Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Reviews

We run all of our servers on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), specifically RHEL 8, and that's the production OS for all the servers in our farm.

The features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) streamline many things for us. Everything feels streamlined, smooth to use, and easy to operate, making it almost invisible without stressing about issues on the OS level. As essentially a sysadmin level engineer, I really appreciate the package manager. It's simple and easy to use, being the most straightforward part of using Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

I don't know how Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) can be improved. As a sysadmin level worker, everything I need to do, RHEL has been able to perform for me. I don't have a specific use case where I wish I had additional features, so I can't provide feedback on that. I'm not sure about how Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) could maximize or enhance any features. I don't really know anything Red Hat specific that's positive or negative that I can speak on. I'm not certain if Red Hat could smooth out the migration process from CentOS to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). I think it's more internal stuff that needs to be ironed out rather than Red Hat having issues.

I've been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for around three to four years now.

There have been no issues with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) stability and reliability. We haven't experienced any OS level reliability issues.

The scalability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has been excellent. Our recent hurdle was getting off of CentOS, but the scalability hasn't been an issue for us. It's been smooth sailing, just requiring the bulk work of migrating thousands of servers.

I haven't engaged with customer support at Red Hat for any help.

Positive

I did not consider another solution before choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

I'm not entirely sure at the moment about Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) upgrade or migration plans for what's ahead of us. We're just looking into the short term right now.

Once our team got comfortable with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), we purchased Red Hat Learning on the side. After our team was trained on Red Hat through the Red Hat Learning subscription, the combined learning experience provided by Red Hat delivered many technical skills needed to be a comfortable sysadmin.

Everything has been running smoothly with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). I don't have any previous criticisms that RHEL specifically has solved in our use case. I'm not well-versed in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) built-in security features, so I can't comment on that aspect. I can't say if it has helped to mitigate downtime or lower risks specifically. Everything's so smooth with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that it's not something we really think about. We worry about other things rather than the OS level. I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 10 out of 10. I have not purchased Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) on the AWS marketplace.

My main use cases involve using it to run our Ansible automation platform and various workloads, depending on what Development decides based on the project. We also use it for our Kubernetes clusters.

The features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that I appreciate the most are focused on stability. It is a reliable system that I can depend on more than anything else. That stability benefits my company by providing more uptime and more satisfied gamers.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps us solve pain points related to stability and documentation. It is very easy to find solutions to problems or access official documentation, whereas with other Debian-based distributions, one often finds themselves searching through random forums.

Regarding built-in security features for risk reduction and compliance maintenance, some features are straightforward when following standards and installation profiles. However, the development side frequently mentions challenges with SELinux, as it is more difficult to understand and somewhat esoteric. Some features are very well-developed and easily understood, while others are more complex to implement.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped to mitigate downtime and lower risks. While there is not much technical difference between RHEL and Oracle Linux, compared to other alternatives, it provides benefits.

We manage our systems for provisioning and patching using Ansible automation controller for patches and mirror repositories as needed.

What is lacking is better FS support natively in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). It has many nice features, however, XFS is becoming outdated. That is the major improvement that would be relatively easy to implement, perhaps around version 11. Fedora has already introduced it, so it is in the pipeline.

When it comes to its stability and reliability, it is great.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales fine with the growing needs of my company. I do not see much difference between RHEL and any other real distribution in those terms. 

As far as scalability, it is all Linux at the end of the day and will scale equally. The management tools and features on top of it provide the value-add, but regarding the base operating system, I do not see much difference.

We do not use customer service and technical support frequently. It is more about getting that checkbox for insurance, compliance, or whatever regulation we need to follow. 

If I had to rate the customer support, I would give it an eight as it is quite good. 

Positive

My experience deploying Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has evolved. In the past, it used to be more complicated, however, with current development tools and methodologies, it is far easier. Using Packer and initialization files that build every time, it functions smoothly.

My team deploys the solution on-premise, and we have varying departments and organizations for on-prem.

From my perspective, I have seen a return on investment while using this platform. It is beneficial to have that stability and reliable package repositories that we depend on, rather than using something more open-source and community-driven. There is definitely a good return.

