Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Reviews

I use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), and we have a couple of customers using OpenShift, the Kubernetes platform based on Red Hat, and also Red Hat Virtualization. My first contact with the Linux platform was with Red Hat.

The best features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are its stability and the RPM, Red Hat Package Manager, which is perfect. They also deliver Satellite, a platform for updates. It is a very robust, excellent platform.

For me, and for every Linux distribution, the most important security feature in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is SELinux. Security is often misunderstood by others. SELinux is very important because it provides security for the kernel. Many people disable SELinux, but it is the most important and most misunderstood feature. People do not understand it. The updates and SELinux are very important to me. SELinux is very good, but it is complex, and I have seen many administrators disable it because instead of helping them, it causes trouble. For example, securing my NGINX configuration is a pain. It is a very good security option, but I would say it is excellent only if one is an expert.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) documentation is very good and very complete. Regardless of my opinion about the IBM acquisition, the documentation is excellent.

IBM committed two major mistakes with Red Hat. The first was destroying the CentOS project, which was a fork of Red Hat. The second was limiting the use of free options and restricting hardware to support Red Hat on just some limited hardware. One can use the system for free, but the statement is not entirely true because it is limited to a couple of virtual processors and I do not remember if it was 24 or 16 GB of RAM. If one goes beyond that configuration, one has to pay, and IBM is IBM. Many companies were in trouble because from one day to the next, IBM said they would no longer support CentOS and told them to move to another distribution. People had to migrate, and for that reason, there are Rocky Linux, AlmaLinux, and other Linux distributions that are trying to rise and taking advantage of that situation. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is just for corporate companies with money to waste on licensing.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is very expensive. In the case of our customers, the couple of customers with OpenShift, they have enough money to license Red Hat. They bundle Red Hat with virtualization and OpenShift packages. However, it is not suitable for an SMB company. It is not payable or affordable. For me, it is very expensive.

I use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a lot, though I do not remember the exact frequency.

I have worked with Red Hat support, and it is very good because they have very good engineers. In Latin America, during my time, the support in Spanish was mostly provided by engineers from Argentina. In Colombia, I have worked with a couple of engineers from Colombia, and they were very good. I have not worked with support in English for Red Hat, only in Spanish with those engineers.

Positive

My first Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) certification, Red Hat Certified Engineer, was for version 6, which was approximately 12 to 15 years ago.

I have tried Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Image Builder and System Roles, and it is pretty good.

I would rate the support at an eight out of ten. My overall rating for this product is ten out of ten.

My main use case for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is for all the tasks, which can be utility services or web services, DNS, NTP, or identity service as well as mail service in my day-to-day work.

The best features Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) offers are that it's a well-managed operating system, and I can use anything regarding the system and other features.

It is good for performance, reliability, and updates.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has positively impacted my organization because its improved security helped our team to maintain compliance issues, even though it's a bit complex.

It's acceptable to work with the current system and current initiation regarding how Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) could be improved; I don't have significant frustrations.

The GUI operation needs to be improved, especially for day-to-day desktop operations.

I'm working about 10 years in my current field.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is stable in my experience.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is a highly scalable solution, and it can handle growth and increased demand well.

The customer support for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is exceptional; I have interacted with their support team, and it's awesome.

I rate the customer support for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a 9 out of 10.

We used Oracle Linux before Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), but I prefer RHEL now.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) saved our money and is good, which indicates we've seen a return on investment.

We have evaluated Ubuntu before choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

I absolutely give others looking into using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) the advice to adopt RHEL for their other production systems. On a scale of 1-10, I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a 10.

My main use case for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is running virtual machines. That's probably the most important use case for us.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps us solve pain points related to security. We want security, so it is hardened, and just supports us. As a financial institution we take security very seriously.

The feature I appreciate the most from Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is support and simplicity. 

The knowledge base is good; they have a lot of documentation. 

We manage our Red Hat Enterprise Linux systems when it comes to provisioning and patching through Ansible. Everything's straightforward and efficient.

Adding more relevant features to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) would be great. I have seen some issues on GitHub where people are suggesting things, such as Ansible. There are many community issues that could be implemented into Red Hat.

