Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Reviews

My main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) include day-to-day operations and a lot of production systems. That is mainly what we do.

When it comes to pain points, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps us solve various issues. A lot of our systems are proprietary, so we develop on the Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) system, making it hard to answer what Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) does that we couldn't do without it, because we build on top of it, and if we can't find a solution, we reach out to support for help.

I do appreciate the OpenShift product in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), and I am interested in the new feature, the MCP, which I found fascinating after seeing it yesterday.

We definitely use the Identity Management features in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a lot, especially the rollback features and primarily the RBAC features, which are the brains of the system right now, even though the projects I work on are locked down significantly, so we cannot use all the tools in the toolbox.

In my company's implementation of the zero-trust model, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) plays a role mainly in the identification process, along with other tools we embed with it, focusing on identification and scaling, including a lot of tokens.

I love the knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), which I use all the time because there is always something in there that can serve as a reference, guiding me or providing solutions to solve my problems. I often encounter the same solutions for issues I have seen before.

I have not tried either Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Image Builder or System Roles, but I plan on working with Image Builder as I think I signed up for it, though I am not certain if that is today or tomorrow.

I have not tried to work with AI workloads using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), but I recently attended a talk about that with the Agent AI, which was new to me, and I took snapshots and pictures, planning to introduce it to the team sometime this week.

Mitigating downtime with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is tough to assess because of patching, which is inconsistent sometimes. Other systems installed on top can sometimes break systems, but we resolve those issues as they arise.

I do not know how Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) can be improved because I have not played with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 10 yet. I am still learning as I go, having downloaded it and staged it, but I have not really tinkered with it yet.

I do not want any improvements in my workflow because new features are always coming out, which I appreciate. Each new release brings along something new that we work on implementing into our current pipeline.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for at least 15 years.

I have not experienced downtime, crashes, or performance issues with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). If there were any, they would likely be due to some type of tool installed on top that was not compatible with updated patches, but overall, out of the box, there are no problems.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales well with the growing needs of my company. We have upgraded from version 7 to 9 without problems, and the migration has been straightforward, although I think version 10 might have some features that are not compatible, but I am not completely certain.

My experience with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)'s customer service and technical support has been excellent. I love them and have no complaints.

From my point of view, the biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the support. I love the support because when I put in a ticket or reach out, it is always excellent, and they never leave me waiting for days, providing feedback promptly.

Before choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I think my company was using another solution, possibly something like AIX or another Unix flavor, but I am not entirely certain what it was.

I do not know why they migrated to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), as that was before I started. I just know there are still some legacy systems out there.

The deployment experience with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) depends on your knowledge or experience. We do a lot of kickstarts, making deployment easy, but if something needs to be done manually, it might take a while. However, so far, it has been pretty much streamlined, so we are happy.

From my point of view, the biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the support. I love the support because when I put in a ticket or reach out, it is always excellent, and they never leave me waiting for days, providing feedback promptly.

We have considered other solutions like Ubuntu, but right now, we are still using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) wins because currently, everybody is familiar with it and they are happy with it. We prefer not to fix what is not broken, so we are content and happy with what we have.

I have not done a major version upgrade with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and Ansible Automation Platform, but that is in the pipeline, likely next quarter.

My experience using Ansible overall is good so far. I am used to doing it the old way, but now that we finally have an Ansible platform, it is better than when I was running playbooks manually from my workstation.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) since version 4, having used it for a long time with my current baseline systems ranging from version 7 to 9, as we try to migrate over to version 10.

I have used Ansible as well.

I know OpenShift is expensive and while I just put in requests, if they fill their budget, I am happy because that is above me.

My overall review rating for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is 9 out of 10.

My main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are telco applications.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps me solve my pain points with support.

I manage my Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems using Red Hat Satellite, which helps me a lot to manage the new patches we integrate, making our job very easy.

The upgrade or migration process for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is acceptable. Migrating from Red Hat 7 to 8 was somewhat complex; however, 7 to 9 and 8 to 9 migrations are acceptable. While we have not yet migrated from 9 to 10, we have a plan and I registered for a session on Red Hat 10 today, so we are planning to migrate all our Red Hat 6 servers in production to 9 and 10.

I assess Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)'s built-in security features, including SELinux and Pacemaker, by saying these two features help considerably to manage and keep the system secure. On top of that, we are using firewalls, so we feel very confident without worrying about the future.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps to mitigate downtime and data losses since we use the Pacemaker cluster, which helps considerably. As a Telco, we cannot tolerate downtime issues.