My experience with the pricing, setup costs, and licensing has been satisfactory. It aligns with business expectations.

I consider all distributions before or while using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), however, the application team ultimately decides what fits their development cycle and needs best. For our on-premise workloads that need to be stable and operate over years, it is our default choice.

For upgrades or migrations, I recommend building new and migrating. My team operates both on-premise and in the cloud, and we have purchased Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) through AWS Marketplace. 

Overall rating: nine out of ten. To make it a ten, I would want to see more features. As someone who considers themselves an open-source zealot, the locking down of package repositories behind subscription paywalls was upsetting. It used to be a ten out of ten before that change.

My main use case for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is application hosting.

The feature of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that I appreciate the most is the stability. 

I used to use Ubuntu quite a bit, however, the stability of RHEL is the main thing that I enjoy about it. 

RHEL benefits my company by providing a stable platform and strong support behind it, which are the motivating factors of using it in general.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps me solve pain points such as support stability, so maintenance and operations are much easier. I manage my Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems for provisioning and patching using Ansible, Satellite, and Puppet, and I am satisfied with that management experience.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) supports my hybrid cloud strategy by looking into Openshift. Currently, we are independently deploying between the two environments because we do not yet have a platform to bridge those into a true hybrid.

Security requirements were not necessarily a consideration in choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in the cloud since we have our security team for all of our security compliance, so it is just our standard that we use.

The solution can be improved, especially for user-provided solutions; they could be vetted more thoroughly by Red Hat. I cannot think of anything specific that could improve Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), aside from my thoughts on support, particularly since I have not yet tried version nine. Better support would make it a ten.

At this company, I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for two and a half years.

The stability and reliability of the Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) platform are great.

I do not know if we have run into scaling problems with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). Typically, our app people work directly with the vendor and request a few VMs, so we do not really have issues with running out of compute resources.

The customer service and technical support I receive are mostly good; sometimes it is hit or miss, but mostly good. If I had to rate them from one to ten, I would give them a nine.

Positive

Before I came to the company, they were using Ubuntu, and I tried to convince them to switch over to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). While I am using it today, we still support Ubuntu because there are certain researchers that prefer it, but for the operations of the hospital, it is all Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

I have been involved in updates for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), going from version eight to nine. I typically just deploy the next version and migrate whatever application or system may be to that instead of jumping to another version. It is more about deploying a new system and migrating the old system over, to avoid any dependency issues.

The biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) from my perspective is probably security and performance. We run a lot of Windows, which comes with costs to keep it constantly updated, while RHEL seems to have fewer vulnerabilities and is one of the more performant platforms among Linux distributions.

My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing has been fair. I have looked for virtual data center licenses and it seems fairly priced compared to alternatives such as Windows.

The knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is hit or miss. Sometimes people provide answers that exactly solve the problem, and sometimes it is for older versions that are not applicable.

I have not purchased Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) through AWS Marketplace. We are looking into that option.

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

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is used within our organization to orchestrate a multitenant, microservice-based architecture. This supports a distributed system of predominantly web-based applications and frontends. A typical deployment involves around 60 to 70 Amazon EC2 instances working in concert.

The primary use cases involve running interconnected applications with requirements such as low latency and high availability, often achieved through redundant, multi-tenant, and load-balanced architectures. These applications may utilize read or write-optimized instances or be memory or processor-optimized, depending on their specific needs. Optimization is achieved through the processor, RAM, and connected protocols. The foundation for these applications is Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux facilitates seamless workload migration between diverse cloud environments and data centers. In DevOps, workload portability between cloud and data centers is crucial, so we prioritize operating systems supported by multiple cloud providers and available locally. Key considerations include stability, security hardening capabilities, and the ability to obtain government or compliance organization approvals, which are incredibly stringent in sectors like banking and securities exchange. Red Hat Enterprise Linux meets these requirements by providing a secure, reliable, and consistently delivered operating system that facilitates approvals and ensures seamless workload mobility.

