Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Reviews

We are a service provider and support provider for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is used for OpenShift management; Linux is the base for many IT companies, providing them with the management of their applications using the Linux operating system. In the Linux space, Red Hat is the leading company, so we utilize it.

Cloud provisioning becomes easy with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) because they offer satellite automation and image builder, which simplifies the process. They also provide DHCP servers for IP allocation.

In managing hybrid cloud environments, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) plays a crucial role; the OS is a core feature for managing solutions across AWS, Azure, and on-premise setups. It provides unified management and supports the Ansible automation platform. With customized image builders, you can build OS images based on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), making it beneficial for hybrid cloud deployments, whether on AWS, Azure, GCP, or physical servers.

There are a lot of capabilities in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that I find valuable, as it is provided by the leading company, Red Hat, which is a top Linux operating system provider. Their support, documentation, and overall offerings are significantly better compared to others, such as Ubuntu and other open-source Linux operating systems that lack proper support and documentation.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) support is among the most valuable aspects. Linux is similar everywhere, such as Ubuntu, but Red Hat's Linux offers substantial benefits, including strong support, proper documentation, training, and labs. This capability is more beneficial than what other options provide.

I believe improvements in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are required. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) should explore integrating AI, as many systems are currently incorporating AI. I believe that Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) should implement some AI-driven command systems for enhanced functionality.

I have been working with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for the past one and a half years. I am still working with it.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) provides a lot of scalability; its architecture depends on NUMA optimization, thread support, and it has a TuneD daemon for performance adjustment, allowing us to manage kernel parameters and handle high-demand workloads, such as SQL and NoSQL databases. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 9 also offers good network efficiency.

I would rate the scalability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) between 8 and 9. I would say it is closer to 8.

I often communicate with the technical support of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). I would rate the support of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as a 10 because it is significantly better than any other options.

I have had multiple interactions with Red Hat support, and usually, when you submit a request or ticket on their support platform, they reply immediately due to their strong and large team of experienced professionals. Any issue will get resolved, and if it is not solvable by the lower-level team, they quickly escalate it to higher-level support.

I did not use a different solution before Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for these use cases. When I joined and during my college studies, I simply learned about Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). I have a basic understanding of other options but did not try them.

I participated in the deployment and initial setup of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). For the initial setup process of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), we first need their ISO. Then we create a bootable media using that ISO; depending on whether deploying to the cloud, on-premise, or bare metal servers, we create one VM for the deployment of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). Numerous internal configurations follow in the Anaconda setup, including language, time setup, NTP servers, IP, hostname setup, and the main task is to register it using the Red Hat Enterprise Linux subscription manager or satellite.

I do not have any challenges during the initial setup because I have completed two Red Hat certifications in college, making me familiar with the process.

Regarding return on investment, since I am the technical person, I do not know much from a business perspective.

I am happy with the pricing that Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) offers. I come from a technical background, so I do not have much insight into the business side, but Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) offers many advantages with its support, official documentation, training, and various sessions. I think it is user-friendly and its cost will be beneficial compared to other operating systems within similar budgets.

I have not used Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Image Builder yet; I have basic knowledge about it but have not utilized it.

The management experience with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is good; as newer versions are released frequently, such as currently Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 10, updating and patching is quite easier and not a complex task.

With the provisioning of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I think it depends on the environment, whether physical, virtual, or cloud.

Security requirements were a consideration in choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in the cloud for me, as Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) provides enhanced security. It comes with Red Hat's internal security features, making it more secure than alternative solutions. Additionally, since Linux is open source, anyone can create their own operating system using Linux base code, but Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) stands out for its security.

The upgrade was straightforward, moving from Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 8 to 9, moving from 8.6 to 9.

I use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) System Roles. System Roles were very helpful during my use of Ansible. The help from System Roles was particularly significant when using Ansible automation, as specific permissions are granted to specific roles assigned to users or groups, which can then be utilized for folder management, automatic deployments, or task performance.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) saves time effectively. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps me save time, especially through automation features with Ansible, which streamlines management tasks. It also provides a ready-to-run environment with a pre-built ISO, allowing direct deployment after making some role changes and setting IP and networking configurations. By using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), if another Linux distribution takes one week, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) accomplishes the same tasks in three days.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps reduce downtime and risk. I do not think the OS significantly impacts downtime, as that is primarily dependent on application usage, such as CPU and RAM consumption. However, it does support increasing CPU thresholds and creating resource pools within the OS, allowing for alarms that help mitigate downtime. I do not believe it helps much in reducing risk.

Red Hat's knowledge base is excellent, providing labs, manuals, and constantly updated documentation. They also have a community that offers a wealth of information, along with releasing books and PDFs regularly. In addition to using the official documentation, I also engage in the Red Hat community. In the Red Hat community, people communicate with each other about the problems they encounter, and there is a wealth of official documents available for everything.

I do not face a lack of information when I encounter issues or seek to learn about Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). I can contribute to the community, where others may have experienced similar issues and already found solutions. Pain points that Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) addresses include security, reducing time, and providing automation. I have given this product a review rating of 9 out of 10.

Hybrid Cloud

Amazon Web Services (AWS)

I have experience with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), using both the cloud-based and on-premises versions, with a focus on the on-premises deployment. As an infrastructure support engineer and senior manager, my main use cases include providing infrastructure for all applications and businesses. This encompasses user account management, application handling, and operating system requirements for each virtual machine. We are building and delivering products using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), and we also utilize Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform and Red Hat Satellite for patching the operating system and other Red Hat applications.

We use a ton of operating systems in our environment. We have Red Hat flavors, CentOS, Ubuntu, and multiple Debian versions. I have previously used AIX and Windows servers, with multiple versions of Windows as well. We maintain diversity in operating system usage.

Recently, we purchased Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) with support on a host-based license model. We previously used a per-host-wise license structure, but we opted for the highest license option, which provides unlimited virtual machines per host. The total investment was approximately 1.2 million dollars for around 1,100 hosts.

