Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Reviews

We primarily use it for OS purposes. 

It's very good for support compared to other operating systems. For decades, it's been providing good support and service. Even during implementation, there's a dedicated team to answer any queries. We are a very big company running critical applications and having that support is very important.

The patching tool is good. We're also introducing the possibility of automation.

The built-in security features are okay when it comes to simplifying risk reduction. It makes life easier, especially in regards to the lifecycle and what we need to install, et cetera. The features and tools help us to maintain security overall. 

It is easy to maintain compliance.

The portability of applications and containers is good. Now we are just starting with the containers and anything related to Kubernetes. 

Red Hat is always providing security on time. Any vulnerabilities are immediately dealt with to fill the gap and deal with the issue.

It's a good tool. I'm very confident with this product.

The system role features for automation security configurations, et cetera, for Ansible, we started using it. We are new in terms of automation. We'll start to use it heavily in the near future. Ansible is another great tool from Red Hat.

It enables us to maintain consistency across systems over time. My role is to maintain stability, even during upgrades and patches. So far, it's been a positive experience. We use the entire ecosystem around Red Hat.

We use Red Hat Insights. From a security perspective, we may stop using it. With Insight, if you have Red Hat Satellite, it gives you an in-depth view of everything. The only thing missing is the insights related to performance. We may not continue with it. We'll see if we'll push it and have everything on the cloud. 

In the area we are using it, we are satisfied.

Maybe in OpenShift, which is our next step, there can be more improvements with integration with Kubernetes. We're not experts there yet. 

Maybe it could have a better user experience and less coding. Reducing the effort for the end user or administrator would be ideal to make daily operation and maintenance easier. 

If they can make the integration with Ansible easier, that would be ideal.

They should offer more in terms of learning materials to make learning easier. 

They need to make things more affordable or accessible. 

The solution is stable. We barely have any issues with a server setup. So far, it's manageable. The biggest challenge is the criticality of releasing patches. When we have any critical alerts we action them. We tend to try to wait for the release of a stable version. 

How many people use the solution depends on the application. We likely have thousands of users. We do have some products that maybe only have a few or a few hundred. 

We've had no challenges with scaling. It can support any type of load within the data center. 

Support is excellent. 

We did use a different OS. I have used Unix in the past. I started with Unix 30 years ago. I've also used SUSE. Red Hat offered more service and support. 

I was involved in the deployment. Our team managed the process. It's pretty straightforward. We handle implementation, tuning, and patching. 

How long it takes to implement the product depends. We're trying to mitigate the time by automating with Ansible. We want to handle one VM or server in five or fewer minutes, however, it can take days. At this point, we can provision servers in a few minutes. It's becoming faster. 

We have a team of ten to run the infrastructure on the OS level. 

I'm not an expert on ROI. We are paying to use the solution, however, the utilization we get and the support both offer good value. 

The pricing model isn't something I deal with directly. The pricing is fair, especially compared to virtualization like VMware. We do use VMware and are thinking about moving sandboxes and testing over to Red Hat. This may end up being a big cost savings with our CAPEX and OPEX. 

From the price level, the cost is almost the same for us, if we look at Red Hat versus SUSE, however, we get a higher level of support with Red Hat. 

Red Hat was always our first choice. 

We're a Red Hat customer. 

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten. 

We are a telecommunications operator using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for our technical applications due to its supportability and robust management features.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux's built-in security features aid in simplifying risk reduction. In the past, patches fortified the security features, but now, with playbooks, we can automate and address any findings for any Common Platform Enumeration. When integrated with Red Hat Insights, the solution can identify the CPE and provide the remediation playbook. This expedites detection, remediation, and testing by Red Hat, thanks to the playbooks provided by satellite as well as malware detection.

Maintaining compliance with Red Hat Enterprise Linux is easy because it supports various out-of-the-box compliance policies, such as CIS. Whether we are running OpenSCAP on-premises or Insights, we can perform compliance testing using OpenSCAP to verify adherence to the Red Hat Enterprise Linux security guidelines, as well as other well-known guidelines and framework compliance. I have found that all the compliance policies I required were already included out of the box.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is ready to help keep our organization agile when it comes to the portability of applications and containers because all the applications are developed by the vendor. Red Hat Enterprise Linux is the preferred choice in our industry because the applications we use are swiftly certified by the vendor, so we don't have to verify them ourselves.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux provides enhanced security for our servers, and we are aware of patching requirements in advance. Additionally, the pre-certification of Red Hat Enterprise Linux applications expedites deployment as we no longer need to go through the certification process ourselves. Moreover, Red Hat Enterprise Linux offers excellent support, ensuring that any issues that may arise are promptly addressed, which is crucial for our environment where we must maintain an uptime of 99.99999 percent.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux enables us to achieve security standards certification because it is driven by various compliance policies that include everything we need out of the box. This makes it easy to enforce security rules, and security patches are applied regularly. With Insights, we have malware detection, CPE filings, and remediation capabilities. In addition to the reactive approach, we also benefit from a proactive approach, allowing us to stay informed about the events around us, which helps us implement temporary solutions if needed until a permanent fix becomes available.

