Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Reviews

I have completed RHCSA and RHCE certifications. In my day-to-day work, I mainly use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for basic installation of Red Hat OS, configuration, MariaDB setup, Apache setup, and cluster management.

Regarding my main use case with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), it is an open source OS which allows us to modify the system as per our requirements. It is also secure and user-friendly.

The system is user-friendly because we can use it through both CLI and GUI interfaces, which provides flexibility, and the ability to modify the OS helps me in my daily work.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has positively impacted my organization because we can check for vulnerabilities, and when we have internet access, we can directly install packages. The system provides easy access to internet resources when needed.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has potential for improvement, though currently all features are working well based on my experience. Different versions have increased security measures, which is beneficial.

Regarding needed improvements for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), increasing its cloud capabilities would be beneficial. Additionally, it would be helpful if they provided direct RPM package downloads via the Red Hat site without requiring a Red Hat subscription.

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

I used a different solution before Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) when I was working at SBI, where they had a Galera cluster. Sometimes servers would unexpectedly remove themselves from the cluster, which caused major issues requiring troubleshooting and node verification.

My advice to others considering Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is that compared to Windows and Mac, Red Hat is very comfortable to use.

I currently use both Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and CentOS as tech products.

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux primarily for our entire group because most of our applications are based on Linux.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has robust built-in security features.

It has an extensive knowledge base.

We used to patch our systems manually, and now we use Red Hat Satellite to manage the patching of our systems.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux provides a good way to manage our OS.

It has enhanced both our uptime and security. The system's stability has eliminated any noticeable security issues.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has enabled us to achieve security standards certification, which has allowed us to maintain business operations without interruption.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is a stable and supported platform with valuable built-in security features that help reduce risk and maintain compliance.

The cost of Red Hat Enterprise Linux is a bit high. 

Red Hat Enterprise Linux's support could be improved by offering human support in addition to their documentation. While their documentation is helpful, it can be frustrating to be referred to it instead of receiving direct assistance from a support representative.

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

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is stable overall.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is scalable.

Red Hat's support is generally good, but their response time and overall competence could be improved. Occasionally, we are referred to their documents when requesting assistance, which can be frustrating.

Positive

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has a yearly subscription cost for the licensing that includes maintenance and support.

We evaluated Microsoft Windows Server, Ubuntu Server, and Red Hat Enterprise Linux before ultimately choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

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

I recommend Red Hat Enterprise Linux for its support and stability.

Most of our tech applications are based on Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

We chose Red Hat Enterprise Linux for most of our workloads and applications because it is an enterprise-grade operating system with regular security patches, reliable support, and a guarantee against hacking. Using a different OS would leave us vulnerable to security risks and complicate upgrades.

Currently, 70 percent of our Red Hat Enterprise Linux environment is deployed on-premises, while the remaining 30 percent resides in the cloud.

We utilize Ansible to automate the deployment of numerous Red Hat Enterprise Linux modules. This centralized approach, managed by a single Ansible engine, streamlines our development process.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux performs well for our business critical applications.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux's built-in security features satisfy our security requirements.

Red Hat mitigates risk by rapidly releasing patches for identified vulnerabilities, which is crucial for mission-critical applications.

It offers stability that enhances business continuity, simplifying upgrades, even for minor releases. Its compatibility with OpenSCAP, which provides profiles for various compliance benchmarks, streamlines compliance testing.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux provides regular security patches and proper support, allowing me to focus more on application management than worrying about the operating system.

It helped us avoid emergencies caused by security issues. The CVE reporting and knowledge base are valuable resources.

Red Hat Insights provides the tools for proactive environment management by identifying potential vulnerabilities, such as CVEs before they become a problem. This allows for advanced knowledge of system vulnerabilities and provides specific remediation guidance, which is more efficient than relying on regular scans.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has helped reduce our total cost of ownership.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is an enterprise-grade solution where we receive regular security patches and proper support.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux was not used for containerization due to its mutable nature, unlike CoreOS, a lightweight and immutable Red Hat Enterprise Linux variant designed explicitly for containerization and optimized for running authorization.

