Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Reviews

For administering Linux servers, my main use case for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is focused on day-to-day tasks.

I used Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) on newly deployed on-prem VMs for the company I work for, which adds to my use case.

Stability definitely stands out to me as one of the best features Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) offers.

What makes Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)'s stability stand out for me is that I've noticed it's very error-prone, which I appreciate.

Since using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) instead of Ubuntu, my organization has seen more stability in our infrastructure.

I noticed fewer outages and less downtime as specific outcomes since we began using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

I appreciate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) the way it is right now, and I believe it can be improved but have no specific requests.

If I had to imagine one thing that could be even better about Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), it would be more information in the man pages.

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

In my experience, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is indeed stable.

Scalability for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is excellent; it can easily grow with my organization's needs, making it easy to add more servers or resources as needed.

I have interacted with Red Hat's support team, and I find their customer support to be pretty much okay.

On a scale of 1 to 10, I would rate the customer support for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a nine.

Before switching to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), we used Ubuntu, but we decided to make the switch because of stability.

I think Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) saved nearly 20 or 30% of our money, indicating a positive return on investment.

My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) was straightforward, without facing any challenges.

Before choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), we evaluated SUSE, but we preferred RHEL for its more stable ecosystem.

My advice to others looking into using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is to examine its ecosystem.

My company doesn't have a business relationship with Red Hat beyond being a customer.

I was offered a gift card or incentive for this review.

I don't have any additional thoughts about Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) before we wrap up.

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

My main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) include working with applications such as Middleware and databases to provide services to different technologies, including Middleware, databases, and applications such as SAP, while managing these in my company.

The innovation benefits my company by providing good support through Insights, which offers comprehensive vulnerability scanning.

What I appreciate the most about Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the innovation; it constantly drives the need to go faster. 

The TAM support is excellent with weekly meetings where the representative has extensive knowledge, allowing us to resolve all questions. 

The software consistently releases new versions with features and ensures stability compared to other systems, such as Ubuntu.

We have reduced downtime issues from patching by 30% over the past year, thanks to our TAM who provided a testing site where we can check patching in our test environment first, allowing us to find any issues before they reach production and thereby minimizing impact.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps me solve pain points due to their good support team, which usually has quick access to information, resulting in minimal downtime when problems arise. You only need to call, and they can provide a solution, often found in the Knowledge Base on the internet and web page.

I am not sure how Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) can be improved.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for 20 years.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales effectively with the growing needs of my company due to our global contract, which allows for more VMs than we initially anticipated, ensuring we receive the necessary licenses.

My experience with Red Hat's technical support and customer service is positive; they have good support, always trying to find solutions and understanding my requirements, which is important for me.

Positive

In the past, we considered other Linux OS solutions, specifically demoing with Canonical, however, it was not suitable for us.

I find the deployment of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) easy. We automate everything in one pipeline, so you only need to execute that pipeline and in a few minutes, you have your new server.

From my point of view, the biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the meantime to repair issues; with good support, our downtime is practically nothing, which is a significant return for us.

The innovation benefits my company by providing good support through Insights, which offers a good scan of vulnerabilities, and the TAM support is excellent with weekly meetings where the representative has extensive knowledge, allowing us to resolve all questions. 

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

To achieve a perfect score, we need more focus on version management.

My main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) involve running a lot of applications that run on Linux, as my company is more Linux-based than Windows, so we prefer Linux over Windows.

The feature of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that I appreciate the most is the logical volume feature as it's so easy to increase partitions and disk space. This logical volume feature benefits my company as sometimes we have a client whose data storage needs are unknown at the outset, allowing us to start small. As things increase, we can easily increase it without taking the server down, and we can do it seamlessly while the server is online.

One of the pain points that Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps me solve is security, as RHEL is more secure than Windows. I have migrated from RHEL 6 to RHEL 7 to RHEL 8 to RHEL 9, however, it's just been a manual install; while Red Hat has a tool to use for migrations, I've never used that and have just reloaded to the new version. The upgrade wasn't bad at all; it was actually a smooth upgrade.