The purpose of this engagement was to gather survey information regarding Red Hat products and Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) operating system. I understand this will provide better insight into how Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) effectively targets customer inquiries.

The pros of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in comparison to other solutions I have used include that in most performance aspects, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is very robust and active in terms of performance, operating system strength, security, and lightweight efficiency.

The best features in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) include its open-source nature in terms of the Linux background and kernel. The enhancements and features offer various options with timely updates and security measures. You have multiple choices on how to control security and fix bugs. You can modify and tweak the kernel according to your convenience. If you need to perform automation of your own choice, modifications can be made to perform as per your requirements. This can be done in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) or any Linux-based operating system, but Windows has a ton of limitations. Even for bug fixes in Windows, you cannot announce fixes to others globally. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has an open-source community for this purpose, and CentOS has similar benefits. For patching solutions, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has its own patching solution such as Satellite. There is also live patching available, including kernel live patching, which is an excellent option for minimal application downtime.

The most important security features in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) include the ability to control login access with multiple layers of security, such as two-factor authentication. Key-based authentication is one of the best options, and two-factor authentication is also beneficial. You can disable the root user, so normal users will not see or have access to system-secured commands unless they have sudo access. The kernel is much more secure, and most viruses do not affect the Linux kernel because all things are treated as files without extensions, which reduces virus impact in that area. Although any operating system can be vulnerable, Linux is less vulnerable than others.

I did not explore Red Hat Insights much and do not have substantial knowledge about this feature.

Deployment is very easy and straightforward. I did not find any issues with it. Even with automation, it is very easy.

I would suggest that Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) improve the graphical user interface-based experience in a much better way. If you compare with most preferences, many people are more habituated with Windows. If Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) can improve the graphical user interface experience and gaming scope, it would benefit users. Windows handles gaming much better, but Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is more focused on the enterprise edition and server support. If Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) improves the graphical user interface experience, it would be better for users in terms of costing and user experience.

Another suggestion concerns Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform support. I believe Red Hat should provide much better engineers who have greater experience with their product. Although they have knowledge bases and training programs, I feel that Indian engineers at Red Hat are not as effective or experienced with their own product. I have faced some challenges with support level in this area.

Regarding the centralized patching system, Red Hat Satellite should support other operating systems beyond Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). I have observed that Red Hat Satellite has limitations and only supports Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). Most organizations use multiple flavors of operating systems. Excluding Windows and considering only Linux operating systems such as Ubuntu, Debian, CentOS, or SUSE Linux, Red Hat Satellite should support these with a rollback option. If Red Hat Satellite includes support for other operating systems with guaranteed rollback functionality, customers would accept it very readily and would not even consider the price.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for almost 11 years.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is much more stable in comparison to other operating systems. In terms of failures, sometimes no responses come and occasionally the system hangs up. However, the reasons for these issues are not particularly based on the operating system itself. Stability issues depend on memory and other applications running on the system. I cannot say that issues occur because of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) or Red Hat applications. I have not observed much issue or lagging from the operating system or Red Hat application perspective. We receive more than 99.99% uptime from the operating system perspective for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

Expansion is fine with no issues. The only limitation is that the XFS file system cannot be reduced. Any troubleshooting and expansion tasks are adopted smoothly.

In our environment, most of what we run is critical. Red Hat has their own service level agreement, and we have our technical account manager ready. Whenever there is any urgency, we connect with our technical account manager who helps us resolve the issue within our expected timeframe. It depends on the urgency, but when we request assistance, they fulfill it. Our experience has been very good with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) compared to other operating systems and original equipment manufacturers.

For any downtime, whether it is a priority one, priority two, or priority three case, their response time is one hour. They usually respond before that timeframe. I have faced some issues with Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform support and did not see that much effectiveness, but regarding the operating system itself, the service has been very good. As I mentioned earlier, for kernel modification and hardening, Red Hat has provided good support.

Positive

I deployed Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) myself, and a third party also conducted deployments for us. I have my own hands-on experience in production environments with both manual and automation processes. We deployed Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) using Terraform and other third-party tools. I used AWS Lambda and many other tools to deploy Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems.

We purchased Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) directly from Red Hat through their verified vendors. Red Hat does not sell directly but works through their own verified vendors for purchases.

When you use the image builder, the custom image will be standardized and signed off by the original equipment manufacturer, which is Red Hat. When it is certified and signed off by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), enterprises and auditors will accept it. If we create any custom images on our own, they will be standardized, but the image release will not be certified from the original equipment manufacturer. This can lead to many questions from auditors. However, when Red Hat signs off on the image, it is a good positive point to present to the auditor as evidence. My overall rating for this solution is 8 out of 10.

My main use case for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is using it as an operating system for all of our Linux VMs, converting all of them from 42 different operating systems and versions over to Red Hat.

One pain point that Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps me solve is patch management, as we previously used a giant Ansible playbook that would run updates across our infrastructure with so many conditionals in it, but now we can simplify it down to essentially just one. It was previously one playbook, but it simplifies the workload to approximately half of what it was.

The features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that I like the most include the cohesion among all of our VMs, so I do not have to remember that if I am SSHing into this server, it is apt update, and this one it is DNF update, and that one it is yum update; it is all going to be the same, DNF or yum update for all of them.

For navigating security risks in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), Satellite is a big feature for us, as in the last couple of weeks, we just had two critical security vulnerabilities come out for Linux, and we use Satellite to find all of the vulnerable servers and then Ansible to patch them as soon as Red Hat releases a kernel update.

I have used System Roles quite heavily, so I want to use Image Builder, but I have not used it yet. All of our Ansible playbooks and roles focus on using System Roles first so that future iterations and updates to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 10 or Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 11 will work going forward.

