Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Reviews

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 If I become stuck with an outdated version of the OS, it can adversely affect my productivity and the quality of my designs.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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The maintenance is handled by the IT team.

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

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

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

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

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

In the banking industry, we provide software for banking, from our development infrastructure to deployment infrastructure for the banks. We generally use Linux RHEL. It is only for on-premises, but what we did was try out Red Hat OpenShift, basically on top of Linux platforms to run it on the Kubernetes enabled architecture to see how it would perform.

For us, the best features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are that running it in a containerized environment makes setting up multiple Linux environments much easier than any other high-end or risk-based machines like AIX or Sun Solaris. Having more Linux boxes and setting up RHEL was much faster.

In terms of security, the most important feature in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is that it has a good sandbox with policies and features that are very effective. Whatever we could do in terms of hardening the Linux software, it was much easier for us.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps me solve the pain point of having a huge monolith of big AIX boxes because I could have smaller Linux boxes with Red Hat, and I was able to do both vertical and horizontal scaling much faster.

One area that could be improved with Red Hat is probably pricing. Discounts that are slightly cheaper would be better.

In Enterprise Linux, I have dealt with it for probably more than five years.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is definitely stable.

In my opinion, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is absolutely a scalable solution. That is why I was able to do both vertical scaling and horizontal scaling very seamlessly.

Regarding their support, we did not reach out to support too much, but I thought it was good. I would rate it a nine.

Positive

Before using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), we used Windows, basically, and then moved everything to Linux.

We switched to Linux from Windows because there were a lot of server hangs happening on Windows, with antivirus and virus problems. Basically, it was a nightmare managing Windows, so we moved to Linux.

With the initial setup, it is very straightforward and much easier to set up.

On a scale of one to ten, if ten was the easiest, I place it at a nine.

We also do Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) with Red Hat. I would rate this review a nine overall.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I find Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scalable.

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

Positive

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

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

I performed the deployment all by myself.

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

The main use case for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is to manage the database and the server.

The solution helps solve pain points for monitoring servers, for example, databases and servers.

The most valuable feature of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the security and also the performance for scheduling and tasking for the memory.

These features benefit the organization because we have hundreds of servers, databases, and many files, and we have the ability to use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

I am interested in migrating to the cloud platform, so we are trying to implement that in the organization.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for five to seven years.

I have not experienced any downtime, crashes, or performance issues with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales well to meet the growing organizational needs.

We are looking for containerization for scalability, and it is easy to scale out and scale in.

We have expanded usage and tried manually to increase the number of servers, and we see the disk increasing exponentially, which is why we are looking for scaling.

I would evaluate customer service and technical support as quite good, since I technically get 24/7 support if I encounter issues from updates or new features.

I would assess the level of support from Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) team as very informative; we learn a lot from the documentation from the Red Hat support team.

Positive

Before selecting Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I considered the availability of resources and security, as we have files and a lot of data with not enough time to handle that from the internet, and distribution is mostly for security.

The experience deploying Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) was easy, as we use different methods, such as installing or using some source files by using some servers to deploy.

The most common challenges faced with the deployment are mostly enterprise related, such as resource compatibility and making automation instead of active compatibility.

The opinion on pricing and its cost-effectiveness for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is that it is quite good for production on-premises.

The advice I would give to other organizations is that they should mostly rely on the Linux operating system; it is quite reliable and easy to use, install, deploy, and manage, so I would advise them to use it.

I would rate this product a 10.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) on and off for at least 10 years, as I've changed many companies. My main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are mostly on the server-side for deployment.

The features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that I most appreciate are the inbuilt commands and the packages that come with it, which are pretty helpful for us, as we usually deal with a lot of shell scripting. These features benefit my organization by allowing us to write cron jobs and related tasks.

I don't have much to say about how Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) can be improved.

I have been working in my current field for 20 years.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps me solve the pain point of periodically needing to keep it updated, but apart from that, it's very stable, which is one of the best things about it. We have already expanded usage.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales very well with the growing needs of my organization, and within on-prem, it's very easy to scale it, so we've never had any problems. The process has been smooth; even on-prem, it's all automated, and we are using OpenShift, so using that software makes it very easy to scale.

I evaluate customer service and technical support from Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as very good; I have personally called customer support and was surprised at how easy it is to get a hold of someone. It was easy for them to come to a solution.

Positive

Prior to adopting Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), my company was using different Linux environments before moving to RHEL, although mostly the companies that I've worked in have always used Linux for deployment.

The deployment model for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) includes both on-premise and cloud, as we are using OpenShift for on-prem and cloud also.