I am testing AI workloads, and I'm not sure if Red Hat Enterprise Linux is fully equipped. It might not accommodate AI workloads as effectively as needed.

Some Red Hat applications, such as Ansible for automation, are considerably more expensive than the average open-source solution.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for 16 years.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is stable, and I have not encountered issues compared to other applications.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is scalable.

Red Hat's stability has meant I haven't needed their support for years, but when I did contact them previously, their response was quite fast. While their support for OpenShift is acceptable, I do have some concerns about it.

Positive

A stable OS allows me to focus more on applications, lowering the cost of managing the infrastructure.

Red Hat is stable, and we always opt for the lower-tier subscription, which is affordable. It doesn't have unexpected issues that require a premium subscription.

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

It is important to assess the risk and use case before choosing a third-party Linux OS. For mission-critical applications, Red Hat Enterprise Linux provides insights and rich features like the patching cycle.

We are a Linux shop, so a lot of our engineers are familiar with Linux. We try to push Red Hat Enterprise Linux instead of Windows. The reason for it in the beginning was licensing. Some of it was because of the way the contract was set up. It was cheaper, but we do use it now just for the ease of it. I do not know if it is because of Ansible, which we use for a lot of our day-to-day operations, that we tend to lean more toward Red Hat.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has affected our system's uptime or security. I know Microsoft publishes zero-day vulnerabilities for Windows as fast as Red Hat, but we noticed that in terms of problems or alerts that we get for attacks or viruses, there is not anything on the Red Hat side. That is why we feel that it is more secure. It might be just the nature of Red Hat where all services and ports are off. It is not like Windows where everything is on, and you have to turn it on. I was having a conversation with one of the gentlemen who is also attending the Red Hat conference, and I got to know that there are built-in NIST features with Red Hat that we could turn on, so we do not have to try to figure out how to harden our system.

The testing of the updates or the packages of the kernel is valuable because I used to be a part of the Fedora project. I know it is all vetted out before it gets to production, but a majority of it is the support and the relationships I have with the Red Hat employees assigned to our account.

As they move over to newer versions, certain things change, which is expected as the technology matures or new things come out, but what really surprises me are the features that are there in the cloud, such as Red Hat Insights. They are not there on-prem. There are a lot of things on the cloud portal that I did not notice before, and I was surprised because we were unaware of them. Red Hat is doing a lot of investment in that sense.

The knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux is good. It is easy to parse through all of the knowledge base. I do not know if Windows does it because I have not looked at it, but in Red Hat's knowledge base, there are a lot of things. They fast-track a lot of things in their knowledge base, even when they are not yet official. Especially with the tie-in with Bugzilla, even though it is not a true KB, we can see and follow if other people in the world are hitting a certain problem or something similar to what we are experiencing. I like that.

It would be great to have an overview of how various Red Hat products work together. They can show how to tie all those pieces together and how to have the products that we work together for our day-to-day processes.

I started with the company around 2012, and they have been using it even before then. At that time, it was Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5, and now, we are up to Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9.

In 10 or 11 years of using Red Hat solutions, I have opened only one or two support tickets. It probably was something during a patch and during Satellite 5 to Satellite 6 migration. I would rate them a 10 out of 10.

Positive

In Linux, there are so many different flavors, but I am partial to Red Hat because I have been a part of the Fedora project. At our place, we have only two operating systems: Microsoft Windows and Red Hat Enterprise Linux. I know CentOS, but that is usually because the appliance from the vendor was set up using that. That is why we had a few instances of CentOS in the past, but nowadays, I do not see any other flavors of Linux.

For the majority of our use cases for Red Hat, we have on-prem deployments. There are some things that they are trying to spin up on AWS. I do not know if they are cloud-native apps or not, but I know our developers are now moving on to it.