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

Regarding the stability and reliability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I have experienced no downtime, crashes, or performance issues; it has been flawless. We have had no issues with it, and the only waiting period we experienced was for the two recent security issues because someone jumped the gun and published the exploits too early, but that is nothing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) can control.

In terms of scalability, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales wonderfully; we have about 400 VMs, and as I mentioned, we are converting all of our existing VMs over, whether that is a straight conversion using convert to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scripts or a rebuild. I have had both five Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) VMs and also had 200 Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) VMs, and honestly, it has been no different; when running reports, it just takes maybe a minute longer to grab everything.

My experience with customer service and technical support has been phenomenal; I have submitted multiple cases for various issues, and technical support has also been fantastic to work with. The longest I had to wait for a solution was about two days, and what they suggested fixed the issue for us long-term.

The factors that led me to consider a change to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) included running an audit across all of our Linux servers and discovering that there were 42 different versions of operating system or operating system versions; we could maintain that with a bunch of Ansible playbooks, but we did not want to. Another product released by SUSE is similar to Satellite in that it provides an upstream RPM provider, but it did not work very well; it was adequate, but Satellite is by far the best. Standardizing everything has been a huge advantage for us.

I would describe the deployment process of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as straightforward, as I can go into Satellite and spin up a new VM; I have a fully functional VM within 10 to 15 minutes. This is provisioning VMs from nothing essentially, as we are not cloning a template. We initially tried cloning templates, and it only took minutes to have a new VM up and running.

We have not considered any other solutions in the time that we have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), as we just purchased Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) three years ago. However, around that time, we contemplated Ubuntu's enterprise-level agreement, which includes support and extended release for updates; these were the two contenders we really compared, and Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) beat them by a significant margin.

While I have not used Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in a traditional sense with AI workloads, we have a Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) VM that one of our Ames Technology Hub members logs into and runs AI workloads, though I do not know what they are using, and I doubt they are using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) AI.

In our company implementation of the zero-trust model, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) plays a role by using SE Linux and firewall D to configure everything and set it all up, although we have a different tool for managing Windows and micro-segmentation, and we have not implemented that on Linux since Linux is such a small portion of our company's business.

I have not done a major version upgrade with Ansible Automation Platform because we do not have it yet, but I have done major version upgrades from seven to eight and eight to nine with Satellite using the Leapp package provider. I have not done any nine to 10 upgrades because no applications really support it.

The transition from previous versions to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) was smooth; we tried converting all of our existing VMs over to Red Hat, and that was hit or miss on whether it would work. This is through no fault of Red Hat's, as Oracle Linux does not migrate over to Red Hat smoothly, but the major version upgrades have been flawless and have worked every single time.

Our company's process for managing regulatory compliance does not involve Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) playing a role, as we are not a publicly traded company, and we also do not house any PII or credit card information, so we are not under any regulatory compliance. However, our auditing team checks what users have root access to these servers or super user privileges, and at the moment, we just run an active directory audit since they are all joined to our active directory. In the future, I am hoping to set up Red Hat Identity Manager to manage SSH keys and user access into Linux servers.

Overall, I have loved the experience with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), as I have used Ansible for six years of the seven years I have been doing this professionally. We just hired a new Linux admin, and one of the first questions I asked was about their experience with Ansible. They had worked with it, so I asked about their experience in writing playbooks or roles, and they have written them extensively. I would rate this product a 9.5 out of 10.

On-premises

Microsoft Azure

As the DevOps engineer, my main use case for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) today is as our OS. All our runners run on that, as well as Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) UBI containers, which is what we deliver to our customers. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) runs our infrastructure and is what we deliver to the customers as well.

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) all on-premises on Dell servers.

I have not tried doing AI workloads with any Red Hat AI product specifically, but we are running our AI model server with VLLM on Red Hat systems. We are using it on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), but not with any Red Hat AI.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps us solve pain points by giving us security and trust. When we tell our customers we are using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) images, it helps them trust us that we are using the security and we have all these controls. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) gives us trust and security.

I value the management features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) the most, such as Red Hat Satellite, which allows us to tell and monitor our whole fleet about the status of every system and keep it up to date. The management interfaces are really effective.

For navigating our security risks in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), it would probably be mostly Satellite. With Satellite, you can determine which of your systems are out of date. Containers might also show outdated packages. Satellite helps you find systems that have not been updated or systems with old packages.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps mitigate downtime and lower risks. Since Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has all these Ansible and Kickstart and Satellite features, we have a good process of redeploying systems. If something did go down or break, we have all the automation to be able to bring it back up, and we have all that as code. This has been helpful.

I am not certain how Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) can be improved. We are still on Red Hat 8 mostly, and so I am not really certain about what features have already been released.

From a Red Hat 8 perspective, I think perhaps better container support for running them as services would be beneficial. Maybe Kubernetes support, such as something built-in for if you just want to use the system for running containers and keep them online as services would be valuable.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for the whole time, since 2021, which is approximately five years.

I have not experienced any downtime, crashes, or performance issues with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). We have had servers that are very stable for many years.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has definitely scaled with the growing needs of my company. As we have grown as a company, we have expanded how many servers we have. It has been pretty smooth with Satellite managing it all. You can keep track of everything, so it has been good.

I would rate customer service and technical support of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) an eight. It is really helpful to be able to open up tickets and get a technical person that can walk you through getting the logs and getting the information. In an ideal ten out of ten, it would be instantaneous support or much faster response times, but we do have a good response time and good support.

I am not certain if my company was using another solution to address our needs prior to using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). There may have been some CentOS or Ubuntu used way back, but I am not certain.

I think we have seen a return on investment with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) from a technical point of view. The investment comes from when we can deliver our software to customers and they can start immediately using it versus if we are delivering a different OS that someone might not be certain is secure. They trust in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and that we are using that. This allows us to keep delivering at a good pace and getting the software into our customers' hands.

