Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Reviews

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

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

It has an extensive knowledge base.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is stable overall.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is scalable.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Red Hat Enterprise Linux portfolio helps reduce our TCO.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Positive

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is scalable.

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

Positive

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

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

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

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

Red Hat Enterprise Linux serves a variety of purposes in our organization. Initially, we used it for web hosting and web application support. We've since expanded its use to banking, where it serves as the foundation for our applications, and to containerization projects utilizing Podman.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has brought uniformity and standardization to our workflows, providing excellent support enhanced by using Ansible. This has allowed us to centralize development and standardize all our systems.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux enabled us to centralize development by providing a standard system used across the board. This streamlines development by consolidating our efforts into one system with a single template for deployment and maintenance.

We are successfully using Red Hat Podman for containerization projects without any negative impact.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux's support and broad community assistance minimize the effort required to reduce risk, maintain business continuity, and ensure compliance.

Red Hat's container platform enhances organizational agility through the portability of applications and containers. Its centralized approach, which consolidates all resources in a single repository, streamlines operations and reduces management overhead. This robust system simplifies maintenance and ensures consistency across the platform.

My favorite feature is Ansible.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux could improve its communication slightly, but even that is already quite good. They could become the most efficient solution by focusing on improving areas where there is always room for enhancement.

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

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is stable.

Regarding scalability, it's enterprise software, so we can make it as big as we want.

Red Hat's customer service and support are excellent. For example, when we experienced instability with IBM DB2, their support team helped us optimize the system for our specific use case and implementation.

Positive

Before I started with our company, they used CentOS. Later, they transitioned to Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

The greatest return on investment from Red Hat Enterprise Linux is the support received.

Companies considering open-source systems are often startups or those seeking platform flexibility. Switching to Red Hat Enterprise Linux due to subscription costs can be a significant financial step.

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

While Rocky Linux is a viable open-source alternative to Red Hat Enterprise Linux for those seeking a cloud-based operating system, a Red Hat Enterprise Linux subscription offers numerous advantages beyond the operating system itself and may be a worthwhile investment, depending on budget.

I work on SAP HANA, which is on Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has a good support portal that I rely on.

The system rules are helpful for segregation of duties, as they provide us with more feasible access to the system, allowing us to register it accordingly.

We immediately see the benefits of Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

From an administrative perspective, the cloud platform is the best because we don't have to wait long. It's a portal, so we can access whatever we want through it, whether the Azure portal or the AWS portal; we click, and it'll purchase it for us. Some deployments take 30 to 40 minutes. But in most cases, especially for small services, it's just a few seconds to three minutes. From a business perspective, the pay-as-you-go concept is where we only pay for what we use. So those are the two things I like most about the cloud version of Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

Using Red Hat Enterprise Linux on the cloud can become costly over the long term.

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

Red Hat Enterprise Linux on the cloud is stable with a 99.9 percent uptime. Regional redundancies are used to ensure data accessibility.

The initial deployment was a little challenging until I became familiar with the solution through the portal. We did encounter a handshaking issue with Azure that required submitting a ticket to Microsoft, but otherwise, the process went smoothly. A team of four were involved in the deployment.

The implementation was completed in-house.

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

We have to apply patches weekly, monthly, or quarterly, depending on their purpose.

We had no concerns about using Red Hat Enterprise Linux in the cloud because both AWS and Azure supported it, and they provided support if needed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Positive

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When I worked for an MSP, we had a lot of requirements for Linux servers. Any customer services that were deemed to be on Linux were on Red Hat 6 or 7. In fact, a good forty percent of our estate was on Red Hat 6 or 7.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux's built-in security features simplify risk management. The operating system is very secure, and we used tools like Puppet to further limit and lock down access with configuration files from a central location. This made Red Hat Enterprise Linux both more secure and easier to configure. The fact that Red Hat Enterprise Linux is open source means that there are a wide variety of tools available to help with security, and the lack of a user interface for some of these tools makes them even more secure.

