Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is very stable.

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

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

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

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

We deploy it in-house.

The vendor management takes care of that. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is a stable solution.

It is a scalable solution.

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

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

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

Positive

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I rate the tool a ten out of ten.

I use Red Hat Enterprise Linux for my infrastructure and OpenShift primarily for its Kubernetes capabilities.

I wanted to build infrastructure based on Red Hat for commercial distribution for data centers.

The built-in security features significantly simplify risk management and compliance maintenance for on-premises deployments. The well-documented and regularly updated features make it easy to find solutions to any issues we might encounter.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux boasts a top-notch knowledge base. Compared to other distributions, it offers comprehensive information for each iteration of the operating system. This information is categorized by Red Hat Enterprise versions – seven, eight, nine, and so on. Likewise, the documentation and knowledge base are further organized by platform versions, like 13 and 14. This clear organization makes it easy to navigate and find the information needed for troubleshooting or understanding specific features. Given the ease of use and depth of content, Red Hat's documentation gets an A+.

The uptime has been reliable, minimizing infrastructure impact.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux's security advisories typically notify system administrators of potential vulnerabilities, allowing them to prepare for patching easily.

The most valuable feature is the OpenShift platform.

The high cost of Red Hat Enterprise Linux has room for improvement. The high cost in terms of a platform is problematic.

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

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is stable. 

The scalability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux depends on its deployment environment. In a bare-metal setup, scalability is directly limited by the hardware server's capabilities. Similarly, virtualized deployments are still constrained by the underlying hardware resources. However, when RHEL is used within OpenStack, the Red Hat OpenStack platform can manage both virtual machines and workflows, enabling horizontal scaling by adding more nodes to the OpenStack cluster. In this scenario, the number of chassis in the infrastructure becomes the primary determinant of RHEL scalability.

The technical support is responsive and efficient, with a streamlined ticketing process. When troubleshooting hardware issues, their technicians typically check relevant files to diagnose potential problems with the chassis or related components.

Positive

I previously used Canonical in other open-source projects and pushed for a switch to Red Hat because of my familiarity with it in past projects. My current employer does not utilize Red Hat Enterprise Linux because of the high cost.

The deployment complexity is based on the project and the architect of the particular solutions. There are scripts that we can use to perform the upgrades or migration. The number of people required for upgrades or migration depends on the size of the solution. For a small solution, we can automate and don't require any people. If we are using a third-party solution already in place we can achieve the same goal without a large team.

The combined cost of implementing in hybrid and cloud environments to fulfill all our client's needs can be considerable.

There are only three distributions that offer commercial support. Red Hat Enterprise Linux, Canonical, and SUSE. It all comes down to the cost for each organization.

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

The amount of people required for Red Hat Enterprise Linux maintenance depends on the type and size of each project.

Red Hat already provides tools to maintain up-to-date migration plans. These tools can not only identify which components require upgrade but also preserve any already installed elements. Additionally, Red Hat offers a web-based solution for managing upgrade processes if required. However, we can choose alternative options: implementing the solution ourselves or employing open-source software for upgrades. I see no significant challenges with utilizing Red Hat tools for the upgrade process.

I recommend evaluating all the available solutions that offer the tools that Red Hat Enterprise Linux offers and comparing their functionality and cost to avoid issues after purchase.

We are moving toward a microservice architecture and using OCP4 as a platform. We run most of our APIs in OCP ports, so the base image is always Linux. It's a Linux image, and we add our own dependencies. We have a private and public cloud, so it's a hybrid cloud system, and we rely on on-premise data centers as well as the cloud. 

Red Hat Enterprise Linux supports our hybrid cloud strategy because we can have Red Hat Enterprise Linux on the public and private cloud, improving compatibility. 

If the compatibility is high, it's easier to move and migrate. If I have some components on the private cloud on Red Hat Enterprise Linux and components on the public cloud. 

Red Hat Enterprise Linux stands out for its stability and support, which are critical for enterprise applications in the finance sector. We don't want any downtime, so we need fast support and quick issue resolution. 

The main security feature is the regular patches and updates. When we do a security scan, there should be patches readily available. Security is essential in finance, and Red Hat Enterprise Linux helps us build a solid IT infrastructure foundation. 

I've used the Red Hat Enterprise Linux Web Console to configure the products. It's a nice tool with an intuitive interface that gives you a better picture of what you're configuring. It's helpful. 