With Red Hat Enterprise Linux, we can build with confidence, knowing that it is available across physical, virtual, and cloud infrastructures. The operating system provides certifications, ensuring that we can deploy with 100 percent certainty, knowing that the applications will work. Additionally, it offers identity security and excellent support from the Red Hat team. Without this support, we would have to rely on searching within the community and downloading untested patches, which may function in small environments but not for larger ones with sensitive applications.

Red Hat Insights helps us prevent emerging issues related to security or noncompliance settings. One of the steps we take before going live is using OpenSCAP to ensure compliance with our standards. This is followed by our own security scanning and verification process. If any issues are not known within Red Hat, we can always refer to all the findings. Once the system is in production, regular monitoring allows us to use Insights to identify any new findings and apply necessary patches or workarounds. The knowledge base available on the servers enables us to take proactive measures even before a security patch becomes available. The new malware detection feature in Insights helps protect end-user information.

Insights provide vulnerability alerts and specific guidance. With each system, we can view the detected Common Platform Enumeration and receive advice on how to address it. These features have protected our systems from potential attacks, thereby increasing our uptime.

Red Hat has introduced a fast server, where Red Hat Enterprise Linux can be integrated or connected to via a client. This connection allows us to identify numerous vulnerabilities in malware easily and facilitates simpler patching. Activating the Red Hat addons on this server creates a perfect match when seeking a well-hardened OS using the gold image, as it eliminates the need to address issues from an existing image. Additionally, Red Hat Insights is a valuable and essential tool. In the telecom industry, we rely on basic products that necessitate an OS with robust security support and regular patches. 

We have not succeeded in creating an image from Red Hat Insights for Red Hat Enterprise Linux, including custom partitioning and custom scripts. This would have been helpful.

Red Hat Insights reporting can be enhanced by incorporating performance components, making it a central tool for vulnerability assessment, compliance monitoring, and much more. The performance component is available on Red Hat Enterprise Linux, but we need to maintain the dashboard on-premises, which requires us to switch between systems instead of performing all tasks from a single location.

Managing the destination for netting on the Netserver using Red Hat Enterprise Linux could be made more user-friendly.

I would like to have enhancements in the data files to help with deployments.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for over ten years. I started in 2012 using version five.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is stable.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is scalable, but the scalability is achieved at a different layer compared to adding memory to a virtual machine or container.

Compared to other support departments for Red Hat products, the Red Hat Enterprise Linux support team stands out as one of the fastest, most cooperative, and understanding teams.

Positive

The initial setup is straightforward. In the past, it was complex when Red Hat acquired Ansible because many of the modules were community resources that lacked full support. As a result, creating a playbook to deploy the OS was a painful process, as there was a chance it would not work, and we would not have the necessary support. However, currently, deploying Red Hat Enterprise Linux is easy. We have never deployed only one operating system at a time, but it would take less than one hour to do so.

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux an eight out of ten due to the complexity of its network boost management issue.

We have Red Hat Enterprise Linux deployed in one location.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is used in our environment to run the application for all of our customers, and only around ten people have access to it.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux requires maintenance for applying new patches, releases, and debugging. 

My organization has different departments. In my department, we mostly work with containerization. I am using Red Hat Enterprise Linux as a part of OpenShift. I use the basic package and base image of Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

For scale-up in our platform, we use CoreOS as the master, and for the workers, we use the Red Hat Enterprise Linux service. From OpenShift version 4.10 onwards, we cannot use Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 worker nodes. We were using Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 worker nodes, so we upgraded to Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8. 

For OpenShift, there are some recommendations from Red Hat in terms of what needs to be used for the control plane and what needs to be used for the worker nodes. When you are using CoreOS and Red Hat Enterprise Linux worker nodes, there are some difficulties in managing them. For example, when you upgrade OpenShift, you need to upgrade two times. The control plane is upgraded separately because it uses CoreOS. The control plane has a lot of certificate updates that will in turn be updated on the worker nodes, so you have one restart of all worker nodes, and then when you need to upgrade your worker nodes, there will be one more restart. 