I have been involved in the initial setup, upgrades, and migration of Red Hat Enterprise Linux. I did not have any problems while going from major OS versions. I always push new upgrades or homogeneous migrations, such as from version 6 to version 7 to version 8. There is probably an option to upgrade in place. Overall, with Red Hat OS, I have not seen many problems. A long time ago, when they went from Python 2 to Python 3, there were certain things we had to change in the script.

I know that Red Hat is moving to Wayland from X11, but I do not see any problems there. From Satellite 5 to 6, it was a bit hard in the beginning, but now, it is pretty self-explanatory. Overall, everything about which we had questions was very well documented.

In terms of our upgrade and/or migration plans to stay current, first, we look at the EOL and the roadmap of Red Hat because of security. We used to offer every single version before the said EOL happened, but now, we just do an n-minus-one. We try to maintain the newest and one level below version. SAP users are the biggest Red Hat Enterprise Linux users in our environment. They have a particular PAM and upgrade path that they have to do with Red Hat. We also wait to be certified to certain versions, but our main strategy is the newest and one major version down. We try to get everybody off the other versions.

Our provisioning is all done using VMware products. We have a vRealize automation, now called the Aria automation, to spin it up. Patching is done through Satellite. I do not do it, but when I watch them doing it, it seems it is just using remote SSH commands against the list of non-prod and prod servers. It is something simple. We do not seem to be doing anything complicated. I am wondering if there is a better way to do versioning control or patching and whatnot, but currently, it is very simple.

I am satisfied with the management experience not only in terms of patching but also the day zero to day one or day two stuff. We are interested in utilizing Ansible to eliminate human error and whatnot. During provisioning, we have Pearl scripts that we have to manually trigger. I know we can use Ansible for that, but it comes down to the cost of entry which is still very high. 

A lot of people are moving into the core count for licensing. We still have a few with one-to-one standard server licensing, but we are utilizing the virtualization host licensing. We license it based on the host, not based on VMs, which is cool. I was very happy that there was certain licensing with SAP to have access to SAP repos. Its cost was the same as the regular one, so I was happy about that.

The only pricing that bugs me right now is the Ansible pricing. We wanted to take a look at Ansible, but the biggest thing a year back with Ansible was that the management did not want to spend half a million on Ansible Tower. They wanted to see first if we would use it and not waste money. I do not know if things have changed now, but Ansible is probably still expensive. That is one of the routes that we want to go to. We will see if we can utilize Ansible Tower, so pricing-wise, that is the only thing that pops up. It is too expensive. The cost of entry seems quite high.

Overall, I do not see any issues with what we have spent on Red Hat. We also have learning subscriptions that we pay to Red Hat for the training, and I do not feel we have wasted any money.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has built-in features, but we do not use them. It is one of the things about which I need to talk to our account manager. There are so many different ways to skin a cat. My department has so much money, so they bought everything, but a lot of the security features, such as SELinux, are disabled for us. We handle the firewall rules, access lists, and other things at another location rather than on the actual VM itself. It does not hurt to do it at multiple places, but operations-wise, it would be a nightmare, so we try not to do it. I know there are a lot of cool new things built in Red Hat, and that is something we should circle back and take a look at.

I have seen Red Hat Insights. I clicked on it one time when our account manager was showing us something. They have so many features in the cloud that we do not know we can use. Maybe it is wrong to assume, but the reason I do not look at Red Hat Insights is that a part of our patching is already included. We are not that strict about what we patch in terms of the versions. It is useful, but Red Hat emails us anyway. They tell about the severity of an issue. We do not look at Red Hat Insights. We see those emails and we see CVEs. If a package is installed and applicable to our VMs, we just use Satellite and patch that particular vulnerability. 

I have also tried the web console once. It looked interesting, but we do not have much use for it because a lot of our customers or application owners are server admins. About 99% of our Red Hat installs are all minimal installs. We do not have a GUI. There is just a terminal screen. Even though they could console in and do whatnot, it is all done via SSH.

Overall, I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux a 10 out of 10.

Our memory-intensive applications run on Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

We opted for Red Hat Enterprise Linux for our workloads due to its stability and the comprehensive support provided.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has enabled us to centralize our development to some degree.