Maintaining compliance is easy. We used another tool called Spacewalk to deploy patches and update RPMs. It was very easy to connect to a repository. We didn't have any problems with that either.

The portability of applications and containers built on Red Hat Enterprise Linux is beneficial for keeping our organization agile. Red Hat Enterprise Linux is a lightweight operating system that can be deployed on a variety of hardware platforms, from small clusters to large industrial servers. This allows us to easily move applications and containers between different environments, which makes it easier to scale our infrastructure and respond to changing business needs.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has helped improve our organization's efficiency by allowing employees to use a leave service to work remotely. One of the benefits of using Red Hat Enterprise Linux and other Linux distributions is that they are more stable and less likely to break than Windows. This makes it possible to automate many tasks, such as patching, which can save time and money. In contrast, Windows is more prone to errors and requires more manual intervention. As a result, Red Hat Enterprise Linux has been a valuable tool for our organization.

The time to value with Red Hat Enterprise Linux was quick. It took us only a few months to half a year to realize that we didn't have to do so much tweaking with it. We could just let it run and do its own thing, configuring it once at most, and then leave it alone.

Red Hat enables us to achieve security standards and certifications.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux helps us build with confidence and ensures availability across physical, virtual, and cloud infrastructures. We use PuTTY to connect to them. All of our SSH connectivity was locked down to be only from jump servers, so none of it was public-facing. This was a clustered approach, where users had to first connect to a Windows server and then use SSH or PuTTY to connect to the Red Hat Enterprise Linux server.

The ability to automate security configurations is very beneficial. Once we set it up, it can do its job very well without any further input from us. We found it easy to set up and configure, and it has made our lives a lot easier.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux helps to implement and manage security best practices with reduced overhead.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has made our lives a lot easier. It is one of those tools like Terraform that takes a lot of the time constraints away from us. This is because we can leave it to do its own thing, and we know that it will do what it is meant to do properly. I think this is because Red Hat Enterprise Linux is lightweight and has a single purpose. As a result, it only needs to be concerned with that purpose. For example, we only have one role for that server, and we are happy and content knowing that it will perform that role.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is lightweight and can be run on almost anything. It is a valuable product because it can do its job almost perfectly even with limited resources.

Although the price is reasonable, there is room for improvement in order to stand out from other open source solutions.

I am currently using Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

The stability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux is extremely good. Red Hat Enterprise Linux is lightweight, so it does not consume a lot of resources. It can handle a variety of workloads, and we have never had any problems with servers crashing or other issues. The software is also easy to set up and configure, and it runs smoothly once it is up and running.

The system's scalability is good. We deployed it across multiple locations, departments, and other areas. I give scalability a nine out of ten.

The support team is very helpful and knowledgeable about the product. They knew what they were doing and were able to resolve any issues I had very quickly.

Positive

We previously used CentOS. We still have Windows servers, and they can be a bit of a headache. However, we have since moved from CentOS to Route 6 and 7, and we found that this improved things a bit.

We switched because we had a better partnership with Red Hat themselves.

The initial setup is straightforward. We used Terraform to make it even simpler, but I don't think it was complex, to begin with. Deployment for one server takes a couple of hours. If we're just looking at a single server, or if we're building out a small cluster, deployment may take a day or two.

From a technical user perspective, we have seen a return on investment in terms of efficiency. This is because we can now set up a server and let it do what it needs to do without having to babysit it with patching, updates, and upgrades. This frees up time for engineers to work on other tasks, such as developing new features or fixing bugs.

The price is reasonable. I think it's a good value for what it is. It's not overpriced or extortionate. If it's something that's right for our environment, our infrastructure, and other factors, I think it's definitely worth considering. I don't think the price is a major concern.

I give Red Hat Enterprise Linux an eight out of ten.

