Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Reviews

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux to host databases and Citrix desktops on our servers. This allows us to offer virtual desktops as a service to other companies.

We implemented Red Hat Enterprise Linux due to its widespread industry use and extensive resources for assistance. The platform's popularity ensures a seamless experience when installing applications and creating packages, as it's utilized by many and offers ample support.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux offers excellent documentation and resources, including those provided by Red Hat and the wider community. While I don't rely solely on Red Hat's websites for instructions or troubleshooting, experienced users like myself generally find ample support and clear guidance to resolve any issues.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux's widespread use in cloud and on-premises servers is its most significant benefit, providing access to various online resources and support. Furthermore, Red Hat's comprehensive collection of packages and built-in applications simplifies development, making it an easy and obvious choice for many users.

Our workflows have been seamless with our hybrid environment.

Before Red Hat support, we used CentOS without expert assistance. This meant our OS team spent significantly more time troubleshooting issues and installation failures. Implementing Red Hat has resulted in increased efficiency.

One of the most beneficial aspects of Red Hat Enterprise Linux is its performance, combined with the flexibility to install a wide range of available packages online.

Red Hat could enhance its user experience by incorporating built-in automation tools, eliminating users needing to install, set up, or configure external applications. By providing pre-installed, native automation tools within the operating system, Red Hat would streamline processes and improve user efficiency.

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

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is stable.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is scalable.

Our organization transitioned from CentOS to Red Hat Enterprise Linux due to the enhanced security and support offered by Red Hat. The availability of online support for our OS team, combined with improved performance and rigorously tested patches, were key factors in our decision.

Upgrading Red Hat Enterprise Linux is a straightforward process that involves running a single command to update and patch all packages. However, syncing the repository to the new one is a manual step. Despite this, I haven't encountered any issues. To perform the upgrade, I synchronize our Red Hat repository with Red Hat Satellite, execute the upgrade command, and verify the package versions to confirm successful updates.

The required personnel for server upgrades depends primarily on the number of servers and the testing duration. Potential connection issues may also influence staffing needs. Based on previous patching experience, approximately five people are needed for the off-hours patching process, typically conducted between two AM and six AM.

The upgrades were done in-house. 

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

Our organization has approximately 3,000 users and operates five data centers in the United States that utilize Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux maintenance is straightforward but necessary due to occasional unexpected spikes in CPU usage and storage capacity reaching its limit. This presents a challenge because storage and CPU load management are not fully automated, requiring manual intervention to address these issues effectively.

I recommend Red Hat Enterprise Linux to others, especially larger companies. Purchasing Red Hat support, while an added cost, saves valuable time and resources compared to extensive independent research.

I am a database administrator, and we mostly use Red Hat Enterprise Linux to manage databases. Primarily, we use it for Postgres, as it works best on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). It's easiest to set up and has the best documentation.

I'm aware of one customer that is thinking about it. But I'm not sure what specific projects they want to use it for. I think there's one customer who is interested in it and is trying to find a solution that might benefit from it. 

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) contributes significantly to our business continuity and compliance efforts. The best example is uptime. Many critical businesses need to be operational twenty-four hours a day. If a database goes down for some reason, it is seldom Red Hat Enterprise Linux that is the issue. This provides peace of mind.

It has helped us centralize development because Red Hat Enterprise Linux has many tools that aren't accessible to our Windows customers. 

Red Hat Enterprise Linux's most valuable feature is its reliability. I don't have to worry about the operating system. It's one of the easiest operating systems for databases, and the integration is excellent. It gives me peace of mind because I can focus on my database work without worrying about my OS. I want to ensure I have applications that run on the OS without searching for temporary fixes or workarounds. 

It has some of the best out-of-the-box security features of any Linux distributor. Red Hat Enterprise Linux has more built-in security features than most standard flavors, or it has implemented them better. 

I haven't identified anything that needs to be proved, but I hope Red Hat Enterprise Linux maintains its reliability.

I have used Red Hat Enterprise Linux for the past five years.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has been perfect. My Windows customers experience a lot more downtime and bugs. Our critical businesses need to be up 24/7. It's rarely its fault if a database goes down. I would estimate that there's about 10 percent less downtime compared to Windows customers. 

I haven't been involved in any real project that necessitates scaling as our needs change.

