Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Reviews

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux due to its robust security features, which are essential for securing e-commerce transactions and monitoring our Linux servers. Additionally, its flexibility allows for deployment across a range of devices, including HPE and Dell.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux offers robust provisioning and patching management capabilities, ensuring efficient system administration and security.

I am delighted with Red Hat Insights and recommend this feature to others.

Since using Red Hat Enterprise Linux, I have found it to be very secure.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has reduced our downtime by about 60 percent.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux aids in achieving security standard certifications by providing a secure foundation and tools for compliance with various security frameworks.

The most valuable aspects of Red Hat Enterprise Linux are its flexibility and security. It allows us to manage servers independently and ensures security for any device used.

The system roles feature is good.

While Red Hat Enterprise Linux offers robust security features, continuous improvement is crucial to ensure a secure environment and prevent potential losses.

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

I rate the stability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux as seven point five because sometimes it takes time to reach support for assistance.

I rate the scalability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux as eight. It is satisfactory in terms of scalability.

The response time could be improved as sometimes it takes too long to reach out to them.

Positive

The complexity of deployment can vary based on familiarity with Red Hat Enterprise Linux. I found it to be complex.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux can be expensive, but its cost is not a deterrent for many organizations willing to invest in its stability, security, and support ecosystem.

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

We have 80 percent of our environment using Red Hat Enterprise Linux. A team of around 40 uses Red Hat Enterprise Linux to manage over 3,000 servers in a big environment.

We perform weekly maintenance on Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

We do updates, upgrades, and migrations on our Red Hat Enterprise Linux servers.

Based on my experience, I recommend Red Hat Enterprise Linux, particularly to those seeking a highly secure operating system.

The primary use case for Red Hat Enterprise Linux is automation. We have Ansible running on some Red Hat Enterprise Linux servers, and a lot of it is geared towards automation. We have the automation of processes like patching, upgrades, OS enhancements, or OS upgrades. Additionally, our stores run on Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is pretty secure, but we rely on our network products to handle a lot of our security. We have Cisco products. These servers that we are currently running are not necessarily tightened down on the ports, traffic, etc. We rely on Cisco firewalling to handle a lot of the traffic, load balancing, and so forth. I have not configured a lot of security per se right on the server itself at a kernel level.

I like the knowledge base. They have a pretty good knowledge base portal. On their website, they have a lot of great classes. I do appreciate doing that. I have taken several myself, so I am pretty impressed by that.

We use Ansible Playbooks for patching our devices, especially those that are out in the field. We are using Ansible Playbooks to handle patching. We are using the systemctl command that goes into the repos to grab whatever patches we need. So far, the management experience has been good.

I have used a lot of different Linux distributions, and one thing that I like about Red Hat Enterprise Linux is the support. The support from Red Hat is very good. They offer excellent customer and vendor support. 

The ease of training is great, and I appreciate products like Ansible Tower. 

Its interface is good. It is a very solid operating system.

Some of the documentation that I have run into or encountered appeared to be a bit outdated. That would be an area for improvement.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux since early 2000. It has been about 20 years.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is very stable. I have not experienced any instances of crashing with the Red Hat servers that I have worked on.

Other than the issues with the legacy software or some of the IBM AS/400 that we tried to add to it, it has been pretty seamless. Building them out and migration to the data center or the VMware environment has been pretty seamless. 

Customer service is great. We use a support portal to open a ticket, and the response time is good. We usually get an email response or an update to the ticketing system, and then if necessary, we get a callback within four hours. The response time also depends on the priority. If we are looking at a massive data center outage, I am sure it is a priority one. Most of the tickets I submitted took one to four hours.

Positive

I have used SUSE in the past. They have a pretty good support system. They have got a good OS. I am not sure what the market share is for those guys, but they are pretty good.

Our environment is a combination of the cloud and on-premises, but we primarily use Red Hat Enterprise Linux on-prem. We have a few development test servers running on Azure. They are not used in production. They are just for testing.

I was involved with the migration from SUSE to Red Hat, but that was close to a decade ago.

From what I recall, the initial setup was not that difficult. We did have some engineers from Red Hat who came out to help us. It would have been more difficult if we did not have them there, but from my recollection, it was not very challenging or difficult. We were able to get that done pretty quickly. There were some issues with legacy software, but those applications were built on the Windows platform. They were a little bit of a mess. Other than that, it appeared to go pretty smoothly for us.