Red Hat Enterprise Linux should be available in a free version that developers could try on their own machines before deciding to implement the enterprise edition. It would be nice to have a community version available with all the features so developers can become more familiar with Red Hat Enterprise Linux. 

I have used Red Hat Enterprise Linux for more than nine years. 

We haven't experienced any major outages or downtime. Most of our issues are quickly resolved. We don't typically upgrade to the latest and greatest because we want to ensure stability, and we have a lot of the components on the old system. We wait for a while to upgrade so we can see the most widely used and most stable version. 

I rate Red Hat support eight out of 10. 

Positive

We had Satellite and Red Hat Enterprise Linux from the beginning, but we also use other flavors like Amazon Linux. 

I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux nine out of 10. 

We are currently in the midst of a POC phase with a standalone cluster. This cluster consists of both coordinator and worker nodes, with a metadata store for storing various metadata. The entire setup is deployed on Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8, and we have established a connection to the OpenShift UI.

While using it, we encountered far fewer complexities, and the entire process is much smoother and streamlined. For patching purposes, we simply need to communicate with our system administrator. They take care of the patching process, so we don't have to get involved and we can easily connect to the artifact repository and download the necessary artifacts to install in our system. 

We have a set of JSON files containing YAML configurations where all the required image details are documented and this setup makes it very straightforward for us.As for the Web Console, if you're talking about the user interface for tasks like creating ports, deploying applications, managing secrets, and other functions, I haven't encountered any significant issues. 

The process is generally straightforward and quick, taking just a few minutes. OpenShift offers two types of interfaces: one where you can edit YAML files for more advanced customization, and the other where you can use forms for faster deployment, though with fewer features.

Continuous improvement is essential to enhance user experiences and address evolving needs.

I have been working with it for approximately six months.

Our experience with its customer support is very good. Whenever we encounter any issues, we receive prompt and comprehensive assistance. There's no need to wait or take any additional steps to get the help we require, which is highly appreciated. I would rate it nine out of ten.

Positive

In the past, our work primarily involved Hadoop, and we also dealt with Solid Cloud for security and other purposes, but we found that this setup was slow and not open source. On the other hand, the DLP solution we're currently using is not only cost-effective but also significantly faster. 

I also used a Linux browser, specifically the KCL browser which required me to go through the process of installing packages and various components, while in the current setup, everything is seamlessly connected. We simply use the OC command with a private key to connect to OpenShift. There are no extra or additional steps required, making the whole process exceptionally fast and efficient. It's quite remarkable and makes the workflow truly hassle-free.

The initial setup was easy.

The deployment process is straightforward. I simply had to deploy the images using OC commands, and the process of connecting to OpenShift was remarkably fast and smooth.

Overall, I would rate it nine out of ten.

My primary use case for it is to run Jenkins servers.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is critical for our operations. We use it for all of our Linux servers. 

It works. It's consistent. It's well-documented. These are valuable aspects to me. 

Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9 updates the Cipher Suites and the security proceeds it. I wasn't pleasantly surprised because a bunch of our server communication didn't work. Having the Cipher Suites updated is a good thing but was not convenient.

I feel positive about the built-in security features when it comes to simplifying the risk and reduction and maintaining compliance. I'm also a Windows Server administrator so, compared to my Windows Server experience, I have very positive feelings about Red Hat Enterprise Linux security based on how easy it is to keep things patched, up-to-date, and compliant.

Some of the repositories and some of the DNS versions are very old. I just deployed something using Ruby and the DNS stable repository was sufficiently old that the Ruby project I was using didn't work. 

I would like more transparency and better options other than using something like Ruby Version Manager. I'd rather be able to get modern, up-to-date versions from the base repositories.

We have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for ten years. We're on a bunch of different versions. We're anywhere between version six and nine. My personal project is on nine.

We still have Windows servers.  

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is very resource-intensive, and it's hard to secure because Windows, the base use case, is all things to all people. 

I generally like Linux server products. I like the way they specialize, and I like the default security posture.

We have a hybrid environment. We do have some things in the cloud. We're using both Azure and AWS as our cloud providers.

I was involved in the process of migrating our Jenkins servers to Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9. It was not straightforward or complex because we changed a lot of things about our deployment. We tried to improve and streamline, and in the process, we broke some of our pipelines. 

It was not smooth, but that was not necessarily because of Red Hat Enterprise Linux, except for some of the security upgrades. We could not use the old RSA keys that we were using with RHEL 6 with RHEL 9. This meant that we either had to loosen our security by allowing legacy keys or tighten things down. We chose to tighten things down.