When it comes to managing my Red Hat Enterprise Linux systems for provisioning and patching, I use Ansible Tower, and I'm very satisfied with that. It allows me to schedule jobs and go to sleep while looking at the email in the morning. That's a very effective and efficient product for me.

My upgrade or migration plans to stay current involve starting eventually, especially since I work in the government world, where we use their tools to harden the system. When those tools are available, we'll start looking to migrate to the next version of Red Hat. When those tools are ready, we'll start putting RHEL 10 into our development environment to start testing.

The only improvement I can think of for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is that I'm unsure how their migration tool works to go to the next version. I've heard people say it doesn't work properly, however, I haven't looked at it myself. If the migration process was seamless without backing up data and restoring data, that would probably be the biggest improvement, as managing over 3,400 servers manually is quite substantial.

I've been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) since 2002.

RHEL it is very stable and very reliable.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales effectively with the growing needs of my company, as all our developers can develop code and software on a Linux-based system using RHEL without any complaints about functionality.

Their support is fairly good, as they work to resolve issues, though sometimes it takes a while due to time zone differences affecting ticket responses. 

I submit tickets that might get answered early morning, and I only reply once I get to work, which causes some delays. However, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) support is great, as they go beyond their duty to help resolve issues and provide solutions even for third-party software such as XRDP.

I would rate Red Hat's customer service and technical support an eight out of ten.

Positive

When I first started, it wasn't really my choice to make. I originally used CentOS. Ansible is the best product when it comes to Linux.

I would describe my experience with deploying Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as very easy, as I use a kickstart file to deploy an OS in about ten to 15 minutes, and Ansible is another very significant feature that Red Hat provides to accomplish many tasks quickly across multiple servers.

I'm not really sure how to assess Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)'s built-in security features in terms of simplifying, risk reduction, or maintaining compliance.

The biggest return on investment from using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is due to the feature Ansible, as before we started using it, I was manually updating all systems. It definitely saves me a lot of time since I can set things up in Ansible Tower and let them run without having to manually log into systems or watch processes.

We aren't currently considering another solution; we do use a little bit of Ubuntu; we prefer Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

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

I work daily on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in my current field. I use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as a daily task, including OS upgrade and patching activities.

What I like most about Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is that it is very easy to handle and very user-friendly. As a non-technical person, I find it very easy to understand.

The documentation in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is very helpful for every issue. I have accessed the documentation multiple times, and it has helped me, especially when we are facing issues in OS upgrade and patching. Some steps are already mentioned in the Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) documentation, making it very easy to handle and solve the issues.

What I dislike about Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is that it has high-cost licensing, which makes it unaffordable for me to purchase a Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) license myself.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for the past three to four years.

I have not seen any instability in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), such as lagging or crashing.

I have had to contact the technical support of Red Hat multiple times, and I find that their support is very quick and instant and also provides an instant correct alternative solution. For Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) support, I would rate them 9 out of 10.

Positive

The installation of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is easy. I have already completed a Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) installation, so it was straightforward for me.

I have not used any alternatives to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

I have been using Leapp in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). The maintenance does require updates on my end, and our company takes care of that. I would rate this review 9 out of 10.

I still have experience with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), but I mainly work with SUSE Linux. The solutions are for on-premises deployments.

From what I have heard, my organization is going to use SUSE Linux as a standard. For Red Hat, the people who deal with servers have a few of them and are probably migrating them through VMware.

The part that my group deals with the most is SAP, and all that we have on them is SUSE Linux.

The main differences between Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and SUSE Linux may be in some commands. The heart is very similar with logical volume manager and other components, but there might be commands that change, such as command line interface commands that might change even when they perform the same thing.

I believe that the best features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) include the interface with logical volume manager and file system management, since I work more with storage administration.

I used to deal more with Unix, and the way Unix performed things was better for me. For example, at the Linux level, all the partitioning is difficult for me in the way it uses certain terms, such as physical disk, when you call it SDB or SDBA.

From this perspective, I found this hard. I used to be more accustomed to Unix. However, they are very similar at this level with the device types and other components.

I believe that Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) can be improved in areas such as monitoring, storage, and virtualization.