It does not require much maintenance. Other than patching and keeping up with bulletins as to what might be out there, there is not much. There is not a huge amount of maintenance. They run pretty solidly. The uptime is great. I do not have to restart a lot of these servers. I might have to restart a service here and there, but nothing that I can remember.

We had help from Red Hat engineers during the implementation.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux provides a much more secure and stable system than Windows infrastructure, and the support is also great. Of course, you pay for the support.

We were able to see its benefits after some time. Some of the returns are seen after a while, not immediately. Sometimes, migrations might be difficult to do if you are running legacy software.

I am not involved in the budgetary aspect, but from what I understand, the pricing is competitive, similar to what we paid for SUSE.

Having a solid foundation in Linux can be very helpful. Learn as much as possible. Automation has become a very important part of the industry now. Learning how to automate with Ansible, Kubernetes, Docker, and Python along with Red Hat Enterprise Linux should set you up for success.

We have not tried Red Hat Enterprise Linux Image Builder or System Roles. Image Builder sounds good, but I have not tried Image Builder. We build our images from vCenter. Image Builder would definitely be something to check out.

Using it in a hybrid environment is a very interesting concept, where we keep some of the hardware and applications on-prem and then maybe rely on Red Hat to handle some of the networking or other configurations externally. I would like to try that hybrid approach.

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

I use Red Hat in data routines for web, database, and container servers. Right now, I'm using three primary use cases.

Red Hat offers compliance consulting services. If we purchase hardware from companies like HP, Dell, or IBM, which also partner with Red Hat, they often guarantee compliance for their hardware. This compliance can extend to security regulations imposed by certain countries or governments, such as those based on NIST or CSSP standards. Red Hat's focus on compliance seems to center primarily around these hardware-related aspects and associated security requirements.

Red Hat's knowledge base requires an active subscription for full access, but developers can utilize a free, annually renewable option. With an activated developer subscription, users gain access to forums, documentation, the latest news, vulnerability reports, and other resources related to Red Hat Enterprise Linux and its associated packages. The knowledge base is now well-documented, and the active community quickly responds to forum inquiries, often within a few hours.

Leap is a feature designed by Red Hat to migrate its operating systems between versions. Introduced to address the end-of-life issue for distributions like CentOS seven, eight, and RHEL seven, eight, Leap allows users to upgrade from RHEL seven to eight, RHEL eight to nine, CentOS seven to eight, and CentOS eight to nine. However, Leap is specifically designed for Red Hat and works optimally only on Red Hat seven, eight, and nine. It does not function as intended on CentOS, Fedora, Oracle Linux, or other community distributions. Red Hat Insights is a complementary tool that provides valuable information to subscription holders about their licensed servers, including package installations, subscription validation, detected bugs, and vulnerabilities. It also offers alerts about new vulnerabilities and patches and facilitates license management and environment oversight.

I've used Convert2RHEL, a tool that simplifies transitioning from CentOS-based distributions like Leap to Red Hat Enterprise Linux. It supports converting only CentOS to RHEL by replacing binaries and installing Red Hat logos. Underlying Ansible scripts entirely handle this process. While I've had success with it, occasional minor issues arise but are easily resolved.

I have experienced minimal downtime while using RHEL. Some of our RHEL systems have operated uninterrupted for over 600 days. The only necessary reboots occur when applying kernel updates. Overall, RHEL has demonstrated reliable and resilient uptime and security.

Due to its built-in compliance features, RHEL is instrumental in achieving certifications for security standards. The system incorporates policies that align with regulations for governance and public institutions. When installing Red Hat Enterprise Linux in the cloud or on-premises, users must implement security policies that activate specific plugins and APIs to maintain compliance. Given its comprehensive coverage of contemporary compliance standards, Red Hat is the most valuable distribution.

Release updates are the most valued feature because Red Hat's rigorously tested release update pipeline sets it apart from other distributions. While many options are available, none match Red Hat's commitment to thorough package testing. Packages are initially delivered to Fedora, Red Hat's community distribution, for testing and validation. Proven packages then transition to CentOS, and after six months, the most stable and reliable packages are incorporated into the new Red Hat release. This well-defined pipeline ensures that Red Hat packages are stable and long-lasting. However, not all packages released in Fedora make it to Red Hat; some experimental or community-driven packages may not meet enterprise standards. Fedora serves as a testing ground, while Red Hat focuses on delivering a stable operational system.

