively.

I have used Red Hat Enterprise Linux for about four to six years.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux offers great stability and performance compared to other operating systems. It does not have issues with crashing or substantial downtime.

I rate Red Hat support seven out of 10. We have only opened one or two cases with technical support, but we've had good experiences. They respond immediately based on the SLA level. In the future, we plan to use Red Hat's OpenShift and Kubernetes solutions, so we expect to work with the support team more because we're new to those products. 

Red Hat's Knowledgebase is an excellent support resource. It stays updated about new things coming to our region and provides lots of articles about the products. It's a good starting point for troubleshooting without the need to call the support team. We use the knowledgebase to resolve issues as often as we can, but we contact support if we get stuck and can't find the solution. 

Neutral

We have physical systems running SUSE Linux and Windows, but we're gradually migrating them to Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Some systems are running Solaris, and we haven't decided whether we'll migrate to Red Hat Enterprise Linux or other operating systems.

Our operations team takes care of migrations and installations. We're primarily responsible for business impact assessments and helping the operations team do a POC to determine the effect on the application environment. We consider the licensing and give the operations team approval to do the migrations and install the new operating system. 

The team consists of two or three people. We cannot migrate directly from one system to another. We simulate everything in the POC environment and perform migrations in the development environment using our in-house tools. They will check the source machines and find out what applications are running. It will assess them and look into the destination systems. Using some replication technology, it will do a direct synchronous verification between one storage to the other.

We need some downtime to complete the migration, and most of the data is stored in SAN storage. That is called a long migration. Once the operating systems and associated patches and applications have been migrated, we have to migrate them manually for the storage side.

The subscription-based pricing can be costly, particularly for smaller deployments. The more subscriptions you have, the easier it is to see a return on investment because it helps larger organizations more. It may be considered expensive compared to other solutions like CentOS or Ubuntu, which offer some of the same features without additional costs.

I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux eight out of 10. I recommend new users get some training on the platform because installations and migrations can be complex. Setting up clusters can be challenging for new users who don't have hands-on Linux experience without vendor assistance. 

The main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) at the bank involve internal applications, as we do a lot of internal applications not exposed to clients.

From my perspective, the best features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) lie in its ease of use, especially compared to AIX, which has a lot of functionalities requiring extensive learning. It was easy for me to shift from AIX to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps manage our hybrid cloud environment, but being a bank, we are highly regulated internally, so there is limited direct involvement with the cloud environment in Royal Bank cloud, which is Azure.

One area I see for improvement in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is in the documentation. I encountered some scarcity when looking for information regarding structure, commands, and administrative tasks.

I have dealt with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for around 10 years, even when it was not part of IBM.

My opinion of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)'s scalability is that it was very easy.

I would rate Red Hat's customer service or technical support as a 10, as my experience with all IBM products, including Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), has been very satisfactory all the time.

Positive

The initial setup of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is straightforward compared to AIX, which is more convoluted.

I have experience with platforms like Linux, and I am also working deeply with MongoDB and Node.js, tools that I use constantly every single day.

I am familiar with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), and here in RBC, we are a big IBM shop, currently using JBoss and Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as part of our environment.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is used for both cloud-based solutions and on-premises.

From a business value perspective, the business folks do not notice much difference between Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and other distributions, as long as their application functions well, they are satisfied.

We utilize two cloud providers for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) solutions, mainly Azure and also Amazon. I cannot answer how Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) was purchased, but I know we have it on both Amazon and Azure.

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a nine, as I find it satisfactory in various aspects.

I've been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for four or five years now because I had a business with my cousin. We are Red Hat Partners. Easier integration is important because most customers we work with already have Red Hat. We use Ansible for discovery, primarily for ServiceNow. We also wanted to expand into the field of Maximo asset management. One customer, a big Red Hat partner, uses IBM Maximo, but that didn't work out because I have a business with my cousin and one of his partners parted ways, so I stayed with ServiceNow.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps solve pain points related to user account servers and onboarding certain servers. It's easier to use in my opinion and less complicated, especially for Ansible discovery.

Organizations need to know what assets they have because sometimes they have assets on the network and don't know what they are. With the solution, it's easier to discover the assets, what OS is running on them, sometimes location, warranty information, and serial numbers.

Regarding security requirements and considerations in using it in the cloud, I've seen a lot of virtual machines on the network, and no one knows anything about them. As soon as you deploy Ansible, you can know exactly what servers the virtual machine is running on, whether there's a warranty, serial numbers, naming convention, and all that, which makes it easier.

For now, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) works fine for me. When I used it in the past, I don't see what I can improve now because it works the way I want it. There aren't any additional features that I think should be included in the future since you have AI now, and I think you are up to date.

I've been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for four or five years now.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped me mitigate downtime and lower risk. When it comes to downtime, there are no worries, for example, when there's an issue or something is down, the response time is solid.

Customer service is great, and there are several certifications and lots of certification options you can get for you and your team. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is also worldwide, and everyone knows it.

Positive

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is easy. Compared to other companies, everything is there and it's easy. When it comes to price, I can say it's cheaper than certain solutions out there in Asia or overseas.

This product is not purchased on the AWS Marketplace; we're helping sell our customers with our ServiceNow migrations, so we don't push or purchase anything from AWS Marketplace. Everything about Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is online and it's easy to become a Red Hat partner. It's not hard. My cousin had the business with us and was already a Red Hat partner. It's easy to get the certifications, and they make everything easier. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is what most companies use before selecting it, and it's mostly worldwide use for that. That's what my cousin and I thought when he had the business. I would say the solution is an easier option overall. My overall rating for this product is 5 out of 5.

From the start of my career, I started working on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

My work role is a network engineer and systems engineer. We manage customers' servers, which run the Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) operating system.