From a business perspective, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is high in price, which has made our management less interested recently, not because of instability. However, sometimes we try to adapt some open-source alternatives such as Rocky Linux.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for 15 years.

I assess the stability and reliability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as nine out of ten. I have not seen any limitations of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) yet.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales very well with my organization.

I evaluate customer service and technical support as a six out of ten.

Neutral

I did not face challenges in deploying Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) on-premises or on the cloud since I was very enthusiastic about it. I started learning Red Hat Linux back at university about 6, 7, 8, or 9 years ago, and a number of people were also interested at that time, so I did not see any challenges for using or adopting it.

I have been involved in upgrading Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) on-premises and tested something in the cloud, but it is not in production. On-premises, we are performing upgrades almost every day.

We are already using Red Hat Satellite and Ansible, which we have in place. Probably in the future, we will consider VMware, but I do not have a specific plan for that right now.

As an engineer, I cannot calculate the ROI in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), but management has all the visibility, and they are getting the ROI while we are satisfied with that.

What stands out to me in the evaluation process for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is that it is positive.

My advice to other organizations looking to use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is that they should use it. Everything is acceptable with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) because patching is available and management is available, so I do not think anything additional is needed from a basic standpoint. I gave this review a rating of 9 out of 10.

My use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) at my company include application servers, infrastructure servers, web servers, and virtually every server type.

The features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that I appreciate most are ease of automation and ease of deployment, particularly because we also use Satellite for deployment management. It scales well.

These features benefit my company by resulting in less time spent working on servers and issues and more uptime.

I have not identified any immediate areas for improvement in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), as I cannot think of anything that there is not already a product for.

We have encountered some issues with the high availability clustering lately, and it seems that could use some refinement.

The deployment process for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has been somewhat rough around the edges to get it up and running with Kickstart, but once I have it dialed in, it is fantastic. The documentation for Kickstart can leave something to be desired sometimes, so that may be an area of improvement.

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

I have not experienced any downtime, crashes, or performance issues with the platform that were not caused by some kind of misconfiguration. The platform itself is solid.

I have been able to scale and expand usage as my needs have grown.

I assess the knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as outstanding. The Red Hat Learning Subscription is great, and usually when we enter a ticket with Red Hat support, we can get a subject matter expert to help us resolve our issues.

I would rate the customer service and technical support as probably an eight out of ten. Sometimes when we enter a ticket, it takes some time to get to the level of technical resource we need, but once we get that resource, they almost always help us get a problem solved.

When I came in, our department was already heavily using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

The deployment process for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has been somewhat rough around the edges to get it up and running with Kickstart.

From a technical point of view, the biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the stability and uptime.

I have worked with Ubuntu and CentOS in the past while using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), but I do not particularly care for Ubuntu. I prefer Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) wins over Ubuntu for me by being a more stable enterprise platform and more mature.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps me solve pain points by being more reliable and easier to work on than Windows. It is simply good at what it does.

The features in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that I use to navigate my security risks include Satellite, which helps us keep everything patched and up to date and keep package-related CVEs down. We are looking at doing OpenSCAP scanning with Satellite, and we use Ansible for automation, deploying configurations and packages. We are also looking at implementing OpenShift, as our department has OpenShift.

I have worked with System Roles and have used Image Builder before, finding it useful for tightening a gold image and standardizing deployments.

I use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) only on-premises in my department. Some other departments might use it in the cloud. I do not know that my department has a cloud strategy yet, but I know we are exploring alternatives to VMware, so that could happen in the near future.

My department does not have a hybrid cloud yet, but as far as on-premises is concerned, Satellite helps us with patch management and controlling what packages we present through content views. We build systems through Kickstart, so it helps with deploying systems.

I have worked a little with Lightspeed for AI workloads with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) but have not really scratched the surface too much yet.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) plays a critical role in my company's implementation of zero trust by tightening down configurations when we join a system to Active Directory through SSSD, locking down what users and groups can touch a given system.

We have used Leapp to do a major version upgrade using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), but we have not coupled that with Ansible Automation Platform yet.

I have been using Ansible Automation Platform almost as long as I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL); I used Tower before it was Ansible Automation Platform, and it is incredibly useful. It is invaluable for deploying systems, standardizing server builds, deploying compliance, and hardening. I have not found a use case it is not useful for.

We are working toward using or building Ansible jobs to help with our regulatory audits and evidence collection, and Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) plays a significant role in our compliance and auditing workflows.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped to mitigate downtime and lower risk with capabilities such as its stability. If you standardize and deploy a system and have it tightened, you tend not to have unexpected issues, or the issues you do have are ones that you would have seen many times and can easily remediate.