Red Hat, known for its secure distribution, sometimes delays critical security patches for certain packages compared to other Linux communities like AlmaLinux or Rocky Linux. For instance, AlmaLinux addressed recent vulnerabilities in the SSH package within days, while Red Hat took over a week to release a patch. While Red Hat's rigorous testing ensures high-quality patches, the delay in releasing them can pose security risks.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is a highly regarded but expensive distribution known for its top-notch software. This high cost often precludes smaller companies from adopting it. There is potential to make Red Hat Enterprise Linux more accessible to a wider range of businesses by lowering the price.

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

I previously encountered instability with an assistant. While using a non-Red Hat graphical interface, KDE, I experienced a system crash following a kernel update. This desktop environment proved incompatible with the new kernel. Conversely, servers utilizing only the command line never suffered crashes or downtime. I've observed the opposite trend in my Red Hat infrastructure, demonstrating exceptional resilience. For instance, during a complete data center outage two or three years ago, Red Hat systems recovered within minutes, while Ubuntu servers required significant maintenance. This suggests that Red Hat offers greater stability and reliability in our environment.

Specific features such as path movement and load balancing must be enabled when running routes within a cluster. Pre-installed software simplifies the process for system administrators to implement smart clusters and scale servers. Among various distributions, Red Hat is considered the most proficient in these areas, excelling in scalability and cluster server management.

The deployment was challenging, not because of Red Enterprise Linux itself but because the application runs within this distribution. Certain legacy software required manual installation on this new system, which complicated the migration process. However, the operating system itself is straightforward and plug-and-play. The difficulties arose from configuring the necessary applications within the distribution. I've had no issues working with or migrating to this distribution.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is only affordable for large organizations.

If I had to choose alternatives to RHEL, I would consider Oracle Linux and AlmaLinux. Oracle Linux is an enterprise distribution based on Red Hat, offering binary compatibility, meaning applications built for Red Hat Linux will run identically on Oracle Linux. It is an enterprise-grade product without the associated costs, as the distribution itself is free, with charges only for optional support. While I believe AlmaLinux is more resilient and reliable than RockyLinux, my preferred alternatives would be Oracle Linux first, followed by AlmaLinux.

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

Cockpit is a technology offering a web-based console for server management. This web console can also perform any action achievable through the command line interface. However, I do not recommend it due to the inherent security risks of running a web server, especially when managing another web server. This introduces additional vulnerabilities and necessitates increased patching efforts. My preference is to maintain a minimalist system that runs only essential services. While Cockpit might be suitable for junior system administrators in the RHEL environment, as a senior administrator, I exclusively utilize the CLI, both on-premises via SSH and in cloud environments. I would only consider implementing Cockpit if we have junior staff and are willing to implement robust security measures such as firewalls, access control lists, and other protective strategies.

Most of our infrastructure is made up of Linux servers. All of the apps that we have published are running on a Linux system. That is the main functionality.

I am responsible for Ansible for automation, and I am also responsible for our Satellite server, which is for patching and things like that. We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux a lot. We have 80% Red Hat Enterprise Linux and 20% Windows.

The benefits have been in terms of the speed and how the operating system does not interfere with apps that are running on it. That is the best aspect, at least from a business point of view. Databases run smoother, and so do the applications we have. There is no latency or issues like that.

We have a small number of servers up in the cloud in AWS, and then most of our servers are on-prem. We have a data server. Red Hat Enterprise Linux has made the deployment of servers smoother. We can do that pretty much with the click of a button, especially using AWS's platform.

For security and compliance, we have to be in sync with our security team. We cannot leave anything open. In Ansible, we have set up an actual configuration management playbook where it keeps all of our systems security compliant. It is really cool. Right now, we only have it working on our Dev and QA environments. We have not moved past that because we still have Chef. We are trying to get off of Chef completely. As of now, we are a hybrid. We have Chef and Ansible. Eventually, we will be completely Red Hat Ansible.

When it comes to keeping our organization agile, it is easy to decommission servers. Most of it is on VM, so we can just delete and then rebuild. If we accidentally delete a server, we can always bring it back because of backups and things like that. That is possible because of VMs. We do not have OpenShift, so I cannot say that Red Hat is the one that is keeping us agile.