My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing has been really good. I am not at the level to buy it, but I think we have a company-wide Red Hat license. We can have as many Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) machines as we want, including all the packages and the containers. It has been positive and good.

We have also looked at Ubuntu while using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). Their management platform is Landscape, and it just does not seem as reliable for us. We have had much more issues with Ubuntu from deploying it and hardening it. It does not really seem to work the same for us as Red Hat.

The business value of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) compares favorably to the other Linux distributions we have evaluated, such as Ubuntu. Red Hat definitely has more value. We invest much more time in that because we have so many more Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems, and it has been a much smoother experience. If any project tries to come to us wanting Ubuntu, we try to steer them away and see if Red Hat will work first, because it seems to work better and is more comfortable.

I have tried Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Image Builder, but only as testing. We are not using that in production, but I have used it and created a few images.

The testing with the Image Builder went really well. There were some limitations with what versions of Red Hat the Image Builder supported versus what we were currently using, so I could not really continue testing, but it worked for the walk-through I was following.

I do not know anything in particular in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that has helped me with my AI workloads overall yet. We are still just getting into the space, so I do not know if there is really anything about Red Hat specifically, because we are just running open source tools on Red Hat. However, it is still making us secure from a foundation with a secure OS.

We are not really doing a full zero-trust setup with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), not yet. Having all our devices, such as all our Red Hat devices registered in Satellite, helps you keep tracking them. This is moving towards it, having a management system for everything, but nothing really other than that.

We have not done a major version upgrade with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and Ansible Automation Platform, such as moving from Red Hat 8 to Red Hat 9. Whenever we have done that, we just reloaded the system. We use Ansible Automation a lot, but never for a full upgrade.

My experience with the Ansible Automation Platform has been really good. We transitioned to it heavily. Before, we were just using each developer who were running the playbooks themselves. Now we can put them in the platform. The access is really good, so we can have students who can only run certain playbooks or not edit them, which is helpful. Full-timers can set up something that works and then the students can run it as they need. This has been really helpful for us for automating things.

From an OS level, when we are deploying Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), we can pick the DISA STIG profiles, and that gives us a good starting point for all our systems to be hardened a certain amount. Then we use the Ansible Automation Platform running Ansible playbooks that can finish the job and finish the rest of the STIG controls. This makes them compliant. We can also run Ansible playbooks that can verify all our systems are at that certain level. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) does a major part, and we use Red Hat for pretty much everything for our compliance.

The knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is really good. Many times I am searching for questions and it will pop up as one of the first few results showing how to solve it. A few weeks ago it helped me solve an issue for a customer. The knowledge base has been really helpful.

The deployment process with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has been pretty straightforward. We use the Kickstart process, and then Ansible to finish the deployment. My overall review rating for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is nine out of ten.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) basically runs the bank's apps as my main use case.

I like the feature Satellite the most because it has services to manage my multiple Linux servers.

Satellite has no parallel in the Linux distro world, especially for an enterprise, enabling me to manage my servers, patch them, create content, get them binaries, updated security updates, and all that. It makes it easier for admins and reduces the need for a lot of manpower, especially with Ansible that enables me to do configuration management of 20,000 Linux servers.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales with the growing needs of my organization very well as we are expanding ourselves.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped mitigate downtime and lower risk because the servers can run for more than 300 days of uptime. I do have to reboot them for patching, but otherwise, they are a very stable operating system that doesn't crash for no reason. If I experience kernel panics, it often involves EDRs or agents such as CrowdStrike, but otherwise, it's very stable with proactive features. We had issues with CrowdStrike; they identified the issue with their kernel drivers that used to crash my OS and provided a patch to address it, so they take care of us.

The implementation had challenges like whenever we bring out new products, there's always one issue: Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)'s documentation is not complete. I have to really have an enterprise account because I get access to their support, which sorts me out since every environment is unique. It's not a cookie cutter; I would deploy RHEL 8 in a way different compared to a retail store. So when it gets to those niche deployments, they don't have anything documented. I really have to get hold of the support, saying, "Hey, I'm trying to do this. It's not working," and then they will give me a solution, but I would expect that a document would have solved that issue without raising a ticket. That's my only complaint.

The area for improvement in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is documentation. I don't have any other suggestions. I think it's just the documentation that needs improvement. Otherwise, technically, I don't have anything to suggest.

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

I have experienced downtime or security incidents as a result of the solution when proper practices are not followed, especially if I am using any third-party security. You have to manage kernel options; otherwise, the base OS itself is very stable.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales with the growing needs of my organization very well as we are expanding ourselves.

I would evaluate customer service and technical support based on my experience. I felt naive about being a small enterprise versus a big enterprise, but the response time of tickets is consistent. I haven't seen a difference; I thought I would have a slower response being on a small account, but the speed of our calls is the same.

Positive

I considered other solutions before choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), but it was a default choice for us. I see that they have expanded; earlier, it was just a bare-metal OS and not an ecosystem, but now they are in OpenShift, providing Kubernetes and everything.

I wasn't using another solution to address my needs prior to adopting it.

The upgrade or migration is straightforward if I have applications that depend less on what the OS is, but in our case, it was not that simple. We had a business requirement, so we had to shut down the older one, provision a new one, and move everything.

I have seen ROI from using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in terms of uptime itself.

My experience with pricing, setup, and cost of the solution is that it's a service based on how many cores, not sockets.

My deployment model for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is on-premises, but I am just starting off with cloud.

For security requirements in the cloud, I don't do SELinux; I just depend on my ACLs because my servers are not internet-facing. We trust Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) with the binaries, with nothing on the base OS such as firewalls or SELinux.

I use AWS and Azure as my cloud providers.

I manage my Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems for security, updates, and patches with Red Hat Satellite, which makes it very easy.

I have been involved in upgrades from RHEL 6 to 7 and from 7 to 8.