I rate my overall experience with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as a nine out of ten.

My main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are primarily for our production servers where we run our ERP on RHEL, and some of our developers are using RHEL as delivered through Horizon as a VDI for their development. I also use it personally.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps me solve pain points such as stability and multi-user access, making it easier to apply user permissions. The integrations with other environments are excellent.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) supports my hybrid cloud strategy by providing the ability to do a common build across everything, and while it is outside of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), using Ansible makes the uniformity between all of the systems on-premises and in the cloud much easier compared to Windows.

In the implementation of the Zero Trust model, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) plays a crucial role as we run a lot of CyberArk, and all of the brokers and the PSM servers are running on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), making it our infrastructure for identity and access management (IAM).

In managing regulatory compliance, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) plays a vital role as audit is always asking for a sudoers list from our Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) servers, and my ability to collect the data easily and then deliver it to the audit department is valuable.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped to mitigate downtime and lower risk primarily from a stability standpoint as we have fewer issues with those servers. The redundancy and the ability to run some backup software across the Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) platforms are also beneficial.

We actually do not use any of the features such as Identity Management, Lightspeed, or Satellite in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL); instead, we are using Ansible. However, in discussions with some of the business people, we are looking at implementing Satellite.

While the features are great, making the documentation easier to navigate would be phenomenal.

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

I rate the stability and reliability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a ten out of ten; I have not experienced any downtime, crashes, or performance issues.

For scalability, I also rate it ten out of ten; it is easy to scale out with no complaints.

I evaluate the customer service and technical support of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as great; I have had to open tickets and received prompt responses with no unnecessary delays. The information I need to get it fixed when I need it has been excellent.

From one to ten, I rate the customer service and technical support a ten.

Prior to adopting Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I was using open-source Linux and Windows.

My experience deploying Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is very straightforward; I have not run into any problems, and it is simple and very straightforward.

I have seen a return on investment with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) particularly in terms of minimizing downtime by moving some of our older systems running on open-source versions of Linux over to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). This shift has allowed us to get support and limit our downtime, which is crucial in our manufacturing sector where if the plant is down, they do not make money.

The pricing, setup cost, and licensing have been fair; I think it offers a good value, and I do not feel it is overpriced. You pay for what you get.

While using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), we looked at other solutions such as Ubuntu and SUSE, but there was no match.

We do not have any AI workloads.

I have not used Lightspeed either.

The knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has pretty good documentation, although it can sometimes be hard to find and navigate.

Overall, I would give Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a ten and my advice to other companies considering it is to implement it. Move forward and implement it because the support, community, software, and product are phenomenal. I rate this review a ten out of ten.

I'm working on OpenShift in a Red Hat environment with Red Hat Linux. I'm working on a Linux platform, using the product as Linux, and the product I'm using is OpenShift.

I'm using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL); that's correct.

We are working on microservices, so we are using OpenShift for the deployment of the application's microservices approach. OpenShift provides good features to create Docker files and deployment. It's a unique product where we are not very worried about the Docker file and repository configuration; everything is in one place. We only need to be worried about the source code. It is a good product. Even in the market, people are likely using all solutions from one vendor. The speed of resolution of problems is also very smooth. Sometimes, if there is any technical issue, the Red Hat team also works in parallel and provides a solution very frequently and quickly. Overall, even though there are multiple products for Kubernetes available, like AWS, GKE, and AKS, OpenShift is more user-friendly, and everything is in-house. People are very happy to use it and are adopting it. Support-wise, they are not looking at multiple vendors. Only one vendor will fix all kinds of issues.

Security requirements are useful for me in choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in the cloud; it has also fulfilled security-related use cases. I am very happy, and the features Red Hat provides are very useful for real-time scenarios.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is very easy to use, and the support services are also very good from the Red Hat side. This is why people are moving to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). Upgradation, security, and everything are upgraded from time to time. As a client and as a vendor, we are adopting and using the enhancement approach that Red Hat provides from time to time.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) makes it easier to manage my hybrid cloud environment because it is not much different from what other vendors will provide. It is very useful. From what I know and have observed, for upgradation, security, other patches, or other versions, they are enhancing and providing quick solutions and new features. It is very useful, and this is why we prefer it. They also timely provide us with documentation to upgrade the older version to a new version. The documentation part is also very good, and if we upgrade from a lower version to a higher version, it is very simple and will update the cluster within a second. I feel that OpenShift is better than other vendors.