Overall, you have two reboots in your production environment, which is an issue, but it is related to your choice of product in your environment. We have this issue because we opted to use Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 or Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 worker machines, whereas Red Hat recommends using CoreOS because it is pretty fast in terms of rebooting and functionality. When you upgrade the control plane, that itself will update the worker nodes, so you are done in one shot. When you need to upgrade your Red Hat Enterprise Linux machines, you need to use the Ansible Playbook. You can then upgrade to Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7, 8, or any other version. Regardless of the versions, you can upgrade the operating system and the OpenShift version. For this purpose and for some ad-hoc activities, we are using Ansible Playbooks.

For us, its security, management, stability, and hardening are most valuable. All of these features are better in Red Hat Enterprise Linux as compared to Microsoft Windows.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is very good in terms of risk assessment. It is also good for maintaining compliance. It is better than Microsoft Windows.

From the administration perspective, I do not have any issues with Red Hat Enterprise Linux. For me, it is more convenient than Microsoft Windows.

My organization has been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for a long time. They have been using it before I joined the organization.

It is pretty good in terms of stability. It is a stable product. I would rate it a nine out of ten in terms of stability because sometimes the packages can have bugs.

Its scalability is good. I would rate it a nine out of ten in terms of scalability.

We never encountered any issues while using OpenShift.

I have mostly been working with Red Hat Enterprise Linux. 

I have been involved in the deployment of OpenShift. It is pretty straightforward. We just need to get the licensing, and we just need to create a pool for our containers session in Red Hat Satellite. We can do the configuration from there. It does not take long because we are adding the nodes to OpenShift. During the scale-up process, we only need to subscribe to the nodes with the Red Hat subscription. It does not take much time. If we have a good spec, the scale-up would not take much time. It would take less than twenty minutes. It is pretty fast.

In terms of maintenance, when we have the bug report, we need to do the security assessments. Over time, there might be some bugs related to some packages. At that time, if it is critical, we will be scheduling a maintenance activity on our platform. 

Red Hat provides high availability from the application perspective. You get high availability when you are using OpenShift, so when you are doing a maintenance activity on the OpenShift side, there would not be any downtime. The high availability is very good. For the end-users, there would not be any application outages if you configure your application with proper replicas. They would not even realize that there is a maintenance activity happening to the underlying workers.

It was implemented in-house.

We did not evaluate other solutions. Red Hat Enterprise Linux is the choice of most of the companies.

If you want to integrate with OpenShift or build an OpenShift cluster with the master Red Hat Enterprise Linux and worker Red Hat Enterprise Linux, you can do that, but you need to plan your upgrade or maintenance activities. It would be better if you choose CoreOS for both. CoreOS would be a better choice in terms of maintenance activities or upgrade activities in the future. If you cannot afford that, you can go with the Red Hat Enterprise Linux operating system, but you need to do two upgrades. You first need to upgrade the control plane and then you need to separately update your worker nodes. That is the only thing you need to keep in mind.

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

Our customers use the product primarily for application servers, authentication apps, and tool servers. If a feature is available in Red Hat Enterprise Linux, they're most likely using it. The product allows us to use applications that run on open-source software. The product also provides on-site support that helps us if we have any issues.

The solution is stable and reliable. Being able to move back and forth between systems, products, and middleware is a huge boon.

The solution lacks proper documentation. There have been times when I found a document that was supposed to fix an issue, but I realized it was wrong. Then, I would send it to support, and they would fix it.

Our customers have been using the solution for six or seven years.

The product’s stability is good. It has minimal downtime when it comes to generic deployments. Once you start adding complexity, there are other issues.

The product’s scalability is good. Our customers are able to scale out thousands of instances in minimal amounts of time.

The support team is great. I have friends that work on the support side. I can count on one hand the times I've been dissatisfied with support. Usually, when that happens, it's because it's something that either couldn't be fixed or something too old. I rate the support a nine and a half out of ten.

Positive

My involvement in deployment depends on which systems are being deployed. My organization constantly rolls out new systems via OpenStack, on-premise, or other cloud providers. I help build their base images.

The product’s deployment is pretty straightforward. Everything we build is automated and kicked out from there. Once the base image is built, there's really not much to do.

My customers have seen an ROI from the product. They have an on-site support team that is able to help them with issues. It is important to them to have a good team of people to reach back to and to be able to work together.