The feature that I am enjoying right now is the actual LEAP program that they created for the actual in-place upgrades. I am upgrading from Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 to Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8. We are in the process of that, so that is the best functionality right now. It never had that ability in the past. That addition has been an amazing aspect.

I am not too sure how it could be better. I have not yet used Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9, so I cannot say if there have been any changes or improvements. Honestly, I cannot see it getting any better. I like the way the operating system works now, and I do not really see any bad functionality with it.

The only thing I would say is getting rid of some aspects. That is the one part that a lot of admins probably get annoyed with. For example, we are now going to DNF from using YUM. At some point, YUM will be taken away completely, but right now, you can use both. There are those minor tweaks, and you just have to roll with the punches. Maybe it is just a better version of what was there prior. DNF is probably used at a simpler level, and it probably does not take up as much configuration and space as YUM. I am not sure exactly why they make those changes, but that is probably the only thing that is kind of annoying.

In my current company, we recently switched from CentOS to Red Hat Enterprise Linux. We are also working with CentOS. It has been around three years with this company, but I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux a lot longer. I am a Linux admin and I have been using it since 2006 or 2007.

It is definitely stable. We never have any issues. Everyone wants to blame the patching or some change in the OS, but it is never that. It is always the other side.

It has a lot of scalability. We have plans to increase its usage. We are in the process of getting off Oracle Linux, which is, again, another version of theirs, but we are going to be converting those over to Red Hat. All of our databases are going to be running on Red Hat.

It is awesome. I just upgraded my Satellite server. I moved from Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 to Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 and then also upgraded to Satellite 6.14, which is almost the most recent version. I did that in the last month. Their support was awesome. I worked through what was said in the documentation on how to do the upgrade. I created my own spreadsheet for the upgrade and what I needed to do. I worked with their support. I had a meeting with them to check if it would work and if anything needs to be added or taken away. They worked with us that way. Their support is awesome.

Positive

We had CentOS. It is still based on Red Hat.

We are just now starting to use Podman. We were using Docker, and we are now moving over to Podman, which is the Red Hat Enterprise Linux-specific version of containers. It has been an easy transition. We do not necessarily work with Podman. Application owners are the ones who want us to install it, and then they utilize it the way they want to.

We have three data centers. We have a data center in the East in Pittsburgh, and then we have one in Arizona. We also have it in the cloud in AWS. Even there, there are two, so we have four data centers.

We do have a few Red Hat Enterprise Linux systems on the cloud. We are not sure if we are going into the cloud completely, but we do have some servers in the cloud. Our cloud provider is AWS. Our main app resides in the cloud. All the data, most of the data servers, and other applications are on prem. 

I was involved in the deployment of Red Hat Enterprise Linux. We were the ones who converted it. It was very simple. Red Hat's technical person gave us the conversion script and tools. We just utilized that conversion script to switch from CentOS.

We did not use a consultant or an integrator. Red Hat gave us the tools, and we did it.

I do not know what the impact is financially because I am not in that department. For compliance, it has been helpful. Especially the banks have to be compliant in terms of being patched and things like that. Red Hat has been beneficial.

The biggest return on investment has been the ease. I have been a Linux admin for many years. I have used Solaris, AIX, CentOS, etc. I have always liked Red Hat Enterprise Linux better. It is just a better OS.

I do not know the overall cost, but I know that Red Hat is cheaper than Windows.

We did not evaluate any other solution. We were going to Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

We just switched from open source, which was CentOS, to Red Hat. My advice is to stick with Red Hat only because with open source, you do not get the updates at the same time. The updates come later for vulnerabilities and things like that. I would not recommend open source for an organization. If you are at home, you can go ahead and easily use CentOS. It is free, so why not use it? For an organization, Red Hat Enterprise Linux is better.

Currently, we are not using Red Hat Insights the way they are meant to be used. We are planning to do so at some point in the future. Currently, we only use it as a tool to make sure that it keeps track of all of our servers, whether we delete or add servers. Red Hat Insights keeps track of that and lets us know what version it is and things like that, but we do not utilize Red Hat Insights the way they are meant to be. Red Hat Insights provides vulnerability alerts and targeted guidance, but we use Nexpose for vulnerability scanning. 