We have our migration and upgrade team which manages Linux; as soon as the new, stable version of Linux becomes available, we try to update our Linux version to the latest.

I have seen a return on investment with the solution; in our team, we have noticed that the cost doesn't increase drastically, and it's a very stable product, although this is not my domain since mine is very specific, mostly development.

Before selecting Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), my company considered different Linux environments, as I have worked in Fedora, Red Hat, and Ubuntu, but I feel most companies now are adopting or going with RHEL due to its stability and better pricing; again, this is not my domain, I can just surmise.

My advice to other organizations considering Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is to go for it, as it's a pretty stable product. On a scale of 1 to 10, I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) overall around an 8.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The main use cases with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for me are hosting Oracle databases, Oracle server database, and MariaDB. When we need to install Oracle, we put it on Linux, and it usually was Santos in the past. Then we moved to Oracle Enterprise Linux or Red Hat, and when Oracle released the Linux distro, we moved to Oracle because the devices are really open source.

Some of the best features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) include stability; it doesn't break. Stability, along with management tools and users for management tools that they add to the Linux distro, are important. The main reason is stability. In the server area, we don't want change. That's why we're trying to move back to Debian, because Debian is stable—old, but stable. 

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) does help save time because the setup and general installation experience is very optimized and well-established. I made tests installing and setting up radioactive environments for virtual machines, and it was a very good experience, fast.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is for on-premises only; we try to avoid the clouds as much as we can. In Brazil, we are seeing an interesting movement with small cloud providers because Amazon, Google, and Microsoft are too expensive. I am noticing the rise of many small companies that build small data centers and offer cloud services to small companies. They prosper with a better price and a simpler solution—not a fancy data center with sophisticated security. Just a small space with a decent Internet connection and a stable energy source, and they are good to go. People are prospering with this model of small cloud providers.

The main difference between Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and some of the others that I'm evaluating now is that Red Hat tries to use more recent packages. The problem with Debian and some of the stable distributions is that they are too conservative, and they keep the version progress very slow. I sometimes develop and create things that need more recent packages and libraries, and with Debian, I usually struggle with that. Red Hat usually provides the new ones—stable, but new. That's one of the best features of using Red Hat. Ubuntu also upgrades some important libraries from Debian.

I have used Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for more than fifteen years, because we have some infrastructure on it.

I assess the knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as excellent; they have a great technology base on their website, but it requires a subscription. You might think you get free access, but I really don't prefer it. I usually find other sources. I know they have a very good knowledge base with excellent documentation, but I usually don't get access to it. I have not reached out to their support, so I do not have any personal experience with Red Hat support. The support that we really use from time to time is Oracle. My clients use the Oracle database, and they all pay for support. We use it because my partner, who is an Oracle database administrator, frequently deals with problems with Oracle and uses their support, and it works very effectively.

Positive

My thoughts on the deployment with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are that it's easy, there are no problems at all. It's very easy, including in the cloud; they offer many partners, and it's really easy to move your loads to the cloud with Red Hat. I believe it's easier than with Microsoft. However, my clients usually do not get involved with this; most of them are Microsoft-based.

The ROI with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is useful if the company requires accountability or a formal contract, because they usually need someone involved in some kind of accountability process when lawyers get involved. Only in that situation does it make sense to pay that price. Usually, companies that are required by law to have licensed products, such as banks and insurance companies, have obligations by law. This is especially true in Brazil, where the insurance market is very regulated. It makes sense for these companies to have a license contract, particularly in the case of security leaks and similar issues.

My experience with the pricing or licensing for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) indicates that our clients never chose to purchase a license. I watched the prices a few months ago while considering buying one for myself, and they were expensive; it's not a reasonable price, especially for small companies. The business value of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is compatible and on the same level as other Linux distributions I have used. They all charge the same for their products. I usually don't see much difference. When I compare the price of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) to that of Windows, they are basically the same price, just a little cheaper, a small fraction. All of these big corporations try to squeeze the clients as much as they can. The only exception is Broadcom, which seems to try to charge an absurd amount for their products.

My clients all have their own firewall solutions and network security solutions that they purchase. We usually don't deal with that. We just keep the built-in firewall running, and that's all. That's the main feature that we use on Red Hat and other distros, the built-in firewall. 

Security Enhanced Linux (SELinux) is something we do not engage with. Last week, I tried to install a new version of Oracle Enterprise Linux from Red Hat on an old HP server, Gen 5, but it did not work; I needed to go back to Ubuntu. Ubuntu, even in the new version, uses a kernel that works on old hardware, so we have to deal with this situation. If you have old hardware and need to repurpose an old server, you can't use these new distros. Even Oracle does not work with very old equipment, more than ten years old. 