Our customers conduct market research before any purchase. Red Hat Enterprise Linux has consistently been a top contender for us and our customers. We usually support Red Hat Enterprise Linux because our customers choose it.

The biggest push towards Red Hat Enterprise Linux is the ability to have something that's supported and open-sourced. Having transparency is important to my customers. They want to see what they're putting into production, development, and testing. It is important to the customers to see what's going on and what workloads they're handling and to know that what they're putting the workloads on will be solid and secure.

Our customers use the solution on multiple cloud providers, mostly AWS and Azure. Our customers buy a yearly subscription for some equipment, and for short-lived instances, they do on-demand pricing within the cloud provider to buy the ones they offer.

I believe Red Hat Enterprise Linux has helped our organization avoid cloud vendor lock-in. We've been able to pretty reliably and easily lift, shift and redesign our application from on-prem to the cloud. It might not necessarily be a huge benefit for us. However, it is definitely a perk, especially in an environment where we have to go through a certain purchasing cycle and background reviews for everything. It does end up helping us.

As much as I've used Red Hat Image Builder, I really like it. Though, I've only had to build a handful of images out of it. We can't use something like Fedora, where you've got a nightly update. Red Hat Enterprise Linux is tested and reliable. Having something they can work on, develop, and use daily is helpful to our customers.

The sosreports and soscleaner developed in recent years are a huge improvement. My customers tend to be pretty fixed in their ways and what they use, so they continue to work and use things for longer than they should, but that's the beauty of Red Hat Enterprise Linux. It is supported, and we still have the necessary reach back.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is pretty solid. It's been tested. It has its upstream counterparts that ensure that most of the bugs get worked out, and what makes it down into the final testing is strong and resilient. We've been working on moving workloads between the cloud and data center with the customers. Instead of lift and shifts, we try to redevelop their applications instead of spending $10,000 to give 32 cores in the cloud because they had 32 cores in the system.

We have a fantastic team that works with us and supports us. The team goes out of its way to help find cost savings for both us and our customers.

Overall, I rate the product a nine out of ten.

We use the product as our server's operating system.

The enterprise support of the product is valuable to us. When stuff gets difficult, it's nice to have somebody to ask about it.

The solution should be updated more with the releases of programming languages. They’re lagging a bit too much. We have a lot of developers complaining about having releases that are too old. For example, if they want Python 3.11, Red Hat Enterprise Linux supports only 3.9. So the product is lagging behind a bit more than our developers would like. 

It would be nice if all the features that are available on the cloud, like Image Builder and Insight, would be available on-prem.

I have been using the solution for five years.

The product is very, very stable and tested. It is like everybody tested everything for five years, and every problem was fixed.

We have never had a problem with the solution’s scalability. We have around 6000 Red Hat Enterprise Linux servers in versions 7, 8, and 9.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is a lot better compared to all other products. I rate the support an eight or a nine out of ten. There's too much information on the support page sometimes. If we log in to the support pages and try to find information, it's hard to get what we're searching for.

Positive

We had a lot of different Linux distributions. The pros of Red Hat Enterprise Linux are that it's the same platform for everybody, and it works for everybody. If you need something very special, you might get issues in Red Hat Enterprise Linux, but you can work around it. 

The biggest issue with Red Hat Enterprise Linux is mostly the old packages. It is a con if you have something that you know is a bug that hasn't really been released in Red Hat Enterprise Linux but has been released in the other products.

We do a template, and then we just use it. It's quite great.

We take 30 minutes to deploy the solution. It depends on the size of the machine.

I am using versions 7, 8, and 9. By implementing the solution, we wanted a unified server with a baseline platform that everybody uses. We wanted to have just one server that is enterprise ready.

We do not really have compliances in the same way as an American company has. It's nice to have IT security personnel. You get SELinux from the start. However, we get a lot of support cases because of it. The developers face problems with it. So, we get the security, but we also get lots of support cases. Usually, I end up in the middle of that because I work with support.

We run containers on OpenShift. We run only one platform, so portability isn't a concern. We only have Red Hat Enterprise Linux and OpenShift. We don't really need portability since we are government agencies. Nothing else other than on-prem is allowed for us.

The knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux is extensive. It is a bit hard to find information. However, when you find it, it's good. The packages are a bit old. We have a bit of an issue because of that. But other than that, it's a great operating system.

Overall, I rate the product an eight out of ten.

In our organization, we use the solution as our internet banking platform.