Regarding Red Hat Enterprise Linux provisioning and patching, both processes are generally straightforward. Patching can be completed within a few hours. Once the automation pipelines are properly configured, tested, and operational, provisioning can be fully automated. This applies to any operating system, not just Red Hat. Setting up a correct pipeline ensures smooth provisioning regardless of the OS.

Implementing Red Hat Enterprise Linux has resulted in significant resource savings due to its efficient usage of minimal resources. Compared to other operating systems, Red Hat Enterprise Linux requires less RAM and CPU allocation, which translates to cost savings. Additionally, its stability and minimal downtime contribute to operational efficiency.

The Red Hat command line interface is more user-friendly than the Windows command line interface. Red Hat makes it easier to perform tasks like reviewing logs, checking network connectivity, checking DNS, and setting up a proxy. Additionally, searching for specific characters within numerous log files is simpler in a Red Hat Enterprise Linux instance compared to other operating systems.

The implementation and limitations of SELinux should be re-evaluated. Its current configuration presents numerous challenges and restricts certain functionalities, hindering the overall usability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Addressing these limitations would significantly enhance the operating system's flexibility and efficiency.

I've been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for six years.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is almost perfect in terms of stability. It works consistently with minimal downtime and very few bugs or glitches, deserving a high rating for stability.

There are no issues with scalability when it comes to Red Hat Enterprise Linux. It scales efficiently, fulfilling our needs without difficulty.

My experience contacting Red Hat technical support was positive, with knowledgeable and supportive staff, particularly during early hours. However, I found more detailed knowledge through community interactions on platforms like Stack Overflow.

Positive

Before adopting Red Hat Enterprise Linux for production applications, other Linux operating systems like Ubuntu and Windows servers were used for monitoring and testing purposes. Red Hat Enterprise Linux became the choice for critical server applications.

The initial setup of Red Hat Enterprise Linux is straightforward. Once the images and database information are available, the automation process is simple and efficient, taking only a couple of hours to complete.

Using Red Hat Enterprise Linux can yield resource savings of 200 percent to 300 percent compared to Windows Server instances. Its minimal RAM and CPU usage allows for smaller instances, resulting in significant cost reductions.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is a more cost-effective solution than Windows Servers. Windows Servers base their cost on the number of users and have high licensing fees, while Red Hat Enterprise Linux offers free versions alongside its paid, supported versions. This makes Red Hat Enterprise Linux a good option for startups and organizations with limited budgets. While the free versions may lack direct vendor support, the availability of paid support options and the robust Red Hat Enterprise Linux ecosystem provides flexibility for growing businesses. Additionally, the presence of compatible open-source alternatives further enhances cost-effectiveness and choice. Overall, Red Hat Enterprise Linux presents a compelling advantage in terms of cost compared to other operating systems, especially for nascent organizations.

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

While Red Hat offers free license versions and CentOS provides a similar platform, the official Red Hat documentation may not be the most helpful resource. More valuable support can often be found in community-driven platforms like Stack Overflow, where users share their knowledge and experiences through questions and answers. This user-generated content often proves more practical and supportive than the official Red Hat resources.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is deployed in a multi-region configuration with three availability zones per region. Data is replicated from region one to region two, which serves as a read-only replica. Traffic is load-balanced across all availability zones within a region, ensuring automatic failover to the remaining zones in case of an outage. Similarly, if an entire region fails, traffic is redirected to the other available region. This setup provides high availability and disaster recovery capabilities. We have a couple of thousand users in our organization.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux requires periodic updates. To manage logs, a retrieval and deletion method is necessary, which can be achieved using built-in features like cron jobs. Red Hat supports these features. Additionally, security patches should be applied as they become available.

I recommend Red Hat Enterprise Linux, particularly for enterprise implementation, due to its lightweight and secure design. Its robust community support and extensive availability of solutions in forums and unofficial resources make it preferable to other operating systems.