We try to stay two versions below the latest one just to make sure that we have security checked there and to avoid running into any bugs or issues with the latest release. We just try to apply patches as much as we can.

The stability and reliability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are smooth as we have not encountered any problems or issues.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales perfectly with the growing needs of my company. It's easy to scale up with the tools we have.

My experience with the customer service and technical support of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has been amazing; they are very helpful. We open up a ticket, and we get someone to help right away.

Positive

The deployment is a smooth process. Some of the issues we have are just related to multiple vulnerabilities, and that's on our side to fix, however, everything else is smooth. We have no complaints.

The biggest return on investment for me when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is how they have their foundation set. They have everything organized, documentation's there, it's globally used everywhere, and it's good software with good tools.

I'm not in the pricing conversation. I can't speak to costs.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped me mitigate downtime and lower risks. They specifically thrive on criticism, and they don't take it lightly. They mentioned earlier in the panel that they wanted to prioritize the big CVs and any vulnerability that's important. Although some don't get exploited, it's good to have fewer of those numbers. 

We try to stay two versions below the latest one.

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

Our primary infrastructure operating system is Red Hat Enterprise Linux, predominantly RHEL Eight. While some products utilize RHEL Seven, RHEL Eight point Zero is the standard for most of our operating systems and servers. However, server choices may vary based on specific industry requirements. Our underlying infrastructure relies almost exclusively on Linux distributions.

Our primary Linux installations use Red Hat Enterprise Linux in an on-premises VMware environment, with some instances deployed on AWS.

The built-in security features simplify risk reduction by allowing direct control of the root system's access.

Red Hat's knowledge base is excellent.

While Red Hat Leapp and Insights are helpful tools, they are not part of my daily workflow.

The web console is a good feature.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux enhances uptime and security, boasting faster boot times than other operating systems.

The most valuable feature of Red Hat Enterprise Linux is its security, which is more secure than Windows. 

Integrating certificates from third-party clients into Red Hat Enterprise Linux can be challenging due to the operating system's stringent security policies.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for nine years.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is stable.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is scalable.

The technical support team was professional and quickly resolved our issue.

Positive

We use Oracle for our database, Ubuntu in our testing environment, and Red Hat Enterprise Linux in our production systems due to its increased stability.

The cloud migration from Red Hat Enterprise Linux Seven to Eight was straightforward due to the absence of underlying infrastructure complexities. However, the on-premises migration presented challenges from existing infrastructure dependencies, resulting in numerous errors.

The migration of approximately 200 servers required a team approach to ensure continuous monitoring. Although two people could have completed the migration, a four-person team completed it within two days. 

The migration from Red Hat Enterprise Linux Seven to Eight was done in-house.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux offers a compelling value proposition for corporations due to its robust support infrastructure, which is essential for maintaining enterprise-level systems. However, the pricing model may be less attractive to individuals or small businesses. Compared to cloud-based platforms like AWS or Azure, which offer flexible pay-as-you-go options, RHEL's subscription-based model can become cost-prohibitive for those with limited budgets or smaller-scale projects.

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

We utilize Ansible to provision and patch our extensive server infrastructure. Ansible's automation capabilities enable efficient batching and management of security patches across all servers.

We test all the patches for some time before we add them to our production environment.

We utilize Red Hat Enterprise Linux in our private cloud and on-premises environments, but I've observed better performance in the cloud, likely due to the greater availability of resources.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux does require maintenance.

Most of the applications I work with, including our primary enterprise-level application, necessitate the robust capabilities of an enterprise-grade operating system. Therefore, we utilize Red Hat Enterprise Linux to ensure optimal performance and stability for these demanding applications.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is praised for its exceptionally precise documentation, which greatly aids in the learning and implementation process. Troubleshooting is straightforward, and solutions to any arising issues are readily available through a simple Google search.

For provisioning Red Hat Enterprise Linux, tools like Terraform and Ansible are commonly used to automate the process on a base machine. While Terraform handles various provisioning tasks, Red Hat provides its software for patching, although OpenSCAP is also a strong alternative for effective patch management.

Our organization uses Red Hat Insights, leveraging its user-friendly single dashboard to monitor all aspects of our systems. This centralized platform has proven invaluable for maintaining an overview of our infrastructure and ensuring operational efficiency.