The support is excellent compared to other solutions like Oracle. They're knowledgeable and easier to work with. We have a nice, transparent working relationship. 

Positive

The biggest ROI is from Red Hat Enterprise Linux's reliability. If I run databases on Windows, I have to find other tools or workarounds. It's a big hassle. Red Hat Enterprise Linux lowers the total cost of ownership for my customers because I bill fewer hours than I would in a Windows environment. Open-source databases run better on Red Hat Enterprise Linux than on Windows. Most things I need are built-in or can be downloaded from the repo. 

Ubuntu is commonly used, and there's a decent amount of documentation for databases, but it can't compare to Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Setting up Postgres or any open-source database on Red Hat Enterprise Linux is way easier. The documentation is more extensive. It's also easier support because many customers have a subscription with Red Hat.

I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux nine out of 10.

My advice would be to focus on reliability and ease of integration when choosing a Linux OS. 

Our core business is delivering IT services to public companies, and most of the applications run on Red Hat Enterprise Linux.  We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux to host machines that various teams of developers use. Most of the time, we use Red Hat Enterprise Linux to run websites and various software applications, including CMS tools like Drupal, SIP, and Azure CMS. We also run business-critical applications on Red Hat Enterprise Linux. We're still looking to migrate everything on the mainframe to Red Hat Enterprise Linux, and our middleware databases run on it.

While we don't have any containerization projects yet, we have a few in the pipeline. We plan to add some new Docker clusters and Kubernetes clusters with OpenShift. The presentation on AI workloads looked interesting, but we must implement OpenShift containers first and enable AI tools. 

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is quite good for business continuity. The system has supported some applications and businesses fine for years without any patches. It's highly robust, which is one of the main reasons we continue to use Red Hat Enterprise Linux. 

Red Hat is based on Linux, so the security is more stable than in other systems. For instance, we cannot reuse machine credentials. We use key certificates to connect to the machine. It's not like a user password. Without a key to access the machine, you cannot do anything. There are specific controls on user access, and you can limit the privileges.  

Using Red Hat Insights with a Rapid7 tool, we've avoided breaches by detecting and patching vulnerabilities early. Now, we're using the Ansible Automation platform to manage the system better and provision new VMs more efficiently. 

We've built scripts that have not performed well internally. They can cause problems, but we're using the Ansible Automation Platform to avoid such problems. For instance, a script for creating VMs on VMware and deleted some. That has no longer happened since we implemented Ansible.

Although we are happy with the current capabilities, we would welcome new features, particularly in the AI domain.

I have used Red Hat Enterprise Linux for about five years, but my company has used it for around 10 years.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is very robust and stable.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is scalable, and provisioning new setups is more efficient with the Ansible Automation Platform. 

I rate Red Hat support eight out of 10. 

Positive

We joined the company when Red Hat Enterprise Linux was already selected, mainly because of its support and security aspects.

The robustness and support provide the biggest return on investment. It ensures stability and security for critical applications and helps deliver IT services effectively. The support behind it is excellent.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux lowers the total cost of ownership. We have 65 percent of our VMs running on Red Hat Enterprise Linux and 65 percent of the business we provide to our customers is based on the platform. 

The pricing and licensing, especially for options like the Red Hat Enterprise Linux Ansible Automation Platform, are quite expensive.

I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux nine out of 10. I recommend going with Red Hat Enterprise Linux because it's excellent. I asked a security team colleague why they don't use Red Hat Enterprise Linux, and he couldn't say why. It's one of the best from our perspective, and the support behind it is superb. 

We have a multitude of use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux within our organization. We have machines running this operating system, and in our landscape, we also have combined database services.

We are currently using it on-premises but have a roadmap towards a hybrid cloud solution. Because of the way our business operates, it is something that we utilize only on-prem currently.

They are a technology enabler for us. It is a part of one of the core functions in the organization, where the operating system supports running various services, not just on devices but also SQL-based services and applications. They are definitely a technology-enabling organization for us. 

We have the ability to manage all of our infrastructures in one area. The support is also there. We utilize it in our organization due to the fact that it is very good.

The regular updates and fixes from them for vulnerabilities help with risk reduction. To maintain compliance, we have a relationship with the vendor. They assist us in making sure that we have all our vulnerabilities covered. From a business continuity perspective, we make sure that we use the technology to its best capability.