The solution is used for on-premises data centers. Multiple private data centers run workloads on VMware Cloud solutions, and Red Hat Enterprise Linux is deployed on critical systems. We use KVM virtualization technology to host various virtual machines on Red Hat Enterprise Linux that run workloads and applications.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux improved our compliance by working with third-party security providers, like CIS Enterprise Internet Security. It's a nonprofit organization that provides many security solutions and benchmarking for each operating system. CIS and Red Hat jointly developed a CIS-approved operating system. They work with various public cloud providers like App Engine, Google, and AWS to provide comprehensive CIS-approved images in Red Hat Enterprise Linux. 

The US federal government has already certified the OS for FIPS compliance. FIPS is the organization that designs cryptography algorithms for federal agencies, and they approved Red Hat Enterprise Linux. 

It takes some time to realize the benefits. Some customers cannot see a direct benefit because the licensing is a bit complex. In a huge enterprise environment, you could see an immediate effect, but a smaller or medium-sized organization may take a while to yield a return on investment.

The most significant advantage is that it is more stable and secure than other operating systems. Years ago, we worked on Windows-based systems with more challenges regarding patch management and vulnerabilities than Unix operating systems. We get more frequent patch releases from the vendor weekly, monthly, and quarterly. It also has strong security features, is OIS and FIPS certified, and has built-in Linux security configurations.

In addition to Linux's built-in security tools, it has Red Hat Enterprise Linux configuration features that provide robust security controls. We also have third-party solutions that provide more in-depth solutions for our cloud and on-premises infrastructure. We have to provide security at each layer of the OSI models. For example, on the application layer, we have to provide web solutions or application gateways, but it provides good security features for the OS layer. 

We use another Red Hat product called Ansible to automate patching tasks and infrastructure deployment. We don't have a large number of servers, so we manage patching and configuration through Ansible. For bigger deployments, they have solutions like Satellite, but we use Ansible. 

We use Image Builder to create a Golden Image for our CICD pipelines. We have a CIS-approved image that integrates their security controls for our automation tools and some of the ones specific to our organization. We added some of the controls from the Red Hat management framework that govern how an image should be created and what controls must be integrated into this base image. 

The web console is useful for people without Linux backgrounds who lack experience working with the command prompt. The web console helps them manage the system better without knowing all the commands.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux licensing is a bit complex. The solution operates on a subscription-based model, which may not provide immediate return on investment for small to medium-sized organizations. It also has a steep learning curve for employees unfamiliar with Linux, and it demands a skilled team or a dedicated service center to operate effectively.

I have used Red Hat Enterprise Linux for about four to six years.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux offers great stability and performance compared to other operating systems. It does not have issues with crashing or substantial downtime.

I rate Red Hat support seven out of 10. We have only opened one or two cases with technical support, but we've had good experiences. They respond immediately based on the SLA level. In the future, we plan to use Red Hat's OpenShift and Kubernetes solutions, so we expect to work with the support team more because we're new to those products. 

Red Hat's Knowledgebase is an excellent support resource. It stays updated about new things coming to our region and provides lots of articles about the products. It's a good starting point for troubleshooting without the need to call the support team. We use the knowledgebase to resolve issues as often as we can, but we contact support if we get stuck and can't find the solution. 

Neutral

We have physical systems running SUSE Linux and Windows, but we're gradually migrating them to Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Some systems are running Solaris, and we haven't decided whether we'll migrate to Red Hat Enterprise Linux or other operating systems.

Our operations team takes care of migrations and installations. We're primarily responsible for business impact assessments and helping the operations team do a POC to determine the effect on the application environment. We consider the licensing and give the operations team approval to do the migrations and install the new operating system. 

The team consists of two or three people. We cannot migrate directly from one system to another. We simulate everything in the POC environment and perform migrations in the development environment using our in-house tools. They will check the source machines and find out what applications are running. It will assess them and look into the destination systems. Using some replication technology, it will do a direct synchronous verification between one storage to the other.

We need some downtime to complete the migration, and most of the data is stored in SAN storage. That is called a long migration. Once the operating systems and associated patches and applications have been migrated, we have to migrate them manually for the storage side.