Another challenge is that we have some old Red Hat Enterprise Linux applications that are running on very old versions. We are trying to get everything off of RHEL 6 and 7 and onto RHEL 9, but there are a few applications that are stuck on RHEL 6 for various reasons.

We are getting rid of all of our Linux servers, so the biggest challenge right now is migrating our applications to RHEL 9.

When it comes to provisioning and patching, it is pretty manual. The company uses VMware, and the process is pretty manual and involves a certain number of shell scripts. I know we're trying to adopt Ansible, but we're not very far along.

I've had a very positive experience with Red Hat Enterprise Linux. My only point of comparison is Ubuntu, which I use for personal projects. 

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is a solid enterprise product with a greater emphasis on security. However, Ubuntu Server is easier to use in many ways compared to Red Hat Enterprise Linux. This may just be a matter of familiarity, but I find it easier to get current versions of Ruby with Ubuntu than with Red Hat Enterprise Linux. 

This is based on my somewhat limited use, but it's my impression nonetheless. That's what keeps it from being a ten out of ten.

We use it for databases and applications. In the new model, we keep databases separate from applications. Currently, about 90% of our operations are running in Red Hat 8. Some systems are still on Red Hat 7, but those will be migrated off by the beginning of next year.

It's been great since we have it. It's been reliable and fast. We keep all the security agents, and we've been taken care of right away, and that's the improvement in our company. It's with the new RHEL. There's always something new, something good that works for us. 

Moreover, we might need to move workloads from the cloud in the US to China in the future.

As we're migrating and doing the Elite upgrade, which is an in-place upgrade, we find it great. We use it for databases, and we're testing it for applications. Some applications don't work, but some are functioning well. So far, it's been a positive experience.

Since I'm more focused on migrating, Leapp is awesome. We are able to do something that will work the way it's working.  There are no issues or breaks.

RHEL's knowledge base is great. It's very good. Especially when you try to open a case, it gives you all the options you need, so you don't have to wait for the case to be opened. You can get all the information you need right there.

Moreover, I am in the process of testing Leapp and Red Hat Insights. And then create our images from there rather than create MIs.

At the new company, we've been using it for three years. At my previous company,  we used it for over five years. Personally, I have been using it for almost eight to ten years.

We often have to go through people who have the same labels as us and who have the same knowledge base articles as us, which takes time. But they do it first; it's searching the knowledge way that I search. That I can do. That takes the time before. They do the payment. They sent me exactly what I had already found. And then we can go to the next level. That is taking a little bit more time that we can be a little bit better. So, the initial step of the support process could be improved. 

90% of people who open those bases are administrators who already look on the Internet for all these knowledge bases. So by the time we get there, we're gonna get the knowledge base back. And that's not helpful. 

Positive

I used to use HPUX and Solaris. We switched to RHEL because HPUX started looking like it was going away, so we started moving to Red Hat. We thought it was our best option. We tested different flavors of RHEL.

When it comes to provisioning and patching, we have a satellite server. We use a lot of Ansible. We are getting used to Ansible and Satellite servers. 

The initial setup wasn't complex, but since we wanted to make it easier to use, it became harder to make it work the way we wanted. Not out of the box, so we can just build a server that is ready to be deployed right away without any more interventions.

We use RHEL with AWS because it's easier for us to maintain since we create our own AMIs and we update that as we need it. So we don't need to follow their schedule until we get it more secure and more reliable for us.

Overall, I would rate the solution a ten out of ten. 

We had a lot of IBM AIX servers. We migrated a lot of them to Red Hat Enterprise Linux. We have a lot of VMs, and we have a few physical servers. Currently, we are moving all the Red Hat VMs to the cloud. There are 1,600 to 1,700 Red Hat VMs that we are currently running.

The main benefit is that it can be easily recovered and easily restored. It is on the VM. We can easily restore every image that we back up on the VM. If something happens, we can easily fix it. Support and maintenance are easy. The most common issues that happen with Red Hat Enterprise Linux are password restore issues. We can go and restore the passwords through the single-user mode. This feature is well-developed and good.

We are using Ansible for the most automations. We can push everything through Ansible. We are moving towards automation to make sure our system can be easily maintained, and we can recover, restore, and do the things that we want. We have 1,600 to 1,700 servers. We have Ansible Tower, and we have a few satellite servers and a lot of capsules to support Red Hat servers.