We use it in containerization projects for workloads that need to run in private clouds, as it simplifies the process of shipping them as containers. The advantage of this approach is standardization, while the disadvantage is the necessity of shipping the container itself. Deploying containers on a platform like Kubernetes running on Red Hat Enterprise Linux may require some extra steps for scalability, but it is not a significant obstacle.

I appreciate that Red Hat Enterprise Linux, as a foundation for hybrid cloud deployments, is a commercial solution with reliable support.

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

We extensively use Red Hat Enterprise Linux's built-in security features because they are excellent.

Red Hat Insights has significantly helped us reduce risk in our environment by allowing us to identify which CVEs are impacting our systems.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux contributes to business continuity and compliance efforts by simplifying OS migration. Its generational upgrade path allows for easy transitions between versions, streamlining the process and reducing potential disruptions.

The time saved during audits and the ability to map CVEs using Red Hat Insight are valuable security benefits.

It helps avoid emergencies stemming from security issues, non-compliant settings, or unpatched systems.

Red Hat Insights provides the tools for proactive environment management. For example, it simplifies patch verification by confirming the desired automatic patching functioned correctly in one fleet, suggesting its likely success in the next. This clear visibility makes it easy to monitor ongoing operations.

Red Hat's portfolio helps lower the total cost of ownership for our enterprise landscape by providing reliable documentation that simplifies troubleshooting and reduces the need to resolve issues from scratch. 

Red Hat Insights provides good visibility and proactive management of our environment.

The primary issues are related to integration. Red Hat Insights utilizes several APIs that lack proper communication, resulting in inconsistent results.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for about four years.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux itself doesn't have issues. It performs well for our business-critical applications.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux scales quite well, allowing us to adapt as needs change.

While the support is generally good, prompt attention often requires escalating issues or marking them as high importance.

Positive

Red Hat Enterprise Linux saves time with good documentation and other benefits.

The licensing is a bit odd because we need to procure the licenses from a third party. We prefer a pay-as-you-go model with monthly increments instead of buying licenses in bulk that expire in a year.

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux an eight out of ten. While it has occasional bugs and software flakiness, updates are regularly released to address these issues.

To ensure your operations are compatible across different operating systems, prioritize OS agnosticism. Unless modifying the OS is a core function, consider a commercial solution like Red Hat. Although cost-effective, Red Hat may not be suitable for all companies.

Our banking applications, primarily those focused on transactional data services, operate on Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

We run our workloads on Red Hat Enterprise Linux due to its compliance and long support cycle.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has enabled us to centralize development by providing a standardized image that we customize for developer laptops, developer environments, virtual machines, and production machines.

Our containerization projects run on OpenShift, a virtualized platform based on Red Hat Enterprise Linux, where we deploy and manage our workloads and applications.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is a high-performing operating system that effectively supports our business-critical operations, including high-latency, high-throughput applications essential for transaction services.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has robust built-in security features that effectively reduce risk in our environment.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux significantly contributes to our business continuity and compliance efforts by inherently supporting various compliance standards, including PCI and others. This built-in compliance functionality is a major advantage, as it simplifies the process of meeting regulatory requirements and provides robust evidence for audits. Ultimately, Red Hat Enterprise Linux streamlines our compliance procedures and strengthens our overall security posture.

The Red Hat Enterprise Linux portfolio helps reduce our TCO.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux provides a strong foundation for compliance and offers extended support, which is particularly valuable for critical upgrades and assistance.

To enhance Red Hat Enterprise Linux, I would like to see more focus on improving performance and tools such as compilers.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for almost ten years.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux offers high performance for our business-critical operations, especially for high-latency throughput applications that are critical for transaction services.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is flexible, and we always get support from the team if something is not working.

The customer support and technical service from Red Hat is good. When we needed support, such as for Java 21, we received early access. However, it's rarely the case that we need support.

Positive

The most significant return on investment is the long-term support, as we don't need to worry about support over an extended period. It ensures the continuation of service.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux licensing is not cheap, but it is worth it, especially considering the compliance and support it provides.