My assessment of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)'s FIPS and security compliance features is that it's the best in the industry. They have FIPS, which I think is more for federal clients, and although I haven't used it, I know they offer it by default on their Linux.

My upgrade and migration plans are to always try to stay on the current version all the time, unless there's a legacy application. Any apps I manage are always on the latest Red Hat release, and we keep migrating them as Red Hat provides the first-ever release out, which is a requirement for our Satellite to support the latest version.

The area for improvement in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is documentation.

I would assess the knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as paywalled, so if you don't pay for it, you wouldn't be able to access their system. The KB is pretty good, but you need to have a Red Hat account.

My advice to a company considering this solution is to go for it. It is supported by enterprise support from Red Hat, which I don't think any other enterprise can offer. While I know Canonical does it for Ubuntu, SUSE is another good option; however, the adoption is not there, and you don't have a lot of sysadmins. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is a bible due to the abundance of resources in the market. I would rate this solution a 10.

We use Satellite from that list for all our catalog for everything we're pulling down, and we've recently had to upgrade to better Satellite capabilities. For the security aspects, FIPS compliance, SELinux, and all that ticks all the government boxes that we need to stay compliant with our regulations.

I use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in a hybrid manner, as I am part of the AWS team. We're starting to build a presence in AWS, so I have been putting RHEL images up into there as AMIs and working on them there, but for the most part, it's all on-premises because we run most of our operations in-house in our data centers.

Almost 80 percent of our virtual machines are on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), and it's our base image for a lot of our containers, with all of our workflows using RHEL.

Our security team can be very specific about things, but Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) ticks all our boxes for security, FIPS compliance, SELinux, and all the security features we need. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) meshes extremely well with OpenShift, which is what we use mainly to host all our workloads.

I have been learning about a few new features, but security is my main focus. In Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 10, there's the new remote desktop connection that supports RDC connections, which is really valuable, allowing us to get around a couple of network issues we were having. It boots up really fast, is very lightweight, and the images we use, some of which are hardened, are really nice because we don't have to go in and harden them ourselves.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) features save us a ton of time and money from engineer hours working on security hardening because Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) works out of the box, does what we want it to do, and does it well.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is pretty resilient and bounces back effectively. Recently, we had an issue where some power fluctuations caused many of our servers and virtual machines to go down. None of the Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) machines were the problem in getting back online because when we flicked the switch back, all our Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) boxes were exactly where we needed them to be within minutes, whereas Windows was what gave us the issue.

Remote desktop was really the big feature that I wanted, which came out in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 10, and we are just now starting to test out Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 10 with our machines. Right now, I'm happy with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) because it checks my boxes.

I attended a session on Project Hummingbird, the hardened images for container-based Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), which was really cool. They are breaking down Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) into small, bite-sized pieces, which allows for rolling updates where, when you're updating your system, it's only updating exactly what changed instead of pulling in the whole package. Since we're a disconnected environment, minimizing our downtime is critical, and having these hardened images that just update very modularly really helps us get back on our feet. Focusing on creating a more portable Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) would be great.

Most of what we do involves virtual machines for containers on OpenShift, which meshes extremely well with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). I have never taken more than five or ten minutes to get a virtual machine or container up and running from a fresh start because it's extremely simple and streamlined.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) could play a bigger role in our company's implementation of the zero-trust model. For the most part, we're a lockdown environment where if you have access to the network and that machine, you're trusted and can have access. Most of our users need to be working on zero trust implementation a little bit better.

Some of the information provided by the knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) can be outdated, and it could be cleaned up a little bit better. However, for the most part, the documentation is pretty easy to follow when you're working with the modern current offerings that Red Hat has to provide.

I have been working in the intelligence community computer field in general for about five and a half years, with NASA specifically for just about a year now, and I've been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for the better part of three years.

I have never experienced downtime that wasn't my fault, so I find the stability and reliability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) to be quite impressive.

I have been able to expand my usage of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) because all of our workloads that need to be scaled up have new Pro containers that pop right up when we need them, ready within a minute. It scales extremely well.

Our Red Hat team has been very good with talking with us, working with us on what we need to get done, and there is very little pain in terms of the actual operating system.

The colleague sitting right next to me is our AI engineer, so I have been riding shotgun on a lot of what he's been doing, and it seems really innovative so far. We just got a batch of GPUs in to start working with this technology and have hit a few roadblocks, but none of that was Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) related.

The customer service and technical support of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is extremely technical. Even when we get new team members, we're able to make good connections with them quickly because they're very knowledgeable and know what they're talking about. They answer our questions, and if they can't or it's a new problem, they're more than happy to spend a week or two with us working it out.

The biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the customer service because our Red Hat team is amazing. We go out for lunches, we talk, and when we were setting up OpenShift, we were on the phone with those team members an hour a day, five days a week for months in a row. Anything that we had questions on, they were right there with us, helping us get what we wanted out of the product.

I worked for Auburn University, and we were kind of all over the place with our products, still trying to figure out what we wanted to do. For the last two years I was there, we were just testing products all the time, getting bad support and bad service. We never went to Red Hat while I was there, and I hope they do someday.

I have set up Ansible Automation Platform, but we don't have a whole lot of automated workflows for our operations yet. We still are kind of just manually doing everything we need to do and applying policies, but I did set it up, troubleshooting a few OAuth issues with some authentication mechanisms, which was no problem. The test that we did run with it worked pretty well.

I'm not our Satellite engineer, but I have interfaced with it a few times, and it was really seamless when I used it. I have never really had to be the one troubleshooting anything like that. It hasn't given us much pain from what I know, and our team seems to be pretty happy about those operations.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) features save us a ton of time and money from engineer hours working on security and infrastructure operations because Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) works out of the box, does what we want it to do, and does it well.

I don't think my company has ever considered choosing another product other than Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) because they've been on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) since I got there, and they've been on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for the longest time, which I feel has become the industry standard at this point.