If anything is supported by Red Hat Enterprise Linux and the feature is available in Red Hat Satellite, we are able to install it on Red Hat Enterprise Linux. We are using Red Hat Satellite to install all the patches and all the packages, so if a feature is available, we can easily install it if it is supported.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has built-in security features for simplifying risk reduction and maintaining compliance. We are working with most of the security environments. Security is our main concern. We have zero tolerance when it comes to security. We are able to apply security rules and regulations within the Red Hat environment.

We are using Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7, and we normally look at how it can easily support the system. With Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7, we have a high-security system. We have a lot of features there. That is the main thing, but currently, we are moving from Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 to Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8. 

Red Hat Enterprise Linux Leapp and Red Hat Insights have been useful. RHEL Web Console is also helpful.

We have access to the Red Hat knowledge base. We have frequent meetings with Red Hat. Red Hat partners provided us with all the information and any kind of training.

We are using the features that are available with Red Hat Enterprise Linux and Ansible. As such, there are no specific features that we are looking for. 

We have frequent meetings with them. We have had some issues on the application side and the OS side for which we opened cases and discussed those concerns and questions in the meetings offered by Red Hat.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for almost 10 years.

Upgrades and migrations are ongoing processes to stay current. We are a big company. We always have migration going on. We always have the build process. Red Hat's presence keeps increasing in our environment. We are going to have about 2,500 Red Hat Enterprise Linux VMs in the next year.

If there are any concerns, we have a meeting with Red Hat, and they provide the required support. When we have any concerns or questions, they answer them. It is easy. I would rate their support a nine out of ten.

Positive

We have probably seen an ROI. Red Hat is getting better every day. 

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

There are multiple use cases, and I am mostly focused on information security. Before we promote an ACS policy to production, we should be able to test that build and see how that policy behaves for that build. We use Podman to build some test images and get them to our development box. Then we use commands that we scan against those images. That has been one of the major use cases. 

In the future, we'll move our automation program from an on-premises Windows server to a Linux server. Over a period of time, we want to move those applications to the cloud and OpenShift. Currently, we have many legacy applications that are still being run on Windows Server, and we use the title job scheduler for that. Once we mature and gain more confidence, we want to containerize those applications and move them to OpenShift and Linux.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux's most valuable features are the Podman and a lot of packages that come inbuilt as part of the regular package. Podman gives you the opportunity to build those images. Since it's a public registry, you cannot pull those images from a docker, and proxy blocks that. If we know how to recreate that scenario, we use Podman to recreate that image.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux should provide more training because many people are not very familiar with Linux's user interface. If it is made very similar to Windows and people can relate to it, they would be more comfortable.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for seven to eight years.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is a stable solution.

I have experience interacting with Red Hat support for ACS. The initial level of support is very minimal. They try to collect all the data, then go to developers or technical people, which usually takes time. So we don't get an immediate response. Hence, there is scope for improvement in Red Hat Enterprise Linux's customer support.

Raising a ticket and having somebody look into it takes time. I rate raising a ticket and addressing it a six to seven out of ten. However, we interact with a responsive relationship manager, who escalates and gets issues fixed. I rate this relationship manager an eight out of ten.

Neutral

Since we have the capability to test vulnerable images, we know much in advance what their impact will be. We can test ACS policies against those vulnerable images. That gives us early visibility instead of deploying that application and finding what is happening there. Using Red Hat Enterprise Linux and all associated components gives us that visibility into vulnerable images, and we can set policies based on whatever we see. So in terms of business impact, we avoid many vulnerabilities that get into the production.

We run some applications on the cloud, but they are not business-critical applications. We run all business-critical applications on-premises. We are not dependent on the cloud for business-critical applications. We are not locked with the vendor.

We use Qualys to scan the underlying node. We expect any critical vulnerabilities to be patched as early as possible. We have an enterprise policy wherein any business-critical vulnerabilities seen on business-critical applications or nodes need to be fixed within 30 days. If some running application is exposed to the internet, we want that to be prioritized. If vendors can prioritize a 30-day life cycle for critical vulnerabilities, that would really help many other organizations.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is the only option we are currently looking at. We don't want to go with Windows. We already have this ecosystem where we use OpenShift, and it's already integrated with ACS. So we would not like to go with any other different OS. Red Hat Enterprise Linux will integrate easily with the entire ecosystem.

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