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

If you're considering a third-party Linux OS, try Red Hat Enterprise Linux. It offers a free subscription for developers, and if it suits your needs, you can easily transition to the production-ready Red Hat Enterprise Linux nine.

My use case for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is for dockerization; I use it for Docker or Postman. We use it for microservices, for example, to install JBoss and deploy some applications and pipelines for processes such as CI/CD. A summary of what I do includes microservices for applications such as Tomcat or JBoss, or for microservices in Postman, and installing Jenkins and launching pipelines.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped reduce downtime and lower risks for me. There are rarely crashes or errors.

Image Builder or system roles feature is beneficial because it is a feature that allows you to create small images for what you need. With these images, you can go to a registry or whatever with VMware or KVM, and you can deploy them very quickly and efficiently. I tested it because it's better than having to install another machine all over again and losing much time. With Image Builder, you can create a small image tailored to your necessities. It is a good solution; you have to embrace automation, and the Image Builder helps you automate the creation of servers and images.

I appreciate all the Red Hat products available and the support provided when encountering any issues or needing help. You can open a case, and they answer very quickly. 

The other reason is it is a very strong OS for your needs. For example, I work in a banking system and in a financial system, and all kinds of products that you have—the problems may come from development, not from the server or machine.

In the knowledge base of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I can find everything I need. I don't have to go elsewhere. There are some videos with practical advice, all in one place, and all for free. I'm very happy with this kind of resource and knowledge base.

I find Red Hat Insights very helpful and beneficial. In all IT departments worldwide, I find it important because when I call my colleagues or other companies, this is a very significant feature. Insights gives many opportunities, particularly regarding security, and provides more facilities to improve security in your servers. In my opinion, the most important security feature in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is Red Hat Insights. When you use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), you can install an agent in your Linux, and this agent runs on your Linux and gives you all the CVEs or security issues you have. For me, as an administrator, this is very helpful because with minimal clicks, I have the solutions and instructions on how to solve them. You only need to connect to Red Hat, and they provide a deployment, scan your machine, or all machines with Ansible, and give you a summary of your vulnerabilities, and you apply the solutions they provide.

The areas that have room for improvement in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) include having more case bases and possibly more forums or places. A community that is not just informal but rather official could be beneficial. Everything else is good.

I would suggest improving compatibility. Sometimes I find that Red Hat is not aligned with the rest of the world. They create their own solutions, such as Docker, Podman, Kubernetes, and OpenShift, which can be better than what others offer. This can be both good and bad, depending on the situation. On the positive side, their innovations can enhance the overall quality of the company’s offerings. On the downside, when you need certain images or components that deviate from industry standards, it can become confusing. I find it difficult to understand why they choose to differentiate themselves from the rest. 

I have been in IT for 24 years, working with Linux and Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for about 10 years.

I would rate the stability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as a nine out of ten.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is scalable for my business. It is very important, and I cannot imagine working without it.

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

Positive

I have worked with Ubuntu and SUSE, but I prefer Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) because the support is better than others. All solutions, how the machine or OS works, and all the other products, for example, OpenShift, I appreciate. I feel very comfortable with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) because it is a solution based on CentOS and Fedora, and since my early career, I studied and learned in this distribution.

The deployment of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is very easy.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has saved me about 40% to 50% time.

I would recommend Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) to other users; it depends on the company size. For medium and bigger companies, it is necessary because all the components needed, such as support and stability, are available. I cannot help much with the pricing because I do not work with licenses; this comes from another department. I discuss with my boss about how many machines or servers we need, and they coordinate with the commercials. I do not have information about whether it is cheaper or expensive, but I hear that they are very comfortable depending on how you deal with them. 

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

I set up Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for my customers. The customers either install some middleware on top of it or manage it directly from my company, or the customer will manage the application on top of the server directly.

The most valuable feature is the support. The support from Red Hat is definitely valuable. Having a Technical Account Manager facilitates getting to the core of the issue and eventually tries to correct the behavior of the operating system in case something is not fitting what I expect.

The knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is definitely good. Most of the simple issues can be fixed by going through it, including sometimes third-party issues that happen. I can mention a couple of incidents that occurred, one with CrowdStrike and one with Qualys Cloud Agent. In both cases, the knowledge base was informative about the existing issues. If I was a customer of those partners, then I would have been affected by problems that came from third-party products. Generally speaking, the knowledge base is absolutely good for problems that come from Red Hat itself.

The most important security feature in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the readability and detail of the security report. From a security perspective itself, it is not a game-changer, but when it comes to communicating to the customer that something is not an issue, this is beneficial because I can reference an article that is easily readable by the customer.

Red Hat Insights is definitely helpful, providing information that I would not spot otherwise. However, there is room for improvement. Red Hat Insights needs to be able to manage in a detached environment, which is on the roadmap as far as I know, because we are working with big banks, and therefore, we cannot have too much direct connection, especially from the cloud to the server. Another open point is that from Red Hat Insights, I cannot make use of my own Ansible Automation Platform, unless I'm mistaken. 

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is derived from Fedora. Sometimes, we encounter features in a server environment that are more suitable for desktops, leading to unexpected complications. For instance, networking on a desktop is typically designed with different priorities compared to a server. We often find ourselves forced to use features originally intended for desktop use, even when simpler alternatives would be more effective and manageable. This complexity can be unnecessary, as it adds layers of functionality that do not provide any real value. Ultimately, users should be able to manage their connections without being overwhelmed by features that are irrelevant to their needs.

A downside is that it is sometimes difficult to agree on product modifications. For instance, one issue we encountered was that certain commands were not responding as we expected. Another example, which might be easier to understand, is during upgrades when certain directories are reverted to their original permission settings. This contradicts some hardening recommendations and makes it more difficult to advocate for a change to practices that have been in place for a decade, even when there are valid reasons for the change. It’s important to note that the resistance to change can be attributed to their collaboration with upstream developers, but that’s just our perspective.

I have been working with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for more than 12 years.

It is definitely a stable product. As I shared previously, my main concern is about desktop components that are coming into the newest release. If RHEL 6 was definitely a 10 out of 10, now with RHEL 9, I would rate it a 7 out of 10 because it no longer allows me to have a clear understanding of what is going on and a clear configuration that speaks for itself. The shift towards configuration as code has some drawbacks in this case.

With a Technical Account Manager, we have a very individual approach. I would rate the technical support from Red Hat a ten out of ten.

The support has had a positive impact. I was able to go through a huge incident that required getting to the core of the problem, such as what happened with CrowdStrike. It involved an issue perceived on the LDAP server caused by a change performed in the code of Red Hat. My feedback is that the support is always great when addressing complex analysis, and that's the most important value-added aspect I will mention.

I used different solutions before Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), but not from an enterprise perspective, so without support. I used Debian and Slackware and other similar solutions. I decided to switch mainly because of the support. 

When I switched from my previous job to my current job, they were already using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). I am working with banks, which are highly regulated, and I need backend support from the vendor in order to work with the bank.

We have seen a return on investment from Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) so far. I don't have any specific metrics, but the penalty we would have faced if Red Hat had not helped us in identifying the problem would have been millions of euros.

Red Hat helps to mitigate downtime and lower risks through support, engaging them at the right time to promptly resolve issues. Red Hat Insights also assists in this regard.

I'm the one who's managing that. I find the pricing of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) affordable, but the subscription model is something that the business units of Red Hat need to revisit and fix.

I participated in a review to eventually switch to SUSE and to Oracle Linux as well. Oracle Linux is a definitive no, mainly because of the support. The support from Oracle's side is awful. I don't want to ever have a case with them because it's terrible. For SUSE, it was mainly a matter of cost-benefit since we didn't have the chance to go into depth on that because the cost was not a game-changer, and we would have had to reinstall the whole 7,000 servers, so it was too much to get the benefit from the reduced cost.

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