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as a seven or eight out of ten.

Our primary use case for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is hosting enterprise applications that rely heavily on databases and middleware technologies. 

The platform supports both application hosting and large-scale data collection, enabling us to manage and process significant volumes of data efficiently. RHEL provides the stability and reliability required for running these critical workloads in our environment.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has significantly improved our organization by providing a stable, secure, and standardized operating environment for our applications. 

Its reliability has reduced downtime and improved performance consistency across workloads. 

The strong security features and regular patching process have enhanced our compliance posture and reduced operational risk. 

In addition, the scalability of RHEL allows us to support growing data collection and application hosting needs without major infrastructure challenges. 

Overall, RHEL has helped streamline system management, improve efficiency, and provide a solid foundation for our critical business operations.

The most valuable features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for us are its robust security capabilities, stability, and enterprise-grade support. These features ensure that our production environment remains secure and reliable, which directly reduces operational risks. 

I have been involved in several Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) upgrades and migrations, both on-premises and in the cloud. In my experience, RHEL’s built-in security features greatly simplify risk reduction and compliance management. Our team works closely with the security group on daily scans and vulnerability reports, and RHEL enables us to address findings quickly by streamlining patching and updates. This process has proven reliable, allowing us to remediate vulnerabilities and apply fixes in a timely manner.

RHEL has also helped us mitigate downtime and reduce risks during system changes. While I personally prefer replacing production systems with thoroughly tested builds in lower environments rather than in-place upgrades, RHEL provides the flexibility and stability needed to support both approaches.

One of the key differences compared to other platforms is the reliance on command-line operations. While Windows environments tend to emphasize GUI-based management, RHEL encourages working directly in the CLI. This has been a positive shift for our team, as we continue to expand skills across both Linux commands and PowerShell.

RHEL consistently provides the stability, support, and knowledge base required to keep mission-critical systems running smoothly. With excellent vendor support and strong documentation, it fully meets our enterprise needs.

Additionally, RHEL has addressed key pain points related to security and usability, making it one of the strongest platforms from a service-level perspective. We have also recommended RHEL to clients, particularly in cases where migrations from CentOS are required, as it provides a trusted and stable foundation for critical workloads.

From a hands-on experience perspective, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) could be improved in terms of user experience and ease of adoption, especially for teams that are still building their knowledge of the platform. Enhanced usability tools, more intuitive configuration options, and improved documentation or guided workflows would help reduce the learning curve.

For future releases, additional features such as built-in automation templates, more advanced monitoring dashboards, and tighter integration with hybrid cloud environments would further increase productivity and make system management more efficient.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for approximately two years. Our adoption began with multiple environments, and it has since become the standard platform for our current operations.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is extremely stable and well-suited for production workloads. We have run hundreds of instances across a wide range of applications, and the operating system consistently delivers reliable performance with minimal downtime. Its predictable update and patching process, combined with strong vendor support, ensures that our critical systems remain secure and available. 

Overall, RHEL provides the stability we need to confidently support mission-critical operations.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales very effectively across both on-premises and cloud environments. We run hundreds of instances supporting diverse applications, and the platform has consistently handled growth without major performance issues. 

Its flexibility in supporting small workloads as well as large, mission-critical deployments makes it a reliable choice for enterprise scalability.

Our experience with Red Hat customer service and support has been excellent. Support teams are responsive, knowledgeable, and provide clear guidance for troubleshooting and resolving issues.

The initial setup of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) was moderately complex due to the need to configure multiple services, integrate with existing databases and middleware, and ensure security compliance from the start. However, the clear documentation, enterprise support, and guided best practices provided by Red Hat made the process manageable. 

Once the initial environment was established, ongoing configuration and scaling have been straightforward, allowing us to reliably deploy and manage production workloads.

The implementation of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) was carried out by our in-house team. Our staff handled the installation, configuration, and integration with existing systems, leveraging Red Hat’s documentation and support resources.

The ROI of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is reflected in reduced downtime, improved system security, and streamlined operations. By providing a stable, supported platform, RHEL minimizes operational risks and resource overhead while enabling faster deployments and easier maintenance.

The subscription model is cost-effective, as it provides enterprise licensing and also includes access to Red Hat support and training resources. This combination has improved our team’s knowledge of RHEL features and enabled us to adopt new capabilities with confidence.

I would confidently rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a ten out of ten for its reliability, security, and enterprise support.