Red Hat Insights provides vulnerability alerts and targeted guidance. It definitely minimizes your downtime. You have more proactive monitoring than reactive monitoring. A lot of the tools out there only give you the capability to handle something that has already happened. This is something that enables you to be more proactive and do your patch management for security vulnerabilities and so forth.

The high availability capability and the support functions we get from Red Hat Enterprise Linux are among the most valuable features. 

Also, Red Hat Insights is a key feature. You have a central view of all of the infrastructure in the organization. It is definitely something that other organizations need to invest in. It also streamlines things. You have the capability to have reporting, insights, and other things within one space.

One area for improvement could be moving towards a more agile DevOps way of working. Other technologies out there have enabled agile and DevOps practices, and this is something Red Hat Enterprise Linux could focus on. 

Our organization has been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for quite a few years. Following LCM, we always stay up to date with the current version.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is definitely stable.

It definitely has scalability from an up-and-side perspective.

Customer service and support are very good. We can always rely on them to assist when we run into issues. I would rate them a ten out of ten.

Positive

We have multiple operating systems in our landscape, but Red Hat is most likely the leader as an open-source solution. The choice of a solution comes down to fit for purpose. Red Hat Enterprise Linux fits our purpose.

The biggest return on investment is reliable support, as we can always rely on them to assist with any issues.

In terms of total cost of ownership, it is definitely something for which you have to work with the vendor and ensure that you have a cost-effective solution in place.

I work closely with the licensing department in determining licensing costs and requirements. Pricing is something that needs to be worked out with the vendor. The more you have, the less you pay. That is the model nowadays in IT, but it is very cost-effective. You get what you pay for.

When choosing a solution, it is crucial to ensure it is fit for purpose. There is a reason why you pay for support. At the end of the day, it comes down to the support that you get from the vendor.

We do not utilize the containerization part, but definitely, in the future, we will move to a hybrid way of working. Everyone is moving to more of a hybrid cloud solution these days rather than having it only in the cloud or on-prem. Red Hat Enterprise Linux supports working in a hybrid environment. It is definitely an enabler.

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

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux for model bases and websites.

We chose Red Hat Enterprise Linux for its robust security and reliable support, which are critical for our government healthcare department and require 24/7 operation.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has enabled us to centralize our development by consolidating all our servers in one location using VMware and deploying a single instance of Red Hat Enterprise Linux across that infrastructure.

It provides stability to our containerized workloads.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has performed well for our business critical applications.

The built-in security features are great. We have never had a security breach in our Red Hat environment and receive monthly updates.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux enhances our system's security by providing monthly updates, including critical security patches, significantly reducing our overall risk.

Itcontributes to our business continuity and compliance efforts through its stability and rapid issue resolution.

We use Red Hat Insights to ensure compliance with any Red Hat product integration.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is helping to reduce our total cost of ownership, and our planned shift to virtualization is expected to further decrease TCO.

Red Hat's support is valuable for our employees who are new to OpenShift.

I'm seeking a streamlined method for migrating from an OpenShift environment to a VMware virtualization platform utilizing Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

The price of Red Hat Enterprise Linux always has room for improvement.

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

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is stable.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux offers scalability as long as licensing compliance is maintained.

The Red Hat technical support is excellent.

Positive

The greatest return on investment from Red Hat Enterprise Linux is the skilled support it provides to our application teams.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is expensive, particularly for governments operating with limited budgets.

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux an eight out of ten. While it is open source, which typically means ongoing improvements, there are still some minor details that could be refined.

When choosing between a third-party Linux OS and Red Hat Enterprise Linux, consider the workload. Less critical workloads that don't require 24/7 operation can utilize various third-party options. However, for stable, secure, and mission-critical systems demanding 24/7 uptime, Red Hat Enterprise Linux is the optimal choice.

We run web apps. We run databases. We run a high-compute platform on Red Hat Enterprise Linux variants.

All of our customers run Red Hat Enterprise Linux. We run Red Hat Enterprise Linux for mesh nodes. For anything Linux, if we can use Red Hat Enterprise Linux because it is supported, we put it on Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Probably 60% to 80% of our infrastructure is Red Hat.