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has not yet enabled us to centralize development. That is because of the way the company is structured. Everything is fragmented. We have a separate networking team. We have a separate Linux team and we have a separate software team. Getting something done and centralized is pretty much impossible at this point. Any small tweaks are like pulling teeth at this point. I do not know if that is going to change. Hopefully, it will. We are planning on moving to OpenShift. I am hoping that it will make everything more centralized and it will bring the company to a less fragmented spot.

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

Our primary use case involves running custom applications on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). We mainly deploy it on-premises, with applications and custom-made solutions running on RHEL for our customers.

The most valuable features include the classical operating system features, extensive community support, and the integration of open-source with enterprise support. Our customers often choose Red Hat because they receive support for open-source software, which is a major reason for its use.

I am not sure what needs improvement as our customers haven't shared any specific feedback. Perhaps some minor enhancements like a more user-friendly knowledge base and faster technical support could be beneficial.

I have been working with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for over ten years, with a recent focus on it in the last few months.

I find that Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is highly stable, and I would rate its stability nine or ten out of ten. It is a fully enterprise-grade operating system, and stability is crucial for our customers.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is very scalable, and I would rate its scalability at nine or ten. Scalability is vital for our customers as they often expand their infrastructure.

While the technical support could be faster, the Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) community service is excellent. The technical support from Red Hat could be rated six out of ten because of the slow response times.

Neutral

The initial setup was very easy and straightforward. I didn't experience any problems during the setup process, similar to other operating systems.

The deployment process depends on customer specifications. After discussing and agreeing on the specifications, we proceed with the deployment. We guide customers and provide recommendations as needed.

I do not have specific knowledge about pricing as I am not a seller. The price varies depending on the customer and the project. Therefore, I cannot provide an exact evaluation of pricing.

Overall, I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) nine out of ten. The knowledge base could be improved to be more user-friendly as it currently requires getting used to.

We are using the solution for automation. Mainly, we're doing a lot of automation with it. One of the projects, for example, is for ensuring payments processes on forms. We streamline and optimize the insurance claims process using OpenShift. This has enabled us to do faster claims processes and make resource utilization more efficient than it was. Everything can be done online. There are no papers involved. 

It is mainly just cutting out redundant tasks. The focus was mainly driven by driving costs down and efficient resource utilization. We wanted a solution that could make deployment easy and ensure scalability.

The biggest benefit has been the automation. It affected our delivery schedule. Instead of doing something in two weeks, we do it faster. We've cut down our production time. And people are able to focus on other tasks since they're automating a lot of things. Even with our clients, when they have issues, we have created a system where they can send out a ticket. And from that ticket, we can diagnose, and it's easier to solve the issue at hand. 

In terms of cost per head, we've seen a drastic drawdown from that. It is mainly optimizing a lot of our systems and resources.

The high availability is great. It's available most of the time - even when we're doing upgrades, provisioning, configuration, and patching. It made things easier for us. 

The automation is great. I'm a big fan of offering convenience to people and making systems easier for people to understand and use. 

There are good features, such as proactive monitoring as well. It offers predictive analytics, which helps you identify issues before they impact operations. We can foresee several problems. On top of that, this is how we can combat those problems. These types of features are really valuable when considering a company's strategy and when it comes to the impact of operations. 

We are able to move workloads between different clouds or our data center using Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

The knowledge base on offer is quite extensive. We started learning from a third-party provider since we've had a lot of use cases. Maybe you are installing something, or maybe during virtualization, you have to do something, and you need more information. The Red Hat OpenShift community is quite huge. Even a resource such as YouTube has people releasing videos on common problems. Even outside of Red Hat itself, the Red Hat community is very good. The information is extensive. The knowledge base is there. There's a lot of information sharing. People do not try to gatekeep information. 

When it comes to provisioning and patching, so far, we have not had a lot of issues. We currently are using a subscription model. In terms of getting security patches and updates, they support us quite well. There's a 24-hour support base and they're quite good. 

I've tried the Leapp and Red Hat Insights features. It helps with proactive monitoring. It did analyze the system configurations and compares those against databases of known problems and fixes. Basically, there's a pool of data that has common issues and it analyzes how you've configured your system and then compares them. It can come back to you and say, "Hey, this is your problem. Why don't you try the solution?" It's like a good AI tool. It gives us a lot of help. It's quick. Thanks to this feature, we sometimes find that we don't really need to open a ticket for support.