The servers are Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), and my job role involves troubleshooting and ensuring the servers are running properly.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is very good concerning security; it's much better than other Windows systems. RHEL is something I normally use command prompt with, and it's very easy to manage as a network engineer.

The Red Hat systems build in their own security features, which is unique, and it's better to use for enterprise-level customers. Most enterprise-level customers prefer RHEL to run their systems and applications.

I can work with less downtime, and if anything happens, it's very easy and direct to troubleshoot compared to other operating systems. The FAQ rules, details, and commands in the Red Hat FAQs are very helpful.

Currently, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) supports all types of integration using other systems, but it might be better if they had more documentation on the relevant integration with other apps or systems.

There can be some improvements in this area.

The solution has been in use for nine years.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is stable.

When it comes to cloud, it's easy to scale up using the AWS management tool; we can easily upgrade or downgrade the systems. However, when it comes to physical on-premises deployment, that is a different situation.

We are not using only Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). As Lumen Technologies is the largest MNC, we have all types of systems. RHEL is one of the main systems which most customers use, but we currently use other solutions as well. We didn't switch to anything exclusively.

We host web applications and websites in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) servers.

RHEL is a reliable and best operating system for users to implement.

I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a 10 out of 10.

My main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) cover all the tiers from web application to the database.

The feature of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that I prefer most is Insights. I have been using Insights, and it can give me the health of the system, CPU, memory, and everything, allowing me to see everything including security patches, vulnerabilities, and missing patches. 

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps me solve pain points because it is a stable platform, so I don't have to fix many issues because we're using Ansible to automate everything. Since we have a very stable environment and Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is very stable, we don't have much pain. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) benefits my company significantly because by using it, we are using a stable platform, and all our environments are working as expected.

It has excellent features in terms of security. Everything is there. I just need to deploy it, and we have the SELinux, OpenSCAP, and many tools that I can use to configure the system to make it more secure. For upgrade or migration plans to stay current, we're using the automated LEAP process for migrating from a lower version to the latest version.

I see that there's a lot of improvement needed, but I can see that Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 10 has some of the features that I'm looking for.

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

I have peace of mind, so everything with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is reliable and stable.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped me to mitigate downtime and lower risks because we have everything in place to mitigate any issues since we have a failover on the other side.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales effectively; all the needs of our company are being met by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

I have experience with customer service and technical support. The experience with customer service has been pleasant, but some of the features that I am looking for are not met, so they're still working on it. I would rate the customer service an eight out of ten.

The knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has improved now because of AI. Previously, when I searched for something, it didn't give me everything, but now I am more satisfied.

Positive

My experience with deploying Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is smooth. We are using an automated process; we're using VMware VRA and Ansible to customize the environment. Everything is smooth in building Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) because we have the process from end-to-end, it's very well-defined, so we don't have any problem deploying Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

We have a hybrid environment with on-premise or cloud deployment. We use all cloud providers. 

When it comes to managing my Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems for provisioning and patching, we're using automation with Ansible Automation Platform, AAP, and everything is going smoothly, and I am satisfied with that experience.

I am looking to make the deployment much easier because there's the Image Builder that I prefer, and in building using the Image Builder, all the packages or repositories that I need are inside that feature. 

The biggest return on investment for me when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is peace of mind; I don't have to worry about the operating system because it's running smoothly as expected.

Security requirements were a consideration when choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) because since we're in the government, I'm the one that set up the compliance requirements, and I deployed using the OpenSCAP, but I cannot tell the profiles as it's confidential.

While using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I have not considered other solutions; we are working on moving to OpenShift, which is still Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as a nine out of ten; I don't give a ten because it's a perfect score. 

My advice to other companies that are considering Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is that it is the best operating system currently, so they can use it in deploying their system, wherever they want to deploy the applications.

We run all of our servers on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), specifically RHEL 8, and that's the production OS for all the servers in our farm.

The features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) streamline many things for us. Everything feels streamlined, smooth to use, and easy to operate, making it almost invisible without stressing about issues on the OS level. As essentially a sysadmin level engineer, I really appreciate the package manager. It's simple and easy to use, being the most straightforward part of using Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

I don't know how Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) can be improved. As a sysadmin level worker, everything I need to do, RHEL has been able to perform for me. I don't have a specific use case where I wish I had additional features, so I can't provide feedback on that. I'm not sure about how Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) could maximize or enhance any features. I don't really know anything Red Hat specific that's positive or negative that I can speak on. I'm not certain if Red Hat could smooth out the migration process from CentOS to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). I think it's more internal stuff that needs to be ironed out rather than Red Hat having issues.

I've been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for around three to four years now.

There have been no issues with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) stability and reliability. We haven't experienced any OS level reliability issues.

The scalability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has been excellent. Our recent hurdle was getting off of CentOS, but the scalability hasn't been an issue for us. It's been smooth sailing, just requiring the bulk work of migrating thousands of servers.

I haven't engaged with customer support at Red Hat for any help.

Positive

I did not consider another solution before choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

I'm not entirely sure at the moment about Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) upgrade or migration plans for what's ahead of us. We're just looking into the short term right now.

Once our team got comfortable with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), we purchased Red Hat Learning on the side. After our team was trained on Red Hat through the Red Hat Learning subscription, the combined learning experience provided by Red Hat delivered many technical skills needed to be a comfortable sysadmin.

Everything has been running smoothly with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). I don't have any previous criticisms that RHEL specifically has solved in our use case. I'm not well-versed in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) built-in security features, so I can't comment on that aspect. I can't say if it has helped to mitigate downtime or lower risks specifically. Everything's so smooth with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that it's not something we really think about. We worry about other things rather than the OS level. I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 10 out of 10. I have not purchased Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) on the AWS marketplace.