Having a stable Linux platform means I am not spending my time rebuilding Linux systems, constantly patching, and doing things like that. It helps to have an approved and supported platform. I know they have tested everything and when I patch my system, it is not going to blow up. It just does not happen. The other thing is that we have had catastrophic failures, and they have helped us out of these catastrophic failures. The support for Red Hat Enterprise Linux has always been good, and the community around Red Hat Enterprise Linux has been fantastic.

We were also CentOS users, so we have committed to AppStream as well. Being a part of the community has been a huge benefit for us. Community adoption means it is easy for people to find information. It helps new people get on boarded into Linux.

We mostly have an on-prem environment. VMware is a significant chunk. We do have some Red Hat clusters. We do have clustered applications, both physical and virtual, running on the cluster. We do have some cloud. We have our own internal cloud with VMware running behind the scenes. Having a consistent image means things always look the same. It is boring, but it is cookie-cutter. That is what we like. We like everything to come out the same. We have consistency and the ability to patch across our entire environment. We are also a Satellite user, so we are able to patch everything and maintain everything in a single pane of glass. It means I can have fewer admins administering many more machines. If you have a reduction in failure and an improvement in automation, things just work.

We have created what we call creator nodes. We have built a platform on Red Hat with Podman so that they can connect with Visual Studio code and do development or Ansible development. We now have our mainframe people developing automation with Linux with all of the plugins right there. It is a consistent environment for them, and that has been awesome. That has been fantastic. We have a few hiccups with Podman. They are working on the permissions to be able to have multiple people run Podman. They are working on the UID and GID problem that we had earlier. Right now, we are running Docker, but I am planning on moving to Podman once they fix that. We have also automated the build process for those nodes. If we need to scale up, we build a couple more VMs, and we are done.

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux for containerization projects. We are containerizing applications. We are pulling the Windows container that we have and converting it to the Red Hat Enterprise Linux container. At the Red Hat Summit, the keynote about image RHEL with systemd blew my mind. It is a change from what we have been doing, but it should make a lot of things more reachable for us. It is cool because now my container image looks like my VM image. You cannot make it simpler for people to develop in a container. It looks the same. There is no difference. That is going to drive heavy adoption with us because if there is no difference, people are not going to have that fear of something new. It has 100% impacted our projects in a positive way. We have started to migrate all of our workloads to OpenShift now that we have got it in the door. It makes a lot of sense. I can redeploy. I can patch. I can do all this with code. I do not have to maintain a VM and a container. It makes life simple.

We have seen a drop in TCO because we ended up buying more than building. When you build something, there is the hidden cost of support, training, and the precarious position you get in if you deploy something you do not fully understand. We were there. We had five instances and a bunch of complexity. We reduced that down to one. We were able to simplify our complex nature. That is what Red Hat has allowed us to do. We have been able to roll out and we have been consistent. I have got machines out there that have been running for two or three years with no problems. They just patch them in the background. It just works.

I love systemd. They have made some significant improvements with the firewalld console. I do not use it that much, but I know it makes Linux reachable for people who are not normally Linux admins.

I just love the command line configuration. It makes that easy for me. Another thing is that when you combine that with Ansible, your life is simple. You can do a lot of your jobs without having to touch the system. That is my ideal.

I appreciate everything they have done. The systems are just bulletproof. We do not have problems with it. Support for file system differences and migrations has been solid.

There have been a few things that I have run into. They have significantly improved DNF and YUM, but there can be better communication around what is going on. A lot of it is related to communication. They are building solid products, and quite often, people do not find out about them until two or three years have passed. We still have not discovered everything in Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9. A lot of it is because we have not had the time, but it would be helpful to have a little bit more communication around it. Maybe that is on us to make sure that we stay updated with the community.

I have been using it since Red Hat Enterprise Linux 2.5. It has been around 20 years. I love Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

I would rate it a nine out of ten for stability. It is stable. It is fairly bulletproof. There are a lot more things that they are adding to make it better.

I have had no problems scaling up or scaling horizontally. I have had some very large Red Hat Enterprise Linux nodes with 254 gigs of memory and a big chunky Oracle database system. We have had no problems with them. We have not had any problems with running with multiple memory cluster nodes. We have had 100 gigs network, and we had no problems. We had a high-end SAN and a high-end network, and we had no issues.