I'm not feeling much difference with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and any other vendor because Red Hat is OpenShift. Only their security features and new functionality are managed by Red Hat. If we are not aware of something, they will document it and provide guidance and training. It is easy to understand and implement in real-time. This is the difference we are getting with other vendors: training and documentation. But as a production or any implementation, because they are also providing content and documentation, implementation-wise, for a new feature or new technology, if we are looking into it on the Linux platform, we will integrate easily and implement our application easily into Red Hat.

The AI part is coming into the picture as generative AI and agentic AI; multiple parts are there. Security might be the biggest challenge for AI right now. Red Hat needs to enhance for the AI-related applications because sometimes it is an open kind of environment, like ChatGPT. Privacy needs to be maintained. Overall, from a security perspective, whatever they have provided, I'm satisfied with. Going forward, the AI thing is increasing, and data leakage may happen later on. Red Hat needs to consider all the parameters related to AI, and if they are providing any solution, it needs to be very secure because right now, people are creating AI-related applications, but from a security perspective, there is not much. If they consider that and provide a solution, they might get more value.

Functionality-wise, I feel that Red Hat has done a tremendous job. Functionality-wise, I will not suggest anything because they have covered whatever their competitors have. Red Hat also has a similar approach, and they have a solution. The only consideration part right now is the AI security kind of application. No other company is also providing any fixed solution as of now, a generic and fixed solution for it. If people are working with a security perspective, then it is better, and Red Hat might be a leader for the others.

I have been working with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for around three years.

The technical support from Red Hat is the best part, and I am totally satisfied.

I confirm that I have experience with IBM Linux, and it is the same functionality with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

I have worked on IBM Linux with different other vendors, so I feel that documentation, training, and perspective, Red Hat is much better than any other Linux. That is the key. Support-wise also, if anybody is facing a challenge, the support system is very reachable, and they will support immediately.

I confirm that I have experience with IBM Linux, and it is the same functionality with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

The initial setup for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is very simple.

Price-wise, I feel there is a difference. Red Hat will charge a bit more. But they are providing value, so it is fine if people are using a very secure environment and an in-house solution. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is very useful, but pricing-wise, there is a difference from other vendors. It might be because they are providing an all-in-house solution; that is the reason. I don't know the exact reason, but that is the thing I have considered.

I can provide a rating of ten for the scalability part of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

Price-wise, I feel there is a difference. Red Hat will charge a bit more. But they are providing value, so it is fine if people are using a very secure environment and an in-house solution. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is very useful, but pricing-wise, there is a difference from other vendors. It might be because they are providing an all-in-house solution; that is the reason. I don't know the exact reason, but that is the thing I have considered.

Majorly, the company will provide a portal for Red Hat, and everything is managed by the market portal. The costing part is taken care of, but for estimation, calculation, and suggestion, we are suggesting which one is better and which one is not. The final call depends on the manager and discussions with multiple factors, and even the client, regarding which cloud or which Linux to use.

Majorly, I have worked on the AWS and Azure platforms for deployment with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

It is very simple to migrate from the cloud to on-prem with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). Upgradation has no problem. Even with migration, we need to follow some rules and concepts. In that situation also, they are using Linux. So, we can deploy the same into Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) also. We are not seeing any major changes or differences for the migration from other Linux to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). It is the same. No problem with the migration.

It is not my part, but I participated sometimes in the Red Hat Linux Image Builder. I was not creating any images. But cloud-wise, there are also provisioners which will provide specific services for Red Hat, and in it, it will build the different applications with the Red Hat OS. It is done by the developers, but I feel that it is very simple and is done by the provisioner facility. It will also provide it with the help of Ansible, with the help of Terraform, and multiple other tools.

I don't feel any pain points with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), but it will provide a good support system and whatever functionality is majorly in the market, it will also provide. It is not very far from the market. Whatever the market has, it will provide. I feel that it is a good product.

It is very good with the knowledge base offered by Red Hat; whatever product we are using, they are also well-documented, and they will provide that before using anything. It is fine. There is no need to provide unnecessary documentation. Whatever they are providing is more than sufficient for the implementation. Whenever any developer, support team, or DevOps engineer is facing any challenge, they raise a request with the support team, and they will provide an immediate solution. They will also provide a customized solution. It is better support-wise and document-wise. I feel there are no suggestions for enhancement or anything additional.

I don't see any kind of gap regarding how Red Hat helps to mitigate downtime or lower risk, but I feel some solutions with Terraform or something similar are not providing proper documentation. I have observed that one time. But when we raised a request, they immediately provided a solution. With a new technology, like AI coming into the picture, for the pros and cons and how to implement and what kind of applications it is supporting, they need to provide very crisp and simple documentation. This way, as a support team, DevOps team, or any developers, they will create their applications and deploy them seamlessly into production.