Some of the solution's features include scalability, lower footprints, and the fact that licenses don't really cost us much. Also, the upgradeability is fantastic. With Windows, you can't upgrade to certain versions. I haven't found that issue with Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

Working at a bank, I can say that lack of scalability is a big no-no for us since we deal with people's money.

It would have been nice if we had the ability to do updates without rebooting. If we can update certain parts internally without having to remove them from the entire server, that would be fantastic since, else, there will be downtime, and we will need to reboot. We have to schedule downtime. If we can do so, we will patch it and continue running. Even though the downtime is minuscule, having as little as possible downtime could be great.

Speaking about the downtime caused due to the lack of the aforementioned feature, we reboot about 40 servers every time there's a patch, and they're not staged all at once. The whole process will take an hour or so.

I have been using the solution since I started using Red Hat Enterprise Linux version 7.

Regarding stability, it's good since we haven't had a major outage.

I rate the support an eight out of ten, considering the callback feature and rapid response compared with Windows, where you need to wait for a couple of hours to get support.

With Red Hat, the community is so robust. Most of the time, while waiting for a Red Hat engineer to call us back, the solution to the issue is already provided. This is because it's an open source platform. 

Positive

Previously, we used AIX. Now, we still use CentOS and Rocky for development.

Though the solution is deployed on a hybrid cloud, I would say that ninety-eight percent is on-premises, and two percent is on the cloud.

Also, I am running my workloads and applications on the cloud.

We transferred our license to the cloud because we were originally a VMware on-prem shop. We're transitioning some of our workloads to cloud licensing. Also, I have opted for a subscription. I don't know where we got it from because when I came to the company, it was already in place.

Comparing Red Hat Enterprise Linux to other operating systems, it is a nice solution, especially considering the support we get from Red Hat. Not a con, but on Windows, the GUI or navigation can be a little bit tricky.

By implementing the solution, my organization is trying to solve the agility issue. Using Red Hat Enterprise Linux, we are not tied to Windows patches. Windows patches break sometimes, and then the application goes down, which is a big issue. With Red Hat Enterprise Linux, we have that reliability and robustness.

I am very impressed with the solution's resiliency.

Regarding how easy or difficult it is for us to move workloads between the cloud and our data center using Red Hat Enterprise Linux, I have found it to be very easy.

Regarding portability, it is easy. I was speaking to someone over there who benefits from containers. I mentioned it to my manager, and we are going to have a discussion about it.

In terms of my assessment of the solution's built-in security features when it comes to simplifying your risk reduction and maintaining compliance, I feel it is good. We haven't ever had an issue ever with the solution.

As nothing is perfect, I rate the overall solution a nine out of ten.

As a whole, our organization is using it on Bare Metal on-prem and the private cloud, and then also in more than one public cloud environment. We probably have all three cloud providers. We definitely have Azure and Google Cloud. The environment that I support has about 40 apps in one cloud or another, but the organization as a whole definitely has hundreds of apps in Google Cloud or Azure. They're predominantly in Azure. The Google Cloud adoption is pretty recent compared to our Azure utilization.

I'm supporting a capital markets environment. A substantial portion of my environment is still Bare Metal at Colos. I'm sure on the application side, there's plenty of JBoss in our environment. There have been recent conversations around OpenShift on-prem that I'm working on, and our enterprise cloud teams are looking at or are using ARO in the cloud. In the next year, our use of the Ansible Platform will go from zero to full throttle as quickly as we can make that happen. We found the event-driven Ansible very interesting.

They've helped us work on employing technologies suitable to our various use cases. We're pretty slow adapters of containers, but that seems to be changing fairly quickly at the moment. That certainly gives us portability for workloads. They helped us with some aspects there, and they've helped us with a lot of automation conversation at the summit this week as well around Ansible.

When it comes to resilience in terms of disaster recovery, the operating system is robust. If it fails, it's probably an app issue. The majority of work in any of our DR scenarios is dependent on whether we have got cold standby or hot standby. If it's hot, the data replication is already there, and things are already spinning. Maybe it's on or you turn it on. Other times, you may have to start up something. Nearly all of those things are application architecture decisions as opposed to dependencies or things from an OS perspective, but in terms of the ecosystem for managing our Linux environment, using Satellite and so on has been very good.

I prefer it to Windows because of the level of configuration, level of control, and the ability to see the performance of processes on a given system. I prefer the control over logging and the ability that logging gives you to investigate a problem.

Its community is also valuable. It's open source, and Red Hat-supported streams are also valuable.

The level of communication we've got with them is fantastic. 

The integration with the apps and support could be better.