They have good integrations, and they have not had too many problems with external SAN providers. They have been fairly consistent with keeping up with everybody else and keeping their drivers good.

They are probably one of the better ones in the industry. I can get a real answer, and I do not feel like people are breathing down my neck and saying, "I am going to close your ticket. I have not heard from you in 15 minutes." It has been a very positive experience. They have always helped us out when we have completely gone sideways.

They are very patient with the level of experience that a lot of people have. We have a significant number of junior admins who put in tickets that probably should not have been put in. They have been very patient. Overall, it has been a good and positive experience.

Positive

Before Red Hat Enterprise Linux, I was strictly using Solaris and AIX. I never used Ubuntu. It was just straight, big-frame Unix before I went to Linux. I did not change too many platforms.

We use Ansible to deploy Red Hat Enterprise Linux machines on VMware. That is 80% to 90% of our workload. For everything else, I have done PXE boot and kickstarts.

We are using a hybrid cloud. Our cloud providers are Azure and AWS. We work with both. The deployment on Azure and AWS was simple. We built Elasticsearch inside of Azure. It was a click-button deployment. We use TerraForm to deploy most of it, and then we have Ansible to do the rest.

I wanted to try to do more infrastructure as code, but it is hard to get traditional admins into that mindset, so it is always a mix. I deploy these servers for them with TerraForm, and then I pretend I never did, and they can do whatever with them. It then goes back into traditional life cycle management. Sometimes they delete them, and sometimes they forget about them. Satellite has helped us keep track of where everything is. It has helped us track our life cycles. It has been helpful for us.

We have used Red Hat consultants multiple times. They helped us set a few things up and clean up our pipelines. We have been very happy with our Red Hat consultants and our last deployment of OpenShift AAP. We loved their consultants. They were fantastic.

The biggest ROI that we have seen by using Red Hat Enterprise Linux is accessibility to information for frontline support people, midline support people, and developers. There is a ton of information, and there is a ton of community support.

For us, Red Hat Enterprise Linux is a consistent platform because if we are on a customer's Rocky machine, we already know Red Hat Enterprise Linux. We can deal with that. It is a skill set that is very broad across multiple platforms. That means we can apply what we have learned and what we have been trained in. While working with the Red Hat Enterprise Linux team, we have learned best practices, and we can apply those across the board. That partnership has helped us better our internal practices whether it is Red Hat Enterprise Linux or not. That is a positive. Satellite has also been a real positive for us because we can now manage all of our systems from a single pane of glass. That is what my frontline people have been asking for. They wanted one place to patch the systems, and now they can.

Our experience was incredibly positive because we started working with OpenShift before we were fully licensed. They knew we were going in that direction. The same thing happened with Red Hat Enterprise Linux. They knew we would buy tons of Red Hat Enterprise Linux, so they were a little bit more relaxed. We wanted a thousand licenses, and we could pick those up. We true up. Our license experience has been positive with the exception of having to deal with all of the broken-up accounts, which is as much our fault as anybody's.

My biggest complaint is that we have eight or ten different contracts. It is hard to keep track of what is on what and where we are getting the most value-add out of our benefits.

They are helping us solve that problem. We have reached out to our account executives. They will help us solve that problem. That is a huge step because that has been a problem for 15 years. It will help us consolidate and understand what we are spending across the board instead of seeing what we are spending in chunks.

OpenShift has come close to paying for itself in the first year and a half. That is an easy business case to make if you have the direct ability to show cost savings. We are getting cost savings, and we have the ability to show those cost savings. These are the two major benefits we have seen with AAP and Red Hat Enterprise Linux bits. That has been a positive for us. Red Hat Enterprise Linux AI and some of the other things they are starting to do are probably going to enable a lot of our developers to start taking advantage of them. Red Hat Enterprise Linux AI changes the belief that AI is out of reach for a normal developer.

We considered the idea of building this entire platform on Rocky as a free solution. It just was not cost-effective. There are hidden costs of patching and maintaining. They require care and feeding. We wanted cattle, not pets. We had a bunch of pets. Red Hat Enterprise Linux enabled us to get into that cattle methodology and mindset. Our mesh nodes are built on Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9. If my mesh node goes sideways, I do not care. I just delete the VM, redeploy it, and run my playbook. In 15 minutes, I am back up and running again. Why would I troubleshoot it? It takes time. I do not care about troubleshooting. It enables us to rinse and repeat a lot of our processes.