I can consider Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as a rating of nine point five, and zero point five percent is an enhancement that is needed everywhere. I would rate it as nine. My overall review rating is ten.

I work with the on-premises deployment of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

In our organization, we are using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for deployment, scheduling tasks, and automation tasks as part of our day-to-day activities. We find Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) to be a very flexible operating system, meaning we can utilize this machine for years without concerns about it hanging or any issues.

Currently, we have started using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in a hybrid environment, specifically with AWS cloud along with on-premises deployments. We are in the phase of deployment and are just beginning to utilize it on the cloud.

One specific pain point that Red Hat helped us solve is automation, particularly through Ansible. It is a powerful tool that enables us to effectively automate tasks, which is incredibly helpful in our operations.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) does help me save time, especially with automation tools like Ansible. We can execute tasks and then focus on other activities, which significantly enhances our productivity.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped mitigate downtime and lower risks in the banking sector. We previously were not using cloud but have begun transitioning to a hybrid environment to enhance security and productivity, especially given our experiences with on-premises products.

I have previously used Ubuntu and CentOS as different solutions. However, since Ubuntu is not much familiar in our organization, we moved to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). CentOS has already been decommissioned and merged into Red Hat, so for the past seven years, we have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). Before that, we were using Ubuntu, both in college and school days, and I have worked with different flavors and also on Oracle.

The key difference I see between Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and Ubuntu is mainly in the support offered. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) provides 24x7 support for any critical issues we face. As we are working in the banking sector, having that support is crucial. In contrast, with Ubuntu or CentOS, we do not have timely support; we need to raise tickets and face delays in deployment and production, which is a significant drawback.

I assess the knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as very good. The training sessions are beneficial and it is totally open source, allowing us to access official sites for learning and documentation. I continuously learn with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and find plenty of free documents available for study. Compared to other operating systems like Ubuntu, there is not as much documentation, making it easier to learn using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) official resources.

The most important security features in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) stem from its open-source nature, which allows us to easily understand what happens within the system and identify potential loopholes. Additionally, SELinux is a powerful security module we use to block external threats. It also features a firewall, encryption, and uses advanced algorithms like SALT and SH5, making it difficult for malicious entities to crack the system. In essence, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has robust security features.

I have used the Image Builder of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) but not the system roles. Image Builder has proven useful for creating images.

The Image Builder is very easy and simplifies tasks, significantly reducing our workload. It saves us a lot of time compared to what we used to do previously, thereby boosting our productivity.

I have not identified any specific improvements needed in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), but I would recommend reducing the cost of certification training. This would allow more people, including students, to access global certifications and deepen their interaction with the systems. Overall, I am satisfied with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and find it smooth, even as I start using newer versions like Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 10, which features AI functions.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for the last seven years.

I find the stability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) to be very good. Over the years, we have not encountered any significant issues, which is a key reason we have transitioned to using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

I find Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) to be scalable. Since much of it is open-source, we do not incur costs for various functionalities, reducing expenses while still being scalable.

The customer service and technical support provided by Red Hat are very good. They respond promptly, even in off-hours, such as at 3:00 AM. We have no regrets about our decision to shift to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

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

Positive

The initial setup of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is very straightforward due to my prior experience. I did not face any issues, and the support from the Red Hat subscription plan has been helpful throughout the process.

I understand the pricing aspect. We are using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as a free-of-cost OS, but we do require a subscription for support. While I am not involved at the management level, I know there is a cost for the subscription plan that provides 24x7 support, though I do not know the exact amount.

The business value of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is significant in comparison to other Linux distributions I have used, particularly because we work with banking clients that operate around the clock. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) provides instant response for support, allowing us to resolve issues quickly, which is crucial for maintaining productivity and operations without downtime.

I definitely recommend Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) to other organizations considering it for their environment. I also suggest students download Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) to learn Linux instead of opting for Ubuntu or CentOS.

Apart from Ansible, I have previously worked with OpenShift from Red Hat. While we are not currently using it, I have found it to be flexible and beneficial. However, we are mainly focused on AWS for now.

I would give Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as a product or solution a rating of 9.5 out of 10.

I am a platform engineer, so I help build out the infrastructure for app owners to use. I manage the OS.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) provides us with a standardized Linux that has controlled package versioning so that there's no scope for issues when we're applying patches. It's pretty stable and gives us stable releases.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) benefits my company overall because compared to other operating systems, it has a lower TCO. It's lighter weight than Microsoft Windows and simpler to use in some aspects, making it easy to use without having to worry about a graphical interface and similar elements.