We realized the benefits of using RHEL in months. We were told when we were doing the onboarding, we'd see benefits in six months. For us, it took a little over eight months. That was due to some of our internal processes that we had to do, some sign-offs, et cetera. Still, it took us less than a year. Over time, we are down 20% to 30%.

In the beginning, we didn't start on the cloud. Only now are we fully transitioning to going off-site. There are still some clients who are a little resistant to going to the cloud. It's nice to be hybrid, to accommodate both. We've done a lot of virtualization and server consolidation. So far, everything is running smoothly. 

When moving workloads between different clouds or data centers, it's not that simple. There are a lot of things that you need to consider, including prerequisites and things like hardware, network, operating systems, et cetera. Once you get the hang of it, it becomes easier. However, in the beginning, it was very, very challenging. Coming from a development background, I found it easier to use command lines.

I've hit some snags doing updates or changing things for clients. 

It would be nice if they improved vulnerability management. They could add more security tools and tools for provisioning. 

I've used the solution for two years. 

The stability is good. We don't really have any downtime. I'd rate stability nine out of ten. 

We've had no issues with scalability. It's quite user-friendly. 

During the implementation, we did have to open a support ticket. They assisted us effectively.

Positive

I've never tried other solutions. I know of other solutions, such as Ubuntu. However, my interactions with that solution have been minimal. 

The initial setup was a little bit complex. The instructions, however, were very clear, and our deployment strategy was clear. Still, for the technicians doing it, it was complex.

The setup took about a week and a half.  

I've been involved with two upgrades so far. They were challenging. There were a lot of teams involved. There needed to be a lot of migration planning. We had to use the Link Utility and we did a lot of testing first. We spent a long time verifying the applications and checking dependencies. It was quite a learning curve.

There is some maintenance needed in the form of system updates. 

We did get a lot of help from RHEL. We had senior engineers guide us through the setup.

We've seen an ROI of around 30%.

When we went through IBM, it was quite expensive. Now, we are going through AWS, which is less pricey. 

We started off as a partner to IBM, and IBM opened up the opportunity for us to build certifications for Red Hat through the certification program. Then we became support specialists, taking on RHEL projects. We are in the process of becoming a reseller. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. We're doing a lot of big data infrastructure and they are giving us good stability and performance.

We have extensive contracts with Red Hat. We have it for the operating system. I manage the cloud deployment for GCP, and we have got Red Hat Satellite running in GCP. All of our VMs run on Red Hat Enterprise Linux in the cloud. On-prem, we are running Red Hat Enterprise Linux on our OpenShift cluster, and we have a supercomputer that has got 753 nodes with 50,000 cores running on Red Hat Enterprise Linux. We use a lot of the other products too.

There is consistency across the deployment. Generally, when you are looking to hire people, if you hire people who know Red Hat Enterprise Linux, they have a certain level of understanding that goes along with using the operating system.

It is easy to secure. It has a lot of built-in security features, and it is very stable, which is a big deal.

It makes it easier to have one team that deals with both on-prem and cloud because there is a uniform operating system and tooling. You do not have to have a set of admins where one knows one thing and the other one knows another.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has enabled us to centralize development. We are using the same platform everywhere. It is the same tooling, and everyone is working in the same system.

We are using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for containerization projects. We are building out OpenShift on-prem right now on bare metal. We are running the hub cluster from GCP to spin up the bare metal cluster on-prem. We will hopefully be moving more and more things towards containerized workflows. We are running OpenShift, so it all runs on top of Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

For security, SELinux is built in. It is out of the box. It is built towards building a secure system. We are in the process of working on compliance and getting this 800-171 certified. That is in process. They have regular security updates and lots of tools for rolling out updates. In that sense, there is a continuous upgrade path that is well-worn and fairly easy to maintain.

In terms of portability of applications and containers built on Red Hat Enterprise Linux for keeping our organization agile, when it is in a container, it does not matter if you are running a UBI container or some other sort of container. If you have an environment that will run a container, you can throw a container in it, and it will run, so the portability does not belong to the OS at that point. It belongs to the containerization system.

It is consistent. It is geared toward security. I am used to it. I know only Red Hat Enterprise Linux. I do not know Ubuntu or any of the other flavors of Linux.

It is good. I do not have anything to improve for Red Hat Enterprise Linux, but CentOS could be open-source again.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux since 2014. I have been using Red Hat since 1.2. It was probably 1998.