Everyone today is talking about virtualization and there is a need for it. There are many virtualization implementations, and everyone is moving toward that area.

I have used Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for several years in total.

I assess the knowledge base for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as good. The documentation is nice and good, and it is available. The documents I have seen are self-explanatory, and the explanations are clear.

On a scale of one to ten, I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) support as good. I know it is good, but since we usually look at the documentation, I have not placed a request for an error or similar issue. I probably have not had the need to do that. I would rate it a nine or ten. In our case, I have not dealt so much with that part, as there has not been a need to request a patch or upgrade.

Positive

I personally have not used Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Image Builder or Red Hat system roles. I know that some of the people who give us support do use them. I know it is helpful, but I do not have details about them because my group is dealing more with the hardware parts, such as HP physical servers and storage.

We are dealing more with that aspect.

I believe that the most important security features in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) include the standard ones, such as user and password authorization and read and write access, which are standard in Linux.

I believe that you probably want to use additional software. My company has many tools, and another team works with the security part. However, you probably need integration with that. The basic features that every Linux software has are standard and robust.

I would rate this review a nine out of ten overall.

The primary use case for our company is for deploying applications.

The most valuable aspect is for deploying applications.

The ease of use works well and is what I appreciate the most about the solution's most valuable features.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped me to automate my process to mitigate downtime and workloads.

The solution has improved my organization, especially with the ease of deployment, as it's mostly just a better user experience for our users.

The challenges that we've had with different servers that don't have access to the internet require an installation, and keeping track of all the different versions on the different deployments is a challenge. I would love a feature that could manage the agent versions.

On the Ansible side, from what I've seen, there are certain templates and playbooks that can be used for specific use cases that I'd like to see in the next release.

I've been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for a couple of years.

The stability and reliability of this solution is very good.

In the environments that I work in, I've had no downtime, crashes, or performance issues.

It scales well with our growing needs and organization, and it's been pretty easy to spin up new servers as we require them.

The other users of the solution in my company are probably more on the operation side.

I think it would be suitable for a couple more roles.

I've been made aware of some of the latest announcements that were made today; for a large organization, it takes a while to get there, so we might not be able to realize those for another couple of years, but it seems there are new features that are coming out.

I'm not sure if there was one specific feature that stood out to me today; I'd have to look back at my notes, but it seems there's more functionality that's being offered.

I would rate this review a 9.

I use it for a commercial platform for a bank in Ecuador. We have a product development for development in JBoss. We can have multiple channels on the left side in TBM and ES. 

I have a product in development that serves as middleware. We have multi-channel on the left side and multi-database on the right side. We don't use an AMQ yet. It's broad.

The valuable features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for on-premises are its flexibility and compatibility; it works exceptionally with JBoss. 

We find that the performance of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is very good, and the deployment is very easy. On YouTube, for example, they processed nearly 10 million transactions over nine years. 

Security is important, and it performs efficiently and is confident compared with a firewall and WAF, or whatever you use as a firewall to protect our deployments. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps with uptime and security; with every deployment, we evaluate security and apply vulnerability scanners, covering every vulnerability without any problem.

I don't know where Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) can improve; I just know that I don't use the cloud version, but I know the price, and I think it has many similar features to use JBoss with old features. 

In the last years, we have tried to quote a project using JBoss, but the license on cloud was cheaper than the on-premise license.

I have used the Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) operating system since 2016.

I use documentation and community forums for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). There's plenty of knowledge in many forums, and when I have trouble, I can find a lot of support on the web; there is a lot of information we can find.

Depending on the support I have to use, we didn't have a problem; we have a local reseller who helps with the Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) support directly. We use a partner for direct support with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). Our business in Ecuador is a local partner, and the name of the partner business is ASAP. Mr. Jimmy Rodriguez provides support and attends to our needs very efficiently.

Positive

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is more expensive compared with WebLogic, and I prefer JBoss against WebLogic. The main differences between the Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) operating systems and Windows and Solaris are concerning performance; the best performance is in the order of Linux, Solaris, and then Windows.

Achieving security standard certification is necessary for my business, and I'm always recommending Red Hat Enterprise Linux to my clients. 

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

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.

Positive

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.