Every operating system we use has to meet a certain set of regulations set by a board way above us, and we don't really get to choose what operating systems we implement. It goes through a multi-year process of being scanned and tested, and then they give that to us and say we are authorized to use it. Most of that is Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) because most of what our center runs on is Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), and we stick with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) most of the time, which checks all our compliance boxes.

The colleague sitting right next to me is our AI engineer, so I have been riding shotgun on a lot of what he's been doing, and it seems really innovative so far. We just got a batch of GPUs in to start working with this technology and have hit a few roadblocks, but none of that was Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) related.

For how long I have used the solution, I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a ten out of ten overall. My advice to other companies considering it is that, with NASA, we've got operations in space and we have problems all the time. In my experience, it has never been the operating system causing issues; it's always some other component, but Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has been the solid foundation of what we've been building off of. I give this review a rating of ten out of ten.

Hybrid Cloud

Amazon Web Services (AWS)

My main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) include maintaining a stack of servers where we perform monitoring, provisioning, certificate provisioning, and checking patch status across the servers.

The most valuable feature within my systems is Satellite. The features that I appreciate most on a daily or on-demand basis are those provided by Satellite. This feature benefits my organization by providing provisioning for every instance, as we have approximately 100 instances under Red Hat and another 20 under Ubuntu. Currently, we use a single user interface to control them all.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) could be improved by providing end-to-end support for customers because we are seeing that it is more distributed. For all the Red Hat services, we use Satellite, but other services are on the cloud, and some things are hybrid cloud. This means we have multiple platforms to monitor each time. Another area for improvement is the false positives. We have the Red Hat alarm system, and it is good, but it just fires and reports, sending an email every night for us to check our duties. This is really unpleasant for us.

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

I have experienced downtime, crashes, or performance issues seldomly. It is good and can solve 80% of problems. Sometimes I seek consultants for help to rebuild the model or to see what the root cause is. Sometimes this problem occurs many times, requiring someone to show up and thoroughly investigate it.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales with the growing needs of my organization as it is stable, and I see that with Android development. However, I think it has only increased our usage by 3%. I think it is stable and we will not decommission it, but we still compare the benefits of cloud solutions and the Red Hat solution. I have expanded usage on Red Hat because Ubuntu is an open licensing and very unmanageable, so we are trying to reallocate resources to Red Hat.

I evaluate customer service and technical support as great. My own company has a consultant who is very timely in dedicating support to our services. We can call at any time to seek urgent consultant services. Overall, it is good. We find that rebooting or rebuilding is tough for us. We want to make sure that the service is ready to use, but for some unfortunate situations that happen, we seek 24-hour support to solve the problem as soon as possible. Every second that passes represents a loss for us.

Positive

Prior to adopting Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), we were using Ubuntu, and now it depends on what this product and what this pipeline built initially. If they used Ubuntu at the beginning of the startup, we just use it. We make sure they are up, make sure they are stable, and do not care about anything else. If they use Red Hat, we just keep running with it.

I would describe my experience with deploying Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as manageable. It is not out of control. For every server instance, we get notified, and I get an alarm at a very early time, so we can manage to replicate it. This instance has some broken files, which is helpful for the developer to debug and understand it.

When I was deploying Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), the deployment, particularly the hotfixes, is a real challenge. We have some big instances with the front-end code and back-end code in one service. We have to do this really quickly to deploy hotfixes and implement new features. We need to make sure that the code is consistent across all the services at that time. We can do the Ansible playbook, which is a very good template that we can reuse to replicate the problem.

I have been involved in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) upgrades or migrations, as for version upgrades, I have been involved. We still have some Red Hat Linux consultants who support us in doing the migration. I think it is helpful. The seamlessness of the process with the consultant depends on the service difficulty because sometimes everything is hard to ensure that it is correct. It depends on the project size.

I do not touch the pricing and the cost of the solution, but I think compared to some cloud costs, it is good because our team is relying on that. We just make sure that the service is up.

The other solutions I considered before selecting Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are that in our company, we have two choices: one is Red Hat and one is Ubuntu.

My security requirements and considerations in choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) include that this is our manager, and we want to have some endpoints tracking any attack and detecting the status of anything broken. My assessment of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)'s built-in security and compliance features is that right now, I think it is simply risk reduction. I am just maintaining it. For maintaining compliance, I can say that the first priority is to keep it safe. The second priority is to keep it up. We make sure they are okay, available to use, and available to maintain. For any other new features, we do not require that. We just make sure of these two things. Beyond this point, we are seeking some cloud help.

My upgrade and migration plans to stay current with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are that we need to upgrade it every year, or just when you have a vulnerability, you need to come up with it and upgrade it. From my perspective, we are not doing really timely upgrading because we do not want to disturb the current pipelines.

For the knowledge base offered by Red Hat, such as the Confluence page, it is helpful. For Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), the knowledge base is helpful. I try to look up and check many of those pages, and they give me detailed ideas on how to implement the system. Sometimes the problem is really unique, and I can get help or try to get support to formalize some questions and help us understand the solutions. I still need to seek a senior consultant's help on migration. Some documentation is outdated.

My advice to other organizations considering Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is that if you use Java, you should use it. If you have many massive servers to maintain, a Red Hat solution with the pipeline and Satellite is beneficial. If you have some old legacy systems, you do not have to set up new labor on monitoring. I give this product an overall rating of 8 out of 10.

I am a system administrator using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for handling applications and databases. The machines I manage handle applications and databases, along with some JBoss.

Ever since IBM has come into the picture, Red Hat and Ansible have been developed very well. The reporting and workflows have become very good.

Among all Linux flavors in the market, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has a very high-level support developer team, which is important for our critical systems. We need a solid platform that provides one spot for vulnerability fixes, unlike Ubuntu, CentOS, etc. They only provide low levels of support. 