We often use the Red Hat Enterprise Linux web console for things like viewing system performance and logs, managing user accounts, and configuring network settings.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is robust, stable, and well-documented compared to the open-source versions of Linux.

I find the most valuable aspect of Red Hat Enterprise Linux to be its ease of customization. The operating system allows for the simple addition of kernels, modules, and other applications, making it highly adaptable to various needs.

Red Hat has several areas ripe for improvement. In the Asia Pacific region, where cost-optimization is highly valued, Red Hat's support and subscription costs are perceived as high and could be reduced. While their security documentation is comprehensive, some solutions lack open-source availability or training resources, unlike platforms such as Ubuntu. Furthermore, the quality of documentation and training sessions, particularly for OpenShift, could be enhanced. Addressing these issues would strengthen Red Hat's offerings and better serve its customers.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for about nine to ten years.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is extremely stable.

When Red Hat is involved in virtualization or OpenStack, moving from one virtualization platform to another becomes easier. However, when scalability is needed, it depends on the underlying infrastructure security, which is part of Red Hat import.

Communication quality is very good. I find very helpful people in the support section, and the Red Hat portal is robust for main solutions and support. When I receive support, I often find very interesting solutions.

Positive

I previously used CentOS, Ubuntu, and Debian, among other Linux distributions. However, with the growing popularity of containerization technologies like Kubernetes and Docker, solutions like Red Hat OpenShift are becoming increasingly common, particularly in regions like Bangladesh, India, and the Asia Pacific. That is why we are using Enterprise Linux.

The initial deployment and migration of Red Hat Enterprise Linux are straightforward, particularly for cloud-based solutions. However, on-premises migrations present a slight challenge due to the complexities of CVS solutions and potential application compatibility issues. This can involve numerous parameters that require careful consideration. My lack of experience with Red Hat's migration tools may have also contributed to the perceived difficulty.

Red Hat could gain a competitive advantage in the Asia Pacific region by adjusting its pricing strategy. Lowering the cost of enterprise-level offerings could attract organizations seeking operating systems or Kubernetes solutions, as these tools are essential for many businesses in the region. This adjustment would make Red Hat a more appealing choice compared to competitors with potentially higher pricing.

I have not found another operating system that matches Red Hat Enterprise Linux; it receives a perfect score of ten out of ten.

The Red Hat Enterprise Linux upgrade process is generally smooth. However, patching occasionally causes issues, typically due to application incompatibility or bugs in the updated packages. This necessitates restoring from a backup to maintain functionality. While this is a recurring problem, the infrastructure itself remains stable throughout the process.

I work with both the cloud version and the on-premises version of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). I have worked with Red Hat Cloud and Red Hat Enterprise on-premises.

For the cloud-based products, the main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) include deploying websites and complex software for customers, such as SaaS software on the cloud, specifically Red Hat Cloud.

When choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in the cloud, security requirements were not a consideration for me because Red Hat provides us with the SLA regarding security compliance. I am more than satisfied to use Red Hat Cloud for security purposes, while I manage some other forms of security, such as my own keys and access in Red Hat Linux systems.

I really appreciate the zero trust networking that Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has, and it also provides the WAF, along with certified images from Red Hat. For my current work on containers, Red Hat provides certified images that minimize vulnerabilities of CVEs, improving security significantly.

Although I do not have much knowledge about virtualization technology, I can say that for the hybrid cloud on OpenShift with the operators provided by Red Hat, the ready-to-use operators take care of underlying security, patching, and updates, so I do not have to handle monitoring or security myself.

Security is highlighted as an advantage across various aspects, such as the zero trust networking feature and the availability of certified images, which are instrumental in minimizing vulnerabilities and enhancing security.

While there are good aspects, I would appreciate improvements in the command-line interface (CLI). Red Hat could do more on the CLI side instead of focusing so much on UI development.

I have been working with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for around five years.

Regarding stability, I have not experienced performance issues, crashes, or downtimes with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL); any problems usually arise from my applications, not from the Linux system.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is definitely scalable.

Whether I have expanded the usage of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) depends on the business requirements, as RHEL comes with a cost that my company can afford because IBM owns Red Hat, so everything scales on RHEL.