The features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) I appreciate the most include the management, specifically that Red Hat Satellite is nice. This management feature is great because it centralizes what I need to do to keep an eye on all the systems in the environment. 

There are some features of Red Hat, not just Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), that have a higher cost of entry, which prevents us from trying out things such as Ansible Automation Platform due to its high cost. We are still deciding if we're going to go that route.

There are some positive aspects to the consistent packaging of Red Hat, which is great. However, there are times when the latest and most exciting releases available online are not included in the version of Red Hat that we have. For example, the version included in Red Hat can sometimes feel outdated compared to the open-source versions that are currently available.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for 15 years.

Its stability and reliability are very good.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped us to mitigate downtime and lower risks, not necessarily due to its nature but because we design our systems to be highly available. We have multiple nodes and we only bring down some nodes, leaving others up, depending on the application, which sometimes dictates how it becomes highly available.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales pretty effectively with the growing needs of my company.

They are pretty knowledgeable. If they don't know it, they know someone who does, so they can always route me and my questions to whomever is able to answer.

I would evaluate the customer service and technical support of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as good, although sometimes opening a case and waiting hours seems excessive, depending on the severity of the issue. It may be a P2 to us, but a P2 with a 4 to 8 hour response seems too long sometimes, and they won't escalate. However, once all that's completed, I would still rate them at least a solid eight.

Positive

My experience with deploying Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) involves lots of scripting and golden images, but there's a newer version of creating the images, and I'm looking forward to using that.

We have a hybrid environment with on-premises and cloud deployments.

We use Red Hat Satellite for provisioning and patching, and I am satisfied with that. 

Upgrading or migrating Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) from on-premises to the cloud went mostly well. However, there were some caveats to consider when moving to the cloud that we hadn't anticipated. For instance, some migration tools had hardcoded values that shouldn't have been fixed in that way. We did encounter some issues that required remediation, but for the most part, the process has gone smoothly.

Our upgrade or migration plans to stay current involve evaluating Red Hat 9 now, and we will be evaluating Red Hat 10 afterwards. I don't think there are any other Red Hat products with a major upgrade upcoming. We are still using Red Hat Satellite, currently at version 6.16, and it needs to get upgraded to the next version pretty soon. The version of Ansible within Red Hat can sometimes feel way behind the version of Ansible that's available open source. Some migration tools hardcoded certain values that shouldn't have been hardcoded.

The biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for me is its consistent nature, as it has stable releases. I don't have worries when patching because everything is backwards and forwards compatible depending on the version.

We don't consider other solutions in our company that do the same thing as Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), nor did we use other solutions before choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). We stick with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), and if anything comes up that looks different from our OS, we heavily push back because we've established a relationship with Red Hat, and we're not looking to introduce a new flavor of Linux and a new support model after all the training we've had already.

My assessment of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)'s built-in security features for simplifying risk reduction and maintaining compliance is that while I haven't used OpenSCAP much, the documentation of their CVEs and vulnerabilities is pretty easy to use through the website. It helps me identify if a CVE is applicable or not applicable, which is useful in case an event occurs and I need to research its impact and remediation.

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

My main use case for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) at work involves using the EKS Kubernetes cluster on AWS, which is hosted on managed nodes based on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 9.4.

On a daily basis, I manage these nodes, execute commands to check connectivity, investigate network issues, and gather metrics such as CPU and RAM usage. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is integral to my daily work, as I regularly log into these nodes to execute commands, check network issues, and monitor capacity.

One of the best features Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) offers is the premium support, which is particularly noteworthy in version 9.4. If we encounter an issue, we can contact the support team anytime, and a technical support representative works with us to find the root cause. The support team helps us find and solve issues quickly and effectively.

While many features in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are common to all Linux distributions, RHEL stands out due to its vast community and comprehensive feature set. Red Hat has the largest market share among Linux distributions, and its exceptional support distinguishes it from other distributions. Additionally, it is renowned for its stability, security, ease of use, and community engagement.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has positively impacted our organization by improving our environment, enhancing security, and enabling the implementation of best practices. We chose RHEL 9.4 for its stability, security, and excellent support. When running our Kubernetes cluster on AWS, RHEL proves to be an excellent choice for deploying our applications in a secure environment.

Using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 9.4, we enhance our security through features such as SELinux, which significantly improves our environment's security and stability. We have used RHEL-based nodes since the inception of our organization and the My Vodafone app project in Greece, contributing to improved security, performance, and stability throughout our operations.

The primary area for improvement in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) relates to accessibility and training resources rather than the operating system itself. Red Hat should provide more training opportunities and make learning materials more accessible to users and customers.