It is very stable.

We have a cluster with 50,000 cores. It is pretty scalable.

Their customer service is good. We have a TAM. Our TAM is great. Without a TAM, it is hard to get new tickets through.

I have used many solutions. I have used many that predate Linux. For Linux, I have run Slackware, but that is just for fun. Professionally, it has all been Red Hat Enterprise Linux. 

Our deployment experience is good. For the things in the cloud, I use Satellite. I build images and deploy from images to the cloud. It is a mutable deployment chain rather than a standard upgrade path.

We deploy it in-house.

The vendor management takes care of that. 

We have an enterprise agreement. From our department's standpoint, everything gets rolled into the enterprise agreement, which is great because we never see it.

To a colleague who is looking at open-source, cloud-based operating systems for Linux instead of Red Hat Enterprise Linux, I would say, "Why would you look at something other than that?" I have built things on Fedora and Red Hat Enterprise Linux. I was out of the industry for a while, and I came back, and I focused on Red Hat Enterprise Linux because it pays better. There are more standardized jobs in the area if you know Red Hat Enterprise Linux. The certification that you get from Red Hat means something quite specific.

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

I use the solution in my company to deploy our custom apps or to set up servers for DevOps operations, like running containers and those kind of tasks.

The benefits associated with the product for my company stem from the enterprise support the solution offers. Based on the fact that our company has technical exchange meetings with the product's staff members, I can say that I have never seen something like that happening in a hands-on engagement with our company, so that is just great. Being able to talk to the solution team about our company's issues and problems related to the tool all the time is something that really helps a lot.

I can't say anything specific about the product's valuable features, but I would say that whenever I have questions, I feel the tool's documentation is on point since I can always find anything I need easily.

There are some points in the solution's documentation where a few areas seem generic. The aforementioned area consists of the same scenario when it comes to some of the other products, so it is not just applicable for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) alone, but also for some of the other supported products. I have never had a problem with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), as it is really easy to use.

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

It is a stable solution.

It is a scalable solution.

I believe that there are definitely some plans to increase the use of the solution in our company in the future.

I believe that there are definitely some plans to increase the use of the solution in our company in the future, especially if we start to get more customers and there is a need to ramp up automated testing since we would need more systems.

The solution's technical support is really good and responsive. I rate the technical support a ten out of ten.

Positive

I believe that my company used to use a few products before starting off with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), but I believe that it was before I joined the organization.

The solution is deployed on the cloud and on-premises models.

In terms of the ROI, my experience using the solution revolves around the product's community. The fact that I can just go out and even in an ecosystem in general with tools like Fedora, CentOS, and other stuff, I can always find what I want with the help of the community where there are people with similar experiences, especially if it is not available in the documentation part. I feel Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is community-focused, and I really appreciate that as a developer.

Running Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) on the foundation of a hybrid cloud deployment has impacted our company's operations and I can say that it has been easy because there is not much to do between the two environments, as it is consistent, and that just reduces a bunch of headaches.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped me centralize development. The operating system that we are developing is based on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). In our company, we are able to use everything in the solution with the help of documentation, support shared knowledge resources, and all of that. Just using the tool to support our company's infrastructure is really great, and now we don't have to branch out and use other technologies. The tool is a platform that supports many different things.

I use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for containerization projects in my company as it is easy to use.

When it comes to the built-in features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for risk reduction, business continuity, and maintaining compliance, I can't really say anything much about it because the product is used in our company for a specific use case and we put ourselves on top, so we don't really use the aforementioned components for the policies.

In terms of how I would assess the portability of applications and containers built on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for keeping our organization agile and flexible, I would say that the offering of minimal images and all such stuff really helps cut it down and make deployments faster. In our company, we are really excited to use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) to check the containerization of our apps, so being able to do such things for our products helps keep everything moving quickly. In general, my company is excited that Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is moving towards the area to check the containerization of apps.

I would recommend Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) to a colleague who is looking at open-source cloud-based operating systems for Linux.

In terms of the deployment model used in my company for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I would say that the tool is basically deployed on-premises for closed environments and in the cloud because some of our company's customers prefer to deploy the product on the cloud. Mostly, my company uses the cloud services offered by AWS, while some of our company's customers use the services from Azure.

I like Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) considering the support that it offers to our company along with good documentation.

I rate the tool a ten out of ten.