Regarding my experience with Red Hat's technical support team, I find that they come very quickly with answers. However, sometimes the first person who responds might be a technical support agent without in-depth knowledge, so for more complex issues, a specialized engineer comes to the rescue, depending on the criticality of the subject, especially if it is production or a staging environment. They answer according to the SLA and support terms.

Positive

Determining whether Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is cost-effective depends entirely on the business. If your business faces compromises leading to significant losses, then investing in Red Hat Enterprise is truly necessary. However, if your business is small or medium-sized, you can manage with the free versions.

Regarding the deployment aspect, my experience has been straightforward because it is all automated with Ansible; all I need to do is provide an IP address, and it takes care of all the variables and boots up automatically.

Regarding the pricing, setup costs, and licensing costs of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I have heard that the licensing cost is significant compared to free alternatives such as CentOS or AlmaLinux, which are managed by Red Hat. I previously used CentOS, which is free, but I had to manage everything, including security, patching, reboots, and storage.

The key differences between Red Hat and other Linux technologies I have used include the advantages of excellent technical support, good documentation, and a large community for problem-solving. A disadvantage is that it is not open source, meaning limited flexibility, and the high cost associated with Red Hat compared to others.

I would advise other organizations considering Red Hat to start using it as their applications grow larger, rather than waiting for their business to become huge, as delays can lead to complications.

Currently, I am working on bare-metal services where I install Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). Using AWS for Red Hat is indeed a good option, as you can get the image directly from AWS with a subscription cost per hour for Red Hat licensing.

Red Hat helps keep applications operational because it provides built-in monitoring tools that offer a good overview of all running services, including built-in agents that come with the Red Hat subscription to identify potential breakouts. Regarding reducing risks, Red Hat also provides secure images that indicate the latest security patches available worldwide.

The knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is excellent; the documentation is fantastic and is supported by a large community that answers questions effectively.

When comparing the business value of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) to other Linux distributions, I find that RHEL is more stringent with its security, requiring users to be careful not to trespass, whereas other Linux systems do not enforce such strict security measures, and users must manage security themselves.

On a scale of one to ten, I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) overall as a product and solution at eight, possibly eight and a half.

I have used Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for most of my career. It is primarily used as the base operating system on which various applications run. Currently, I am attempting to transition away from RHEL due to changes in the organization following IBM's acquisition.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is still considered better than Microsoft's offerings due to its superior handling of virtualization and faster performance. Microsoft often incorporates parts of RHEL's code, such as the networking stack, into its own products. The LEAP functionality for upgrades between versions is well-written and satisfactory.

RHEL has experienced a change in approach after being acquired by IBM, and the company has shifted away from open-source principles. The knowledge base is now outdated and lacks documentation for features in RHEL 9, relying instead on old documentation from RHEL 7. The introduction of unstable and undocumented products also detracts from the product's reliability.

I have used RHEL since it existed, so since 1991 or 1992.

RHEL has become less reliable due to undocumented updates and the release of unstable packages, which detracts from the product's stability.

Within the same vendor, moving workloads is easy. However, switching between vendors requires a significant migration effort.

The quality of Red Hat's support has declined in the past five to six years after outsourcing support to India. Complex issues are difficult to resolve due to communication challenges.

Negative

I have not switched from RHEL, but I am exploring alternatives such as Rocky Linux and Debian, which offer similar features without the high costs.

Setting up RHEL is quite straightforward, especially for someone familiar with it. The software asks the necessary questions for configuration, and the documentation generally explains these well.

The return on investment with RHEL is challenging to calculate but involves paying more upfront compared to Microsoft solutions for better reliability and stability, avoiding potential downtime costs.

The setup and licensing costs for RHEL are high, especially concerning support and associated applications. Red Hat charges high prices for support solutions like Ansible Tower, which can deter companies from using their products.

Other solutions evaluated include Ubuntu, Rocky Linux, and Debian. These alternatives offer similar functionality at a lower cost, especially concerning support.

Overall, I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a seven out of ten. People are now turning to other Linux distributions due to RHEL's declining quality and high costs. I suggest caution when considering Red Hat due to the divergence from its original open-source model.

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.