Specifically, the documentation should be more accessible, and Red Hat should consider offering free training or virtual machines beyond just ISO files. A free virtual machine on the cloud would be valuable for people to try and become familiar with RHEL, as installing a virtual machine from an ISO can be complex. A pre-installed RHEL virtual machine would make it easier for people to learn and experience the distribution.

I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) eight out of ten because while it's an excellent score, there is room for improvement in accessibility. Unlike other distributions such as Ubuntu or Arch Linux that are readily available, Red Hat should create more opportunities for users to try their system through easily accessible virtual machines on their website or other public platforms.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for eight years, starting before my career as a DevOps and system admin engineer.

The scalability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for my organization is exceptional, and it handles growth and increased demand effectively. The support system particularly enhances its scalability capabilities.

The customer support of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) deserves a perfect 10 out of 10, as it is one of the most valuable aspects of the system.

Positive

I did not use a different solution before Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). We started with RHEL 7, upgraded to 8, and are now using version 9.4.

The pricing, setup cost, and licensing process for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is straightforward, and I have not encountered any challenges in conducting these operations.

My advice for others considering Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is to strongly consider it as one of the most secure, stable, and efficient options compared to other distributions. I have always chosen RHEL as my first choice without evaluating other options. I rate this solution 8 out of 10.

In my current role as an Enterprise Systems Engineer, my daily responsibilities involve provisioning Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) servers, dealing with all the assets, users, storage, troubleshooting whenever there is an issue, and everything in between.

The business value of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), especially in a production environment, is highlighted by response time when I encounter an issue. When my production is down, every additional minute of unplanned downtime means a fine from the regulator. In situations like that, if I have major downtime and support responds to my emergency in fifteen minutes, that is much better than a response in thirty or forty-five minutes. Beyond support, I appreciate Red Hat's commitment to security; my servers require third-party packages for my applications. The fact that Red Hat tests every package before adding it to their repositories gives me peace of mind regarding security. If any problems arise with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) packages, I am eligible for support, and they often provide analysis and patches. Therefore, the three biggest selling points for me are patching, security, and support.

On a scale from one to ten, I would rate the technical support for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) at nine out of ten.

My major appreciation is how quickly they respond to calls; in my experience, it is much faster than all of the other major OEMs we have, such as Microsoft, Oracle, and IBM. Their response time is roughly the same as IBM, which is far better than the other OEMs I have. Especially if you raise a severity one case, they will respond in less than an hour, and you can always get an engineer on a Teams or Zoom call to actually see the problem you are having, rather than just sending commands to collect log files, uploading them to the portal, and waiting for their analysis. It is much easier, especially when you are in a crisis, to have someone on call with you.

In terms of provisioning and patching Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems, I utilize Red Hat Satellite servers that essentially collect all of the patches advertised by Red Hat. We store these on-premises on a distribution server, the same server as the Satellite server, but for automation, we currently use Ansible to trigger the updates we want applied to the servers.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) makes it easier to manage my hybrid cloud environment in some aspects, especially in terms of patching. Around Red Hat Satellite, I can onboard any server I have as long as I maintain a direct line of sight in terms of network. However, for comprehensive management of both private and public clouds, I honestly have not interacted with a solution from Red Hat that allows for that. I might not be aware of such a solution, but I have not experienced it.

My initial setup with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is straightforward; it is not substantially more difficult to deploy any Red Hat-based systems than it is for other Linux or open-source systems. The process is essentially the same, but with the backup of support, if something goes wrong, having enterprise support allows for quick assistance. Overall, I find it somewhat easier to deploy on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

The upgrades and migration on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are also straightforward; Red Hat provides a step-by-step guide with instructions and commands for upgrading servers from Red Hat seven to eight, and from eight to nine. They even include potential issues you might face and how to resolve them, which is very helpful.

I have not interacted with either Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Image Builder or Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) System Roles.

I do not have an answer ready for how Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) can be improved; I need to give it some thought.

Regarding deploying clusters on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I do not have experience with that either.

I agree that deploying clusters was quite complex in the past, but I have not interacted with that particular product.

Overall, I have been working with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for approximately four years.

I find Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scalable, though it is not necessarily with regard to Red Hat-specific tools; it is more about open source and Linux tooling in general. For instance, whether creating a cluster or using Pacemaker, it is the same package I run on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as on Oracle or SUSE. It is not really Red Hat-specific.

Recently, I had a significant incident on one of my servers; although I spent an entire day troubleshooting it, Red Hat support helped us bring it up within three hours of the call. Considering that I experienced financial loss during the downtime, I would say the ROI is definitely there, though it might depend on the industry.