The management is fine. We're doing regular patches with Satellite. We're happy with it. It is manageable.

We can manage a hybrid cloud environment. Red Hat doesn't come fully into our picture with our environment since we're using the Amazon environment and VMware for virtual machines. Red Hat is just an OS, and it is easy to set it anywhere with no issues. 

They should be more generous in providing documentation in a friendlier way. The Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) documentation is good, yet not as good as other products such as IBM. Oracle, on the other hand, is the worst; they are very limited in sharing their documentation with engineers.

The Asian support could use improvement.

I have total experience in Unix/Linux of 25 years, which includes five years of Solaris, IBM HP-UX, IBM AIX, and HP-UX, along with Sun Solaris, while the other 15 years is with Linux.

We never faced any issues with stability, and we never faced any limitations.

We never faced any issues with scalability, and we never faced any limitations. For our company,  it is more than enough. I'd rate scalability nine or ten out of ten.

Red Hat support is good, actually. It depends on the region. I have dealt with several regions including Asia, Middle East, and Europe. The majority of European support is excellent. I would give it nine to ten out of ten. In the Middle East, it is between seven to eight out of ten, while in Asia, very rarely do we get nine or eight out of ten. I'd rate it five out of ten there.

Positive

We have moved to another technology since we are no longer working with Dell EMC or Networker. With Veeam, we are currently working for that vendor. We are using Veeam exclusively nowadays.

We're working with 80% Linux, 10% Unbuntu, 10% Oracle.

The initial setup was very simple. 

Management is fine, since we have the Red Hat Satellite, which allows us to do regular up-to-date patches. We are happy with the Red Hat Satellite. It is manageable.

I am handling the storage, backup, and operating systems of Linux flavors personally.

This question of ROI would be unfair for me to answer. We are not using the full range of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) products and are depending on other things. However, Ansible is doing very well with the new version, and in terms of workflow, it is easy to manage. Ansible has been performing very well, especially after IBM acquired Red Hat. IBM has enhanced Red Hat and Ansible very well, as they are famous for reporting and managing workflows.

The pricing is very simple. Compared to something like IBM, Red Hat is the cheapest.

Without something to compare it with other than Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I cannot do a direct comparison. However, compared to Unix products such as Oracle Linux or IBM, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is less expensive.

Regarding Linux Image Builder and system roles, I have tried both, however, cannot recall which one I downloaded. The last time I built it was more than five months ago. 

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

Hybrid Cloud

Over the period of my career, I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) initially in my first job at a research center, where we used it as a base operating system. Different variants of Red Hat, including CERN certified Linux and Red Hat, were used extensively at that time as a base OS for our organization. We have used it for running various infrastructure services. In my current office, we are using it to run an OpenShift cluster, so the base operating system is Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

We have performed a couple of migrations from cloud to on-prem with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), and they were smooth. They did not cause us much trouble.

The security requirements when deploying Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are essential, and you have to perform certain steps to harden the core OS, which we have been following over the years. We have developed a regime on how to secure the OS when putting it into production, and for any OS, whether it be Windows or Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) or any other variant of Linux, we have a process of hardening the OS, performing some basic security checks before putting it into production. That has been the key throughout my career. There are no particular security requirements for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), but as a general rule, when you put an operating system into production, you perform a set of processes to harden the OS. Obviously, patching is one of them; you patch it up to the latest level to keep clear of known vulnerabilities. Then, you harden the OS in your own environment, ensuring certain services are up and running, avoiding any extra accounts on the machine, shutting down unnecessary services, and making kernel configurations for hardening. There is a long list that is common for any Linux operating system we use in our production environment, and we harden it before we put it into production.

The most reliable function I find in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the stability of the platform. The stability of the operating system is crucial when you are running mission-critical services; you want to keep them running 24/7/365 with no downtime for the services. Unlike other operating systems, for example, with Windows, you have patches after which you need to reboot the OS. If you are not running your services in a cluster, you have to afford downtime for that service. What I really appreciate about Linux, particularly the latest versions and other variants like Oracle Enterprise Linux (OEL), is that they have developed mechanisms where you can patch even the kernel vulnerabilities without rebooting the OS. That is a key feature for me because we have been running some mission-critical services over the years, and I have kept my servers up and running for almost four years in a row with not a single second of downtime.

The main benefit that Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) provides for me is the stability of the environment in which I am running it. When running mission-critical services, I need a reliable operating system, and Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) provides the maximum stability of the infrastructure. It also offers scalability, which saves money when things are scalable, and there are no issues running the system without downtime, as that also costs money. Stability and scalability are key benefits.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps to mitigate downtime and lower risk because mostly, the infrastructure runs in the form of clusters. With OpenShift, I do not run a single node; we have underlying operating systems, and then we deploy clusters. When running clusters, there is very little chance of downtime. Whenever there is a problem in a node or a service, especially in today's microservices architecture, the nodes run on different hosts, and the application remains up and running in no time with no downtime for the service.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) can improve the pricing a little bit, but nothing else comes to mind.

I have been working with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for about twenty plus years, and my overall experience with Linux is extensive.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps to mitigate downtime and lower risk because mostly, the infrastructure runs in the form of clusters. With OpenShift, I do not run a single node; we have underlying operating systems, and then we deploy clusters. When running clusters, there is very little chance of downtime. Whenever there is a problem in a node or a service, especially in today's microservices architecture, the nodes run on different hosts, and the application remains up and running in no time with no downtime for the service.

The scalability process with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is pretty much scalable. The servers support a lot of resources, and as long as you have resources at the hardware level, the operating systems are scalable. There has never been any issue regarding scalability or supporting the resources which are required for applications to run smoothly. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has never been a bottleneck in that regard.