I think open source software is generally cheaper than Red Hat. However, I don't think that cheaper software is always better. And I don't think that Red Hat is necessarily better than open source just because it costs more. It really depends on our specific needs. If we're comparing Red Hat to an open source equivalent, I would say that Red Hat would probably be a better fit for us. This is because Red Hat offers support, a back-end, and a team of experts who can help us if we need it. With open-source software, we're often on our own and have to figure issues out on our own. With Red Hat, we have the peace of mind of knowing that we can get help if we need it.

We have Red Hat Enterprise Linux deployed across multiple contracts and multiple data centers. It was not on the cloud; it was all on-premises. However, we were able to deploy it across multiple data centers, multiple customers, and multiple departments. This flexibility was a major advantage.

We used Red Hat Enterprise Linux to patch and update the system, including drivers, the OS itself, and security updates. We also monitored disk space usage and swap usage, but this was not too time-consuming. We had a team of three or four people to rotate tasks, so no one person was stuck on the same thing all the time.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is a good product. It has a good ecosystem and support. It is lightweight and does what we need it to do. It is a good alternative to Windows for lightweight containers or servers. It is also good for specific roles.

The operating system is a great way to learn about Linux. While some people will always choose Windows, it is not always the best answer. Red Hat Enterprise Linux is more stable and less resource-intensive than Windows, and it is also more trustworthy. This makes it a good choice for environments where reliability and security are important.

In my latest job, I was working with microservices where the decision was made to use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for its core functionalities. I played a role in setting up the OS and was responsible for the initial installation, defining pods, and network configurations.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) offered robust support and stability, providing full alignment with manufacturing hardware which ensured the drivers and other infrastructure were highly compatible.

The support and escalation process for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is excellent. It offers more stability compared to other distributions like SUSE. Red Hat's compatibility with manufacturing hardware ensures smooth operation. Their knowledge base is particularly useful for troubleshooting and training, and their built-in security and compliance features simplify risk reduction. It is a mature and improved platform for corporate functionalities.

The performance of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) could be improved, especially under high load scenarios or when running applications involving AI. Providing support for AI in the knowledge base could be beneficial.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is known for its decreased downtime and stable performance.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) allows for disaster recovery planning across different states to ensure synchronized performance.

Customer support for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is rated as a ten out of ten. From the beginning, their support has been excellent.

Positive

The setup was smoothly conducted. The feedback received indicated that the installation was seamless and without interruptions.

I was responsible for the initial configuration and setup of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), working closely with other teams.

Though a bit expensive compared to competitors, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is still recommended because it works effectively and delivers value for its pricing.

The differences between Red Hat and SUSE, or Red Hat and Ubuntu, are that Red Hat is more mature and has better corporate-oriented functionalities.

I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) overall as a ten since it provides the necessary resources and support.

I am a database administrator, and we mostly use Red Hat Enterprise Linux to manage databases. Primarily, we use it for Postgres, as it works best on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). It's easiest to set up and has the best documentation.

I'm aware of one customer that is thinking about it. But I'm not sure what specific projects they want to use it for. I think there's one customer who is interested in it and is trying to find a solution that might benefit from it. 

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) contributes significantly to our business continuity and compliance efforts. The best example is uptime. Many critical businesses need to be operational twenty-four hours a day. If a database goes down for some reason, it is seldom Red Hat Enterprise Linux that is the issue. This provides peace of mind.

It has helped us centralize development because Red Hat Enterprise Linux has many tools that aren't accessible to our Windows customers. 

Red Hat Enterprise Linux's most valuable feature is its reliability. I don't have to worry about the operating system. It's one of the easiest operating systems for databases, and the integration is excellent. It gives me peace of mind because I can focus on my database work without worrying about my OS. I want to ensure I have applications that run on the OS without searching for temporary fixes or workarounds. 

It has some of the best out-of-the-box security features of any Linux distributor. Red Hat Enterprise Linux has more built-in security features than most standard flavors, or it has implemented them better. 

I haven't identified anything that needs to be proved, but I hope Red Hat Enterprise Linux maintains its reliability.