People turn off too many of the tools way too often. We have a lot of room for improvement as an organization to embrace SELinux. We are still working on that. That has a significant amount of value. We want to embrace the GPG sign code in AAP. I do not want anything but approved containers and code running on our platform and our customer's platform. They have enabled us to be incredibly secure, and we are yet to fully take advantage of those offerings. It is a goal, and we are going to get there.

To a colleague who is looking at open-source, cloud-based operating systems for Linux instead of Red Hat Enterprise Linux, I would say that Red Hat Enterprise Linux-based variants are the best in my opinion. If I have a choice, I will always go for CentOS, Fedora, Rocky, or something else that is Red Hat Enterprise Linux-based. If they were not going to go with Red Hat, I would probably tell them to go with CentOS but stay behind a little bit because they do not want to be at the bleeding edge of CentOS. That relationship kind of changed when they took it to AppStream instead of a more supportive platform.

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux a nine out of ten. They keep doing well, and they keep getting better. As long as they stay on the same path, I do not see us not using Red Hat Enterprise Linux in the future. It has been consistent. Why would we change?

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) serves multiple purposes in our enterprise environment. It's used for running containerized workloads, third-party software, and tons of automation. RHEL predominately runs critical production systems because its versatility makes it suitable for various enterprise workloads.

One feature of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that is most valuable is its sophisticated update strategy. The system allows for staged updates rather than requiring all changes to be implemented simultaneously. This approach is crucial for maintaining system stability, ensuring that packages remain compatible during upgrades, and preventing software failures during operating system updates.

The security benefits RHEL provides are particularly significant to most customers. There's a reassuring confidence that comes with Red Hat's support and commitment to system security. What sets RHEL apart is Red Hat's proactive approach to handling vulnerabilities - they not only identify security issues but also provide clear solutions and upgrade paths. This level of support and accountability is unique compared to other operating systems, where such comprehensive security guidance isn't always available. Additionally, RHEL's robust security architecture results in fewer vulnerabilities overall, making it a more reliable choice.

From a technical standpoint, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) performs exceptionally well - it's reliable, straightforward, and functions as intended. The only significant concern isn't about the product itself but rather its pricing structure. Red Hat's recent changes to their pricing model have prompted some customers to question the cost and explore potential alternatives. While I can't speak to the business aspects, the feedback I've received consistently indicates that cost is the only notable concern. The product itself meets or exceeds expectations; it's purely the financial aspect that has raised discussion among users.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the industry standard operating system for businesses. Based on my experience across multiple companies, RHEL is widely adopted because of its long-standing reputation for stability, security, and reliability. Most choose RHEL specifically for those three reasons.

What can I say? Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) just works. The system consistently performs as expected, and on the rare occasions when issues arise, Red Hat's response is swift and effective in both identifying and resolving problems. This reliability stands in stark contrast to other operating systems like Windows, which has experienced high-profile failures - such as airport system outages - due to problematic updates. RHEL's track record of stable performance and minimal disruption makes it a trustworthy platform for critical operations.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)'s scalability is effectively enhanced by the cloud infrastructure running it rather than RHEL itself, but the operating system works seamlessly in the cloud. When additional capacity is needed, new RHEL instances can be automatically provisioned to meet demand. The combination of RHEL's reliability and regular updates, along with cloud platform flexibility, ensures customers can confidently scale their operations as needed.

I would evaluate the customer service and technical support of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as great. I am a former Red Hatter, so I might be a little skewed. But when I talk with customers, they love it. That is never a concern. 

Security requirements were a primary consideration when choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for the cloud. We have Amazon Linux as. Red Hat is often the requirement, so we have to follow this path.

For many customers, security requirements drive them to choose Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). For example, while Amazon Linux on AWS is an available option, security policies and third-party software often specifically require RHEL. This compliance requirement effectively determines the path, making RHEL the mandatory choice in some situations.