The subscription-based pricing can be costly, particularly for smaller deployments. The more subscriptions you have, the easier it is to see a return on investment because it helps larger organizations more. It may be considered expensive compared to other solutions like CentOS or Ubuntu, which offer some of the same features without additional costs.

I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux eight out of 10. I recommend new users get some training on the platform because installations and migrations can be complex. Setting up clusters can be challenging for new users who don't have hands-on Linux experience without vendor assistance. 

I'm supporting a client in North America, specifically in Canada, where they are using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) servers in their retail business. They utilize it for back office software service, specifically a software called BOSS (Back Office Software Service). We are using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) on almost 1,200 servers, but this year, we have started migrating to Rocky from Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

Vulnerability management and patch releases are done on time. There are no delays, and we are not leaving our environment vulnerable, which minimizes risks.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped us mitigate downtime and lower risk. With our current patching process using Kpatch, we frequently do not reboot the servers. We only reboot once a year during application downtime to upgrade to the next kernel level, while all security patches are applied live.

Some of the best features I noticed with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) include the LVM and the patching mechanism through the Satellite system. We do patching whenever there is a security vulnerability, and we are able to do it with the support of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). For me these two big features, LVM and patching, are essential. 

If I can resolve an issue myself, that would be ideal, as it means I wouldn’t need to raise a case at all. The KB articles should contain all the necessary information for reference.

It would be great if they're able to reduce the price. It will be easier to convince customers to use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) instead of open-source solutions. 

I have almost five years of experience with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

Scalability is fine; I don't have any challenges there. However, we are not using many of those features because our application is not ready to utilize them.

We use their knowledge base to find the solution.

I would rate the technical support with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a nine out of ten. 

Positive

The customer is moving to Rocky. It is not our decision; we still insist on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) due to its security and additional features. The customer is moving away primarily for cost-cutting on licensing. 

Compared to other Linux distributions such as openSUSE, SUSE, or Rocky, I believe Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) offers better features. In Rocky, we don't have a live patching mechanism.

Deployments or migrations are quite easy for us since we have been working with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for the last five or six years. It feels like a piece of cake. Whether it's a minor or major version update or a migration, we don’t face any significant challenges. The process is smooth.

Initially, it took us two days to spin up a VM with all the requirements when on-prem. Now, the code is in GitLab. We have set up a code to build the servers, so after submitting a request in ServiceNow, it can be ready the next day. It is all automated.

It was on-prem, but last year, all of the servers were migrated to GCP.

There isn't much difference whether it's on-prem or on cloud, because the patching mechanism we follow through the Satellite system remains the same. From an admin's perspective, there isn't much difference between cloud and on-prem support.

As we lift and shift, our application is not cloud-ready or digital-ready, so we are still working in legacy mode. Therefore, we need to recode the entire application stack to make it compatible with cloud features.

If Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) can reduce its pricing, then it would be easier to convince others that there is not much difference between open-source solutions while still receiving several features for a licensing cost.

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

I used Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for my past job where it was used for VMware. It was always on VMware, JBoss, or WebLogic for web-based apps and similar applications. In my current job, we use it as a base OS for AAP or for VSOS, for a Docker host, a pod host, or various applications.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is valuable for us since it's stable and reliable. 

Some of the new features they're adding to it, such as RHEL 10 and the AI, sound really helpful. The federal security features are also beneficial. Especially the AI feature sounds useful.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps simplify processes and having support is super helpful. When I have an issue and try to track it down without success, I can submit a ticket and get support. They're usually able to troubleshoot the issue, so having support is beneficial for me.

Our upgrade or migration plans to stay current involve using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 8 for much of our infrastructure, while also deploying RHEL 9 for the past six months. Once RHEL 8 is deprecated, we'll probably start looking to migrate to RHEL 10 and building net new servers.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) definitely helps to mitigate downtime and lower risks through access to AAP. I've also heard you can do an in-place update for the kernel, which is something I'm curious to try but haven't had the chance yet.

Improving Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) requires good documentation and having a way to onboard people for new technology they're introducing. The AI will be helpful for that since they have that now. The SE policy is not very clear on how it's supposed to be implemented, which they can improve upon, or perhaps I don't know where to look for that information.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in my job for probably ten years or more.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has been pretty reliable from my experiences so far, with no major issues.