I have used Red Hat Enterprise Linux for the past five years.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has been perfect. My Windows customers experience a lot more downtime and bugs. Our critical businesses need to be up 24/7. It's rarely its fault if a database goes down. I would estimate that there's about 10 percent less downtime compared to Windows customers. 

I haven't been involved in any real project that necessitates scaling as our needs change.

The support is excellent compared to other solutions like Oracle. They're knowledgeable and easier to work with. We have a nice, transparent working relationship. 

Positive

The biggest ROI is from Red Hat Enterprise Linux's reliability. If I run databases on Windows, I have to find other tools or workarounds. It's a big hassle. Red Hat Enterprise Linux lowers the total cost of ownership for my customers because I bill fewer hours than I would in a Windows environment. Open-source databases run better on Red Hat Enterprise Linux than on Windows. Most things I need are built-in or can be downloaded from the repo. 

Ubuntu is commonly used, and there's a decent amount of documentation for databases, but it can't compare to Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Setting up Postgres or any open-source database on Red Hat Enterprise Linux is way easier. The documentation is more extensive. It's also easier support because many customers have a subscription with Red Hat.

I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux nine out of 10.

My advice would be to focus on reliability and ease of integration when choosing a Linux OS. 

Our core business is delivering IT services to public companies, and most of the applications run on Red Hat Enterprise Linux.  We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux to host machines that various teams of developers use. Most of the time, we use Red Hat Enterprise Linux to run websites and various software applications, including CMS tools like Drupal, SIP, and Azure CMS. We also run business-critical applications on Red Hat Enterprise Linux. We're still looking to migrate everything on the mainframe to Red Hat Enterprise Linux, and our middleware databases run on it.

While we don't have any containerization projects yet, we have a few in the pipeline. We plan to add some new Docker clusters and Kubernetes clusters with OpenShift. The presentation on AI workloads looked interesting, but we must implement OpenShift containers first and enable AI tools. 

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is quite good for business continuity. The system has supported some applications and businesses fine for years without any patches. It's highly robust, which is one of the main reasons we continue to use Red Hat Enterprise Linux. 

Red Hat is based on Linux, so the security is more stable than in other systems. For instance, we cannot reuse machine credentials. We use key certificates to connect to the machine. It's not like a user password. Without a key to access the machine, you cannot do anything. There are specific controls on user access, and you can limit the privileges.  

Using Red Hat Insights with a Rapid7 tool, we've avoided breaches by detecting and patching vulnerabilities early. Now, we're using the Ansible Automation platform to manage the system better and provision new VMs more efficiently. 

We've built scripts that have not performed well internally. They can cause problems, but we're using the Ansible Automation Platform to avoid such problems. For instance, a script for creating VMs on VMware and deleted some. That has no longer happened since we implemented Ansible.

Although we are happy with the current capabilities, we would welcome new features, particularly in the AI domain.

I have used Red Hat Enterprise Linux for about five years, but my company has used it for around 10 years.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is very robust and stable.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is scalable, and provisioning new setups is more efficient with the Ansible Automation Platform. 

I rate Red Hat support eight out of 10. 

Positive

We joined the company when Red Hat Enterprise Linux was already selected, mainly because of its support and security aspects.

The robustness and support provide the biggest return on investment. It ensures stability and security for critical applications and helps deliver IT services effectively. The support behind it is excellent.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux lowers the total cost of ownership. We have 65 percent of our VMs running on Red Hat Enterprise Linux and 65 percent of the business we provide to our customers is based on the platform. 

The pricing and licensing, especially for options like the Red Hat Enterprise Linux Ansible Automation Platform, are quite expensive.

I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux nine out of 10. I recommend going with Red Hat Enterprise Linux because it's excellent. I asked a security team colleague why they don't use Red Hat Enterprise Linux, and he couldn't say why. It's one of the best from our perspective, and the support behind it is superb.