My initial setup with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is straightforward; it is not substantially more difficult to deploy any Red Hat-based systems than it is for other Linux or open-source systems. The process is essentially the same, but with the backup of support, if something goes wrong, having enterprise support allows for quick assistance. Overall, I find it somewhat easier to deploy on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

Regarding return on investment, I think it would be difficult for me to justify, but I would say it exists. In the finance industry, support is key. Recently, I had a significant incident on one of my servers; although I spent an entire day troubleshooting it, Red Hat support helped us bring it up within three hours of the call. Considering that I experienced financial loss during the downtime, I would say the ROI is definitely there, though it might depend on the industry.

The pricing for Red Hat's Premier support is on the higher side.

I do not really see advantages that Red Hat's competitors have over them; for most of the products I interact with in the Red Hat ecosystem, they are mostly available on almost all other distributions. While Red Hat does offer security and support advantages, most other items are similar across different distributions.

My company uses Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) on a private cloud, but I have a mixture of both; I have some of my servers on VMware and others on Azure.

Approximately, us admins and application support teams consist of a team of thirty people. Others normally access through whatever application is running there, meaning that if it is a web application running on Apache, end users will access it through the web portal but not directly to the server.

My system lifecycle practices in the cloud are similar to my on-premises or virtualization practices; it is the same template in terms of how often we patch and perform vulnerability analysis. The lifecycle is pretty much the same, only that I have only test environments on the public cloud and production on my private cloud.

In East Africa, I see that Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is popular among financial institutions, but non-financial institutions tend to prefer more open distributions due to cost. For financial institutions, security and support are key selling points, which makes Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) quite popular.

The knowledge base offered by Red Hat features documentation that is quite easy to digest and organized well, allowing users to find articles based on topic. They provide descriptions of what you are dealing with and any commands necessary to get particular functionalities working; overall, they are doing a good job with documentation.

There is no exact limitation when integrating Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) with other products or third-party solutions; they do not discourage running other applications on their systems. Essentially, the same capability available on a supported version of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) can also run on an unsupported version and on any other distribution besides Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). Therefore, I do not see either an advantage or disadvantage there.

My overall review rating for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is nine out of ten.

Our main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) include having servers all around for storage and processing, specifically for compute processing.

The best feature of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that I appreciate is that it provides consistent configuration setups with step-by-step configuration, which is easier. When configuring a server, what previously took at least a 24-hour turnaround time now takes only 30 minutes to one hour.

I am satisfied with the management experience and normally choose Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) when there is an option between it and other solutions. I have been involved in RHEL upgrades or migrations from many years ago, approximately 14 to 18 years back. Currently, everything is easier as upgrades and patches come as a package.

Regarding built-in security features, maintaining compliance is handled at the architect's level during configuration setups. While the service provider handles access level security, configuration compliances need to be managed by the architect.

The upgrade and migration process in AWS is straightforward - I can easily increase the number of processors through hot migration, which can be done while the system is running without requiring shutdown. RHEL has helped mitigate downtime and lower risk with negligible system interruptions.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) could be improved with more shared storage capabilities. For example, I have multiple RHEL instances, and enhanced storage sharing would be helpful for transferring data between servers.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for almost 12 years.

I assess the stability and reliability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as very stable, with negligible downtime, crashes, or performance issues.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales efficiently with the growing needs of my organization as it is one of the managed shared services. When we check the scalability option while configuring, it manages everything automatically without requiring separate actions. I have expanded usage, and the process has been smooth with zero downtime.

I haven't had the opportunity to evaluate customer service and technical support because we address any issues through AWS since it's a managed service.

Positive

Prior to adopting Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I was not using another solution to address similar needs.

I manage Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems for provisioning and patching through AWS, which handles the patching at the service provider level. Provisioning is easy because I can modify configurations, such as the number of processors and other parameters.

The deployment model for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is cloud. Security requirements were a consideration in choosing RHEL in the cloud, as AWS provides most of the security features.

I have seen a return on investment with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as the prices have been reduced since we implemented a shared environment.

I cannot speak to licensing because we are using managed services from AWS. Regarding pricing, setup cost, and licensing, all costs come from AWS on a pay-as-you-go basis. We get charged when the service is up; otherwise, there is no cost.

Before selecting Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I considered something similar to VMware. These were the two options I chose between.

My advice to other organizations considering Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is that it's easy to use and a reliable service. It has been consistently at the top in this industry for ages and has its own strengths. I would recommend it as a first choice.

On a scale of one to ten, I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as eight or nine out of ten.