A colleague was talking about having some recommendations for the Ansible Cloud on the console and having some way of identifying your dev or prod path and whether you've got read or execute access to a playbook. There were different things like that, and they made a lot of sense, especially if you're in a dev or prod environment because mistakenly running something in prod would be a huge issue. There could be something that Red Hat configures, or there could be a text field where organizations can add labels to a part of the console to distinguish that for themselves. Those would be things that would be useful. I can't imagine it's hard to implement but being able to know which environment you're in matters a ton.

As a part of my professional career, I've been using it since 2004. I joined my current organization in 2018. It has been almost five years since I've been working with Red Hat Enterprise Linux in the security environment of our organization.

It's stable. We rarely have our systems crashing.

It's pretty easy and getting easier. It's not an OS issue. In terms of scalability, even while running our trading apps, we don't run into limitations related to the OS. Our limitations are more hardware-defined, and even then, we're running Red Hat Enterprise Linux on servers with eighty cores and almost a terabyte of RAM, and the OS doesn't have any issues.

Their knowledge base is great. There are lots of times when we don't even have to open a support case because we find what we're looking for.

I've spent a lot of time with the Red Hat account team over the past nine months. They've helped me understand products. They've helped develop the skills of my team. They've helped us with technology conversations with other parts of my organization. They've been hugely supportive of the technology conversation we're having with other parts of the bank.

They've been over and above the expectations in most cases. I'd rate them a ten out of ten. I don't know if it could be better. It has been extremely good. They've been extremely helpful in reaching out and figuring out what they can contribute. The account manager that they have working with us is a former colleague, so it's a really smart decision because we have a very good relationship with the guy. He knows our environment. It has been extremely positive.

It's a growing relationship with Red Hat. We have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for a very long time, and I don't know if we can even compare it to the other OS vendors, but having the account team working with us with that level of experience with our environment helps them work with us. It helps us accomplish what we're trying to do. It has been a very good partnership.

Positive

We get our licenses directly through Red Hat.

We haven't used the image builder tool or insights, but it's something that we might explore in the coming months. 

I'd rate it a ten out of ten. It's very customizable and very supportive. It never seems to crash. There could be better integration with apps, but from an OS perspective, it's excellent.

We're the largest financial institution in Africa, and we use various operating systems and technologies to achieve typical financial service goals. In the past, we were an ION-centric shop. However, in the past decade, we've been increasingly leveraging Linux's agility compared to traditional Unix operating systems. 

Generally, we deploy by cloud, but we use RHEL on-premise in our data centers and prefer SaaS for infrastructure as a service. Our primary cloud providers are AWS and Azure, and we also use smaller third parties for niche environments.

RHEL is spread across virtually all elements of the institution, including headquarters and various locations on multiple continents. In my environment, it is part of a global trading settlement system. 

The rollout for this particular solution was probably about 250 users of the application running on the initial RHEL. We're a global bank, so the user base is much larger worldwide. Users include business and feature analysts, engineers, and project managers. Our infrastructure engineers were the ones pushing for a switch to RHEL, followed immediately by application engineers.

RHEL enabled us to move away from reliance on ION. We're free to choose the best-of-breed solution at any given time while keeping the cloud-agnostic infrastructure at the center of our deployments.

Our operational expenditures decreased, and RHEL made our teams much more flexible. With RHEL, we can have multiple copies of an OS without making annual plans to license and acquire.

The benefits were instant from my team's perspective. For example, we were immediately more flexible and able to scale rapidly. However, if you're looking at it from an executive point of view, the time to value depends mainly on the product and the scale of the endeavor. It might take a few years to reap a return. Ultimately, you will see the financial benefit, but that's somewhat difficult to quantify in the short term. 

I don't think that it's enabled us to centralize development, but it has perhaps increased the breadth of development possible on our applications. In that sense, more development can be centralized on the operating system, but that's more of a byproduct.

We outsource cyber security to other teams, so I can't comment in-depth on RHEL's security features, but I can say it enabled us to understand our security posture more efficiently. This wasn't always possible using an AIX or Solaris in a more centralized fashion. The feature set is maybe not as important as having a single pane of glass and a single configuration to apply across our systems and infrastructure.

RHEL made life a lot easier in terms of compliance because you can more accurately gauge yourself against industry benchmarks with the tools provided and identify your shortcomings. You can interrogate what you've done through research from multiple parties rather than just a single source of truth, which may not be true.

You can compile and run applications on any operating system, but RHEL's advantage is flexibility. It is more supported and supportable in the enterprise sense than Ubuntu or perhaps a smaller distro, but it's also flexible enough to easily transport from platform to platform: ISA to ISA,  production to development, and vice versa. That led me to embrace the switch to RHEL from other operating system variants.

RHEL offers more portability than any other OS flavor apart from perhaps Ubuntu Linux. As a large bank, we run on IBM's architecture. We run Power, Spark, and Oracle x86 across multiple environments. It lets us choose the right environment for the application, which is essential from an operational efficiency perspective. These days, we're all trying to cut heavy infrastructure and move to lightweight agile infrastructure. There isn't a better option in the production world than Red Hat.

There needs to be a broader understanding of the RHEL suite's nuances like how the versioning works and implementing it on various kinds of infrastructure in use across the development landscape. There needs to be more training and education. It's difficult when you have a roadmap to deal with, but it is possible. 

Large application vendors may not have certified RHEL, or they have certified an older version. Most of the large application vendors are unfamiliar with the versioning that RHEL introduced, which I strongly support. They will support a given sub-version up to a point, not realizing that the sub-versions are essentially additive. 

This can be a real frustration when you try to deploy modern infrastructure. It allows tremendous flexibility because we can try things out across the cloud, virtual, and physical, but that's not always where the issue is. It's a matter of educating the engineers and developers on our side or enterprise vendors on the other. 

The licensing could also be simplified. While it makes sense from a theoretical perspective, it's a challenge to explain to the procurement team. Those with some technical expertise can understand how our licensing model works. However, it's still tricky because Red Hat is so different from traditional operating systems. It's another barrier when I'm trying to deploy it in an enterprise environment.

In terms of feature requests, I would point out that our company tends not to operate on the bleeding edge for obvious reasons. We look at what has already been released to define our roadmaps. There's nothing in particular that I would say needs to be included. However, I would like to see Arm playing a more prominent role in the cloud infrastructure and enterprise physical data center spaces. Red Hat supports this, but I haven't seen a clear roadmap for how that support should evolve within the Red Hat operating system environment. 

I have used Red Hat Enterprise Linux for more than 10 years.

RHEL's stability is good. 

RHEL is highly scalable and we plan to increase usage. 

I wouldn't rate Red Hat support as less than eight out of ten because I can't think of anything negative to say. I can't think of a time when I haven't been able to get it. Also, because RHEL is global and Linux is open-source, you can typically get the support that you need through research forums and the knowledge base. It's seldom necessary to involve third-tier support within RHEL.

Positive

We still use other operating systems. We've used just about every solution you could name in conjunction with RHEL. We also deploy Ubuntu. In some cases, our application vendor requires us to stick with a given solution. Sometimes it's AIX or Solaris, but mostly we can override that and move to RHEL. Red Hat is now standard for most future enterprise deployments, and we run RHEL on mainframes too, but in a very limited fashion.

The setup was complicated only because the applications we were trying to run were not certified to run on RHEL. It was version 6.8, so we worked with major global vendors to add the certification for the versions we were trying to run. That was the complexity. The application always worked beautifully, and the performance was excellent. It wasn't a question of getting the development to work; obtaining an issue of getting certification for the platform, which is required for any financial institution.

From a development perspective, we proved the concept and ran a mirror of production and development to demonstrate the improvements in OpEx and performance. Getting it up and running in parallel was the key to getting it all to work correctly, and it was instrumental in convincing any dissenting voices of the value. 

The deployment took less than three months, but the certification took nine.
The team supporting the first application numbered around 50, and the small group involved in the initial switch had about eight people.

The entire application is run exclusively on RHEL, so the whole operation team is probably around 40 or 50 people. It's worth adding that our overall group runs about 20,000 servers, so it's challenging to say overall what the RHEL footprint is.

After deployment, RHEL requires maintenance to keep the solution up to date. Security requirements tend to be more prohibitive or less encouraging of change. It's a question of changing mindsets and explaining that something doesn't have to be legacy-tested to update. The security benefits of updating are more critical than testing to ensure the update hasn't introduced more flaws.

I don't have the data, but we have significantly reduced operational expenditures since switching to RHEL. It was a reduction of more than 10 percent. 

The licensing is tricky to understand. Enterprises want to be beyond reproach when it comes to licensing. We would rather over-license than under-license. However, that can be complicated with a high-performance development team who may need multiple operating system instances or want to experiment with spinning up many machines to see if something works or sticks. 

We don't necessarily need support for those. Our procurement team is confused if we need a license for an instance that was only up for 15 minutes on Thursday. We need to make sure that we always have sufficient licenses. That misunderstanding of how cloud development works can sometimes slow down development. It inhibits the growth and success of Red Hat Enterprise Linux globally. So more education around that would be beneficial or at least will provide more clarity.

RHEL's total cost of ownership is difficult to quantify, but it's almost irrelevant. In cases where you don't care, you can always use an open-source OS. In other cases, you need the support and certification that comes with something like RHEL. I do not believe RHEL has any competitors in our use case.

I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux nine out of ten. My advice to prospective users is to try RHEL out and see if your application works. In the long run, the benefits will outweigh the time and effort spent migrating. The important thing is to ensure you run programs in parallel so you can accurately evaluate the benefits and make a case for switching.

Our business is primarily focused on software development. We are doing development and deployment using containers. We are mainly using Docker, but we might also adopt Podman later.

Our business logic is mainly for our own software development. We mainly have Java applications, Java containers, Tomcat, and Java frameworks. These solutions cater primarily to our business-level operations.

We are using Red Hat Enterprise Linux on-premises.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux gives us a standardized way of handling various tasks. Everything is the same in our environment.

It gives a standard procedure to do everything. It also gives standard APIs and a stable environment.

It works very well for our business-critical applications because of its stability and support. We have some kind of support in terms of the life cycle of the operating system.

Its long lifecycles, updates, support, and documentation help with business continuity and compliance. With reference architectures, we can straightaway get working solutions.

We can rely on security features like SELinux and run several workloads for WordPress and so on. We can rely on Red Hat.

We have used Red Hat Insights for certain things, and it has been helpful.

Stability, support, and life cycle management are valuable. We get fixes quickly. We can rely on them for features and so on. We can rely on their support. In the case of an issue, we can get somebody on the phone.

Red Hat could offer a containerized version of the operating system, potentially moving towards a more containerized ecosystem. 

More flexible tools for dealing with complex things like SELinux would also be beneficial. Its built-in security features are good, but they are quite complex to manage at an atomic level.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for 25 years. We are mainly using Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9, but we also have Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 and 8.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is very stable. However, sometimes, there might be some load balancing issues leading to performance issues, so we have to figure out all those. Usually, Red Hat tools are helpful for that.

With automation, we have been able to handle scaling efficiently. We are using an internal cloud, which suits our needs without relying on OpenShift or VMware.

The support from Red Hat is very good. We have collaborated with Red Hat remotely and have been satisfied with the assistance provided for our customers' cases.

Positive

The pricing is suitable for midsize to large companies, though small enterprises might struggle. It is comparable to Windows licensing.

I would advise considering the lifecycle and support that Red Hat offers. They provide long-term support and have best practices for addressing vulnerabilities and attack vectors.

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

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux to provide a Platform as a Service for our customers in the cloud, upon which we have built additional software. This encompasses Red Hat and Synthos, including all Red Hat derivatives.

We also use it for our security-related applications primarily due to the robust enterprise support and comprehensive security features it offers.

Using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for containerized workloads has increased security, stability, and trust, ultimately simplifying our work.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux enhances the reliability and security of our hybrid cloud environment.

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

We chose Red Hat Enterprise Linux for our environment due to its robust built-in security features, including proactive security fixes and an enterprise-class operating system with reliable support services that enhance security and reduce risk. Furthermore, the secure base OS Docker image strengthens our environment's overall security posture.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux helps reduce our total cost of ownership due to its security, stability, and enterprise support. The tightly integrated Red Hat portfolio simplifies working with their products and achieving the desired return on investment.

The most valuable aspects of Red Hat Enterprise Linux are the security and stability it provides.

I encountered an issue updating the time zone for one of my assigned countries due to a daylight-saving time change. Although we collaborated with Red Hat to build a package that addressed the issue, it wasn't delivered promptly, necessitating manual workarounds to resolve the problem.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for almost 15 years.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is exceptionally stable, minimizing the risk of outages or issues stemming from the operating system itself. This reliability allows it to run seamlessly in the background, freeing administrators from constantly addressing kernel bugs or faults in core system applications, ultimately saving significant time and manpower.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux offers flexibility to scale as required.

My experiences with Red Hat technical support have been mostly positive, though I've encountered some issues occasionally.

Positive

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is suitably priced with various support tiers to match organizational needs and environments.

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

When considering a Linux operating system, the choice depends on the intended use. For enterprise environments requiring dedicated support, Red Hat Enterprise Linux is recommended. Smaller projects or testing environments may start with a similar option and transition to Red Hat as the business grows.