Customer service and technical support from Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has been pretty good overall. It has been fairly responsive, although I have had times when it was somewhat slow to respond to tickets and requests. I've had coworkers who have experienced that as well, so that could be improved. The response and quality of their responses could be better in some cases. In other cases, it's adequate for what we need.

Neutral

My experience of deploying Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in general has been pretty good so far. I use Image Builder, which is developed by Red Hat. I use that to create the image, and then satellite servers actually deploy it. For the most part, it's seamless and reliable.

The biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), from my point of view, is having the integration between all of the various platforms, whether it's AAP, or satellite, and IDM. We use satellite, AAP, and IDM, and the integration between all of these has been super helpful.

We haven't had a need for other solutions while using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) currently, but if something came up, we would probably consider it.

I have been involved with upgrading from Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 8 to RHEL 9, and from RHEL 7 to RHEL 8 because RHEL 7 has been sunsetted. In these cases, we build net new rather than doing in-place upgrades.

For upgrades, we use satellite to deploy, and AAP for our host provisioning and whatever we need to layer on top of the infrastructure. For managing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems regarding provisioning and patching, we use AAP. We have a written playbook that reaches out to the host and takes a snapshot of the host in VMware. Then it runs the patching and reports back if it succeeded or failed.

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

We deploy it. We are a Red Hat partner and have been for 20 years. We help customers with all sorts of day-to-day Linux operations, and Red Hat is one of our partners for Linux.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the platform being used for running applications. Customers often have some sort of applications they need to run, and Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has been the go-to standard for running applications that need to run on top of Linux for many years.

The feature I appreciate the most about Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is its long lifecycle. The long lifecycle helps my company by allowing us to plan ahead; we don't have to redeploy everything every five years or so. It helps to plan ahead.

The support can be better. 

Satellite 5 was great at what it did. Satellite 6 is still a mismatch of different things. It's not really the optimal solution for many things yet. I hope they will release a new version soon that fixes this. I know it's been planned for three or four years, possibly five years.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for about 20 years.

The stability and reliability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are very good, even according to what my customers say. We have had very few bugs where the actual operating system was to blame for any problems. There might have been one or two bugs that I could name that influenced our Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) running. It is quite bug-free. It's not perfect, but usually bugs are fixed if you raise a support case.

I don't think I've ever seen downtime caused by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). I'm not sure if we have had any less downtime compared to other Linux distributions. We also see a lot of Ubuntu, and I don't see any less downtime on Red Hat than on other community Linux subscriptions.

Our use of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) internally is quite limited. We have some customers who run thousands of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) instances. It scales perfectly fine.

Their support isn't great, but it's good. It varies significantly depending on who you get hold of. It can be quite hard to get to someone who is actually able to answer the questions. We see instances where we have done all of the debugging ahead, but still are asked questions that we have already answered when we created the support ticket. We have to start all over again and use the first two or three days explaining exactly what we do, even though we have already written it. I have done this and they say, 'Have you done this?' And I respond, 'We have done that. We also wrote it when we created the case.' It can be difficult when the supporters don't always read what you have actually tried ahead of creating the support ticket.

Neutral

We also work with SUSE. The main differences between SUSE and Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) currently seem to be very political. Red Hat is an American company, and we are based in Europe, so we see that come up frequently.

It's easy to deploy. When it comes to managing the Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems for provisioning and patching, I see one of two things normally. We have many customers who just do cloning, having a golden template which they clone and then create new VMs from that. We also have many customers who use Satellite. Those are the two methods we see at scale.

I have been involved in upgrades or migrations of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for 20 years. The process of migration just works.

Our upgrade or migration plans to stay current involve knowing the lifecycle for a specific version. It's just a matter of planning ahead. The long lifecycle and predetermined lifecycle of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) make it easy.

The major cost of maintaining Linux is when you have to do reinstallations and upgrades. Having a long lifecycle really reduces the cost of maintaining an operating system. A long lifecycle is key to having a good return on investment.

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