My management of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems is streamlined through AWS Systems Manager, particularly for provisioning and patching operations. The cloud environment simplifies this process significantly, as I have access to pre-configured Amazon Machine Images (AMIs) and built-in management tools. The system's orchestration and automation capabilities handle most of the work automatically, reducing the manual intervention to mainly scheduling tasks. This cloud-based approach has greatly simplified what was traditionally a complex system administration process, making RHEL management more efficient and less labor-intensive.

The primary return on investment (ROI) from Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) comes from two key areas: robust security and reliable support. The platform's strong security features protect daily operations, while Red Hat's consistent and dependable support ensures expert assistance is available whenever needed. This combination of security and readily available support creates significant value for the investment, providing peace of mind and operational stability.

My experience with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has been largely positive, though there was a significant shift in their pricing structure last year. That change caused considerable discussion among customers. While I'm not familiar with all the specific details, this pricing change became a major talking point, particularly because it resulted in increased costs for many users. What's noteworthy is that customers' concerns were solely focused on the new pricing structure - never about the product's quality or performance. This pricing change led some customers to reevaluate their commitment to RHEL, purely for financial reasons rather than any technical considerations.

We only consider other solutions before or while using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) if it is a requirement, for example, if they have to have Windows, then nothing we can do. If that is the requirement, but other than that, I think it is pretty much the default in most cases. There are other players, Amazon Linux, of course. It just depends on what the use case is and what the requirements are. That dictates which way to go. In most cases, we go with Red Hat because that is what is required.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the default operating system in many cases, but alternates are considered when requirements allow. For instance, if a system explicitly requires Windows, we have no choice but to use that instead. While other options exist, our operating system selection is primarily driven by specific use cases and requirements. Most frequently, customers implement RHEL because it's either mandated by their requirements or is the most suitable choice for their needs. Their decision-making process is straightforward: RHEL is the go-to solution unless project specifications or technical requirements specifically demand an alternative.

Regarding system updates, our approach has evolved away from traditional upgrades. Instead of updating existing instances, we follow a more modern deployment strategy: we create new instances with the desired specifications and simply decommission the old ones. This approach aligns with container methodology and works well with our automated infrastructure. The process is efficient and straightforward, eliminating the complexity of in-place upgrades.

As for rating Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I would give it nearly a perfect 10. Its reliability is exceptional - once deployed, it runs consistently and dependably. RHEL has established itself as a trustworthy platform, similar to IBM's reputation in the mainframe world. Users can count on both the product's performance and Red Hat's ongoing support.

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux to maintain our systems, manage our user logs, and monitor our storage.

The fact that Red Hat Enterprise Linux is stable has led to more enterprises wanting to use it. All the updates are current from a security point of view. So, the fact that we are one-managed or subscription-managed through Red Hat Enterprise Linux keeps us secure.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux's built-in security features simplify risk reduction and help maintain compliance, which gives us peace of mind.

The knowledge base of Red Hat Enterprise Linux depends on the end user. However, the information is always there, and the most reliable information is from the Red Hat system.

We have a dedicated server for provisioning and patching, and I am satisfied with how it works.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux's Image Builder and System Roles improve our productivity by increasing efficiency.

The Web Console is helpful because we use it to monitor and record users if we choose to, as well as check our system to make sure everything is up to date and we are current with the latest patches.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux helps us be more compliant.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux's ease of use in a controlled system, especially when dealing with constant repository updates, is valuable.

From a monitoring standpoint, we have Splunk, which is more versatile in monitoring data files, and Nagios, which can monitor multiple instances via Windows or Linux servers and different boxes. If Red Hat Enterprise Linux can improve its monitoring capabilities, that would be helpful.

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

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is stable.

I have not submitted any support tickets because we can find all the answers we need from the RHEL community for minor issues.

Positive

Red Hat has been the industry standard for most companies, but sometimes, organizations will run a Windows server and Active Directory alongside it.

The critical difference between Red Hat and Windows lies in their user interfaces. While both share a similar underlying structure, Windows offers a graphical interface for easy interaction, while Red Hat relies on command-line prompts. This makes Red Hat a more secure environment.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux helps improve efficiency, reducing vulnerability and, ultimately, a higher return on investment by minimizing IT costs and downtime.

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

We have between 100 and 200 end users. Red Hat Enterprise Linux is deployed in a standard, dev, quality, staging, and production environment.

Maintenance is minimal for Red Hat Enterprise Linux. We only deal with updates and patches.