I would rate technical support from Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) somewhere between eight and nine because they have been very good in providing support. I never had any issue with the support; whenever we raised a ticket, we got a satisfactory answer and reply from the support, with a timely response. That is a key feature of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), and it makes a significant difference compared to using a community edition of a Linux variant. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is a company that supports you, and they are there with the support and all the other services they provide.

When running a community edition, you have to put in an effort and rely on the community for any issues or help needed. When you buy Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), a company sits behind your operating system, providing support. The same goes for Oracle Enterprise Linux, which is binary compatible with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL); Oracle is there to support at the backend. With these kinds of operating systems, knowing that a full-fledged company is behind your operating system provides the required technical skill, manpower, and resources to support you in case you encounter any trouble.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is simple to set up; the setup process is very straightforward and not complex at all.

I would rate the price for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) quite high because in my part of the world, payments are made in dollars, and buying Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) comes at a significant cost. If 1 is high and 10 is low, I would rate the price somewhere around 2.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) can improve the pricing a little bit, but nothing else comes to mind.

In terms of technical aspects, I find Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and Oracle Enterprise Linux (OEL) mostly the same as they are binary compatible. It does not matter to a service whether I am running it on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) or Oracle Enterprise Linux. The final decision point for me comes down to pricing; Oracle sometimes offers very good discounts due to their various services such as databases and Oracle Cloud. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has similar pricing models, but cost can often be a concern for me because Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) tends to be a bit more expensive compared to Oracle Enterprise Linux, though technically they are quite similar with no issues.

I am pretty much satisfied with managing my Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) system. There has never been an issue when it comes to provisioning or patching. When you are running an environment with a lot of servers, you can now use configuration manager tools to keep your cluster up and running in no time. You can manage your configurations across the clusters to be similar, down to a dot in the config file, and that is not a problem. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) supports these tools, and provisioning has always been a pleasant experience without any issues causing us much trouble.

I have experience with the knowledge base and it has always been very helpful. We have utilized the documentation extensively because when deploying new services, they have comprehensive and detailed documentation which is very helpful.

I can recommend Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) to other users without hesitation. My overall rating for this product is 9.5.

On-premises

Other

My main use case for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is virtual machines for web server hosting, and mostly web hosting and application hosting.

The feature of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that I like the most is the integration with the cloud, the cloud.redhat.com integrations, and the Insights portal.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps us solve the need for a supported Linux platform that we can dependably deploy all of our applications on, with an easy to patch process, very interconnected with Ansible, and very interconnected with Red Hat Satellite. It provides easy deployment and automation capabilities that are where it performs best.

Red Hat Satellite helps us manage and maintain our hybrid cloud environment by being the backbone of our automation. Without Satellite, we would not be able to do version matching, and we would not be able to ensure all the packages are the same between our on-premises and Azure environment. When we do new deployments, we are able to make sure our new deployments match what we have existing, whether it is on-premises or more nodes in the cloud or more nodes on-premises. That is where we use the versioning.

I do not have much experience with the pricing, the setup cost, and the licensing of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). I know we have it; somebody pays for it, but we have enough licenses and they make sure of it.

One of the biggest improvements I see for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) AI that is on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 10 now. We have not had the chance to try that one yet, but I have seen demos of it, and it appears to be a very good tool that might be very useful in the future.

I have been in my area of expertise for thirteen years.

I have not experienced any downtime, crashing, or performance issues with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). It has been solid, particularly Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 8.

We find Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scalability good; we have clustered databases that we use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for, and it has been solid. When you give it network access to the other nodes, it will perform its function.

My experience with the customer service and technical support of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has been very good. When you open a case, you get somebody pretty quickly, and they are very knowledgeable, so I am very happy with the support.

I would rate the customer service and technical support a nine, because nobody gets a ten.

Prior to adopting Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), we were using CentOS 7.

We decided to switch because we wanted support. We were always looking at containers and thought Red Hat offered the best solution to containerization, so it was a natural progression to get Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as well. We used to run the open-source version of Satellite, AWX, but it was falling apart and hard to maintain due to issues and a lack of solutions in the open-source forums. It made sense to switch to Satellite and get Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) since we were adopting all the other Red Hat ecosystem platform offerings.

I would describe my experience with the deployment process of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as initially complicated due to the licensing model of Azure, which was a little confusing. However, afterwards, we created some Terraform configurations to deploy Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in Azure, and since then, it has been one enter button.

The biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), from my point of view, is the support and the integration with Red Hat's cloud features. The documentation is really good, and before, when I searched for something about a fix, Red Hat documentation would often come up, and I would not have access to it. Now that I have access to it, the solutions given are usually straight to the point, such as "Run this command and we fix the problem." That has definitely been a lifesaver.

I have not considered other solutions while using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

We have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for four years now.

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) both on-premises and in the cloud, specifically on Microsoft Azure cloud and on-premises.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) supports our hybrid cloud strategy by enabling us to host our applications in a hybrid deployment, half on-premises and half in the cloud, while using load balancers in the front. With Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), we are able to deploy the applications that we need to support our strategy on both sides, including the databases and the caching system with synchronization between on-premises and the cloud. It allows us to install anything we need, and with the automation tools around it, it lets us quickly deploy and automate everything and have it running.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) plays a role in our company's implementation of a zero-trust model mostly with workloads, as it works with workloads and the integrated firewall. With Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), we are able to secure access to the various ports that are running in our application, regardless of whether we decide to use a Unix socket or something VIP-based, to host them.

We use the Ansible Automation Platform.

Our experience with the Ansible Automation Platform has been great; it is one of our favorite tools. It started small and then it became one of the most important tools within our organization. Everybody uses it, and everybody has been creating Ansible playbooks for it. We are now pushing to have all of our applications deployed using Ansible Automation Platform, so it has become a major tool that has been integral to the success of our team.

I cannot say I have used a lot of the available knowledge base from Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) directly, but it is very good. Red Hat documentation is very good in general.

I would rate this review a nine overall.

Hybrid Cloud

Microsoft Azure