Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is a stable solution.

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

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

Neutral

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

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

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

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

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

I work in the financial industry in Brazil and my first job was to use Linux.

We deploy Red Hat Enterprise Linux on-prem and in the cloud. Our cloud provider is AWS. 

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux for web applications, including the JBoss data bridge. We also have some applications for prevention and risk. Red Hat Enterprise Linux is used for most of our applications in Brazil, so it is used for almost everything.

We run our workloads and applications on AWS.

There are many Linux-based operating systems. We wanted an operating system that was mature and reliable, and Red Hat Enterprise Linux was the best choice for us.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is a highly resilient operating system. It has a strong XFS file system, kernel, and package build.

Migrating workloads between the cloud and our data center is easy. There are no problems.

The knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux helps a lot. It is very useful and has helped me to resolve the issue by looking at the documentation.

The integrity of our operational systems is very stable. Red Hat Enterprise Linux has a good file system type and good kernels. It does not crash for any reason. This makes it a very stable platform for me. It is the best solution for our needs.

There was a reduction in the amount of detail provided in backlog messages between Red Hat Enterprise Linux versions six and seven, compared to versions eight and nine. This makes it more difficult to troubleshoot errors in versions eight and nine, as users must dig deeper into the operating system to find the source of the problem. Versions six and seven provided more detailed error messages, which made it easier to identify and fix problems. Deploying applications using Red Hat Enterprise Linux versions six and seven was seamless. However, there is a chance that something could be broken when deploying with versions eight and nine, and we may not know it.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux since versions four and five.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is extremely stable.

One of the reasons we adopted the Red Hat Enterprise Linux ecosystem is because of its ability to scale.

I have not had a good experience with Red Hat engineers. When we have an issue, it is very difficult to have it resolved in the first call. They always have to escalate the issue and involve multiple people. At a minimum, we have to escalate an issue three or four times before it is resolved. The support team in Brazil has helped me a lot because they work with me to resolve the problem, but if I have to open a ticket and follow the steps I never get proper service.

I give the technical support of Red Hat a zero out of ten.

Negative

The initial deployment is easy. I can deploy Red Hat Enterprise Linux myself using a base image within a few minutes both on-prem and in the cloud.

The implementation is completed in-house.

We purchased our license from Red Hat.

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

Cloud vendor lock-in is inevitable when we adopt the cloud. This is because once we adopt a cloud service, such as DynamoDB or AWS, we become dependent on that provider for support and maintenance. It is very difficult to work with multiple clouds 100 percent of the time, as this can lead to problems with failover and other issues in multiple cloud environments because the risk is high.

The Red Hat Enterprise Linux ecosystem is more attractive because we are not just buying an operating system. We are buying an ecosystem that helps, supports, and secures our platform. I believe this is the better option.

Applying patches in the new versions of Red Hat Enterprise Linux is more time-consuming than in Oracle Linux because Oracle Linux does not require legacy environments to be patched or changed through applications.

For someone looking for an open source cloud-based Linux OS instead of Red Hat Enterprise Linux, I recommend AWS Linux. It is a very stable version of Linux and does not require a subscription.

Our company uses the solution to provide DBA services and manage Linux databases for clients. 

The solution works well both on-premises and in the cloud. We deploy based on client preferences that include on-premises, hybrid cloud, and fully public or private cloud. 

Depending on use cases, we use different cloud providers such as AWS, Oracle, or Azure and they all have their own limitations. The solution is flexible and has great scripting so it can accommodate any conditions. 

For one client, we have version 7 installed and managed on a variety of physical servers for different environments including production. For another client, we have VMs. For other use cases, we have a setup of active sites in on-premises with standbys in the Azure cloud. 

The solution has enabled us to centralize development because it provides true automation. It ensures that systems are stable. There is no room for doubt with our clients because the protection is sound. 

Productivity and efficiency are key advantages because the solution automates regular tasks and processes. All of this benefits our company. 

The solution integrates with all types of software and is much easier to manage than a Windows system. 

Management is portable and easily automated so deploying or installing packages and running updates is seamless. You can automate as much as possible from the deployment and maintenance points of view, both on-premises and in the cloud. 

The operating system is very stable and robust with a very good kernel. You don't run into issues related to the core of the operating system.

Updates are constant and delivered pretty regularly. The solution covers most vulnerabilities so we feel pretty confident using it on different machines. We can tell within 30 days that patches or updates are good. 

The solution could provide more APIs and GUI interfaces. The current options are kind of low-level and not as visual as Windows. 

I have been using the solution for 15 years. 

The solution is very stable so I rate stability a nine out of ten. 

The solution is scalable so I rate scalability an eight out of ten. 

I used technical support once and they responded very quickly with useful information. 

I rate support an eight out of ten. 

Positive

I previously used AX, HP-UX, and Solaris at a prior job. My current employer has always used the solution. 

The setup is straightforward. 

For one client's cloud setup, we created virtual machines and provisioned the operating system on the solution. The cloud solution provides images for the operating system so is pretty easy to install. Just click, click, click and that is it. 

For other cases, we had to install from scratch at boot but had well-documented instructions so we didn't have any issues. 

These use cases were not too complex so the focus was more on installing patches and packages that ensure compatibility with the solution. We find prerequisites for implementation in order for it to work. We focus on a strategy that makes sure we have the correct kernel parameters, the right center for settings, and the utilities needed for managing the operating system in conjunction with the database. For example, a lot of C++ compilers need to be installed. Everything that is part of the pre-install packages can be done by a DPA as well. 

We deploy the solution in-house for customers and it takes a few hours.

Ongoing maintenance includes applying versions on occasion to make sure processes aren't hanging, over consuming, or missing resources. 

Each client has a set of servers and databases, so maintenance might require two to six system administrators. It all depends on use cases including the number of systems, how critical systems are, and whether you need downtime. 

It is important to make sure your patches are up to date. Any part of regular maintenance should not be skipped. 

I recommend the solution because it is stable and easy to manage. I rate the solution an eight out of ten. 

We have a very large system with ten application teams. We've got four DevOps squads that support those teams. We use this solution to containerize about 85% of our applications and software. OpenShift 4 maintains our applications and our databases, keeping our system up to date and it integrates with our CI/CD pipelines.

We also use OCS for security compliance.

RHEL runs as the backbone for our applications. We are able to meet our deadlines of becoming the system of record and creating an operational maintenance system, on time and under budget. Our system processes 4.7 million customers' flood insurance policies yearly and processes their claims. It's the backbone for all of our applications and what they do.

RHEL's built-in security features have helped us reduce risk and maintenance compliance. We've been switching over even some of our build pipelines to use OpenShift. We are able to run a GitOps model to be able to track and store changes and then press the button to be able to sync it with OpenShift and this has been great.

The containerization capability has been most valuable. Having our applications and our databases containerized has allowed us to be able to migrate from our on-prem site to the cloud in a much faster timeframe. We don't have to change the applications or databases and there's a lot less rearchitecting. That has been a game-changer for us.

The OCS is built to help monitor and scan OpenShift 4 containers and Core OS. That integration has been seamless for us.

This solution could be improved if it was easier to set up and run in cloud environments. It can also be costly to manage a large OpenShift environment.

We have been using RHEL since 2016. 

This is a stable solution.

We're about to build out and use the elastic capabilities to spin up OpenShift clusters as needed on demand so we're about to find out if it is scalable.

It's been great. We've been having weekly meetings with them as we migrated to Google. They've been a great partner in providing support as needed in helping troubleshoot issues.

I would rate their support a nine out of ten.

Positive

The initial deployment and setup of OpenShift were straightforward. We ran into some issues that we were able to work through. The Red Hat team did provide a lot of support to get us there.

We have an O&M contract that helped do the setup, and then we did consult with Red Hat on it. Guidehouse is the contractor that provides support for development in O&M. They've been a great team and partner to us. 

OpenShift being containerized has meant that we've been able to move from the on-prem to the cloud in a much faster time period.

I don't have any issues with the licensing or pricing. In general, OpenShift is a little more expensive. It's a bit expensive to have the number of containers we need and for disaster recovery but it's been worth the money because it's helped us get to the cloud faster.

It is easy to troubleshoot with RHEL. I would rate this solution an eight out of ten. If you are in the government space and you're looking to modernize your systems but you're not quite sure about the cloud, using OpenShift to containerize is a good first step. It will give you that cloud-agnostic capability so that you're more readily able to move to the cloud when you're ready.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten. 

The main use case is general system administration, which includes configuring networking, configuring storage volumes, managing users, and running backup applications.

Application performance is one of its main benefits. The applications that run on RHEL are very stable. 

I've not done much work with containers, but with general applications, as compared to other solutions that I've used, RHEL has the best portability. I have not had any issues or application failures while migrating. I've moved virtual machines and systems from one platform to another, and I've never been scared of RHEL. I never had to deal with application failures while moving them from one place to there. That's why I'm pretty confident with RHEL when it comes to working with it.

I like its integrations. I would put it higher than any other Linux version when it comes to availability. Its integrations with different applications and solutions are the best. We work with a lot of clients that use RHEL, and we could easily and quickly integrate any cloud solution, virtualization solution, storage solution, or software with the RHEL system. It is better than the other solutions we have worked with.

I like the way the updates are done and the way packages can be installed through the Red Hat Package Manager. I like it because of how fast and straightforward it is.

Its user interface could be better for people who want to use the GUI. They can provide a better user interface with more features. Storage works perfectly fine. Of course, continuous improvements should be made all the time, but it isn't at all lacking when it comes to storage and other features.

I've been using RHEL for four years, but in the last 12 months, I've used it more.

It is the most stable one. It is very stable. 

It has the ability to scale. I know that it can scale, but because of my limited experience with scaling, I don't know how good scaling is. I have only done the basic scaling, but I would assume that it can scale way more than what I have done.

Most of my usage of it is on a private cloud. I've used it in a hybrid cloud environment, but I've not done a lot of work with the hybrid cloud because most of the clients we work with have private clouds. The little bit of experience I have had with the hybrid cloud was related to basic application installation and scaling. For the scaling part, I was able to have the applications first in the private cloud and then migrate or move it to a hybrid cloud. I was able to integrate them, and I was able to change the environment, as well as have them work in a cluster. The scaling part was seamless. It was pretty easy. It was easier than I thought.

The private cloud is deployed at three locations. The public cloud is deployed across two regions. There are a lot of users of this solution. There are different systems for different applications and different services. I can't put a number on the total number of users. Some systems have 50 and some systems have close to 70. There are systems with just 10 or 5 users.

They can be faster. Because I work in support, I classify support in terms of how well you can resolve an issue and how fast you can resolve an issue. They don't reply fast enough. In a lot of instances, they don't get back to you immediately, and you have to wait for a while after creating a support ticket. They can be faster at that, but when it comes to resolving your issue, they are good. Overall, I would rate their support a seven out of ten.

Neutral

Prior to using RHEL, I was using Windows. I've also done a lot of work with Ubuntu, SUSE, and other Linux solutions, but Red Hat is the best one. I prefer it over other solutions because I'm used to it, and I find it better than other solutions. I'm used to the commands, and it is easy for me to navigate my way through it. If I have to choose between Windows and Linux, I would always go with Linux and choose RHEL because of its stability and agility.

I also use CentOS for my personal things or running some tests. For example, if I want to run a test with a client, it doesn't make sense to run a test in the client's production environment. I have a test environment with CentOS, and I run the test on CentOS before going to RHEL. I'm pretty comfortable using CentOS. CentOS is like my own testing environment.

The reason I switched over to RHEL was that over here, almost everybody or every client who uses Linux has RHEL. So, I had to understand how RHEL works. I realized that most people use it because of its stability. People find this system and its architecture good. A lot of clients talked about how they preferred the architecture of RHEL. Some clients find the commands to be easily readable, and some clients find it easy to integrate with others. A lot of clients find patching and package management pretty easy.

In terms of the deployment model, we have a private cloud. We have VMware for virtualization and Azure Stack for the private cloud. There are also public clouds, such as GCP, AWS, and Azure, and then there is the physical hardware. Some of our deployments are on physical hardware. So, we deploy RHEL on physical servers, and then, there's also the hybrid model when some clients want to integrate the private cloud and the public cloud together. They want the public cloud to be like a backup environment, or they want the private cloud to be a backup environment.

I was mostly involved in the deployment of the hardware and the private cloud.  I was also a part of the team that set up the hybrid environment, but I didn't do a lot of work on the public cloud side. The only complex part of the deployment was the hybrid configuration, where we were trying to interconnect the private cloud and the public cloud. The deployment on the public cloud was more straightforward than the deployment on the private cloud because, on a public cloud, the image is already there, whereas, on a private cloud, you have to set the image up yourself.

Each deployment model took approximately one week to deploy, but the hybrid model, requiring interconnecting the private and public clouds, took more than a week because there were a lot of dependencies.

In terms of maintenance, it does require maintenance. That's the main reason why people pay for support. 

We have definitely seen an ROI. There are around 15% savings.

It is pretty expensive, but it is worth it. Generally, in an enterprise environment, there is no cheap solution. This is coming from someone who is working with a company that provides a lot of solutions a bit cheaper than the industry standard. In the enterprise environment, I believe no solution is inexpensive, but RHEL is still pretty expensive.

Additional costs that I am aware of are usually for support and setup. A lot of banks use RHEL. I've seen the cost of the support and setup. Some of them complain about it, but they also talk about how well it works.

I have not compared the overall costs of open-source competitors to the overall costs of RHEL when it comes to supporting business operations over time. The only other distribution for which I have seen the pricing is AIX, which was a bit more expensive than RHEL.

I would always advise doing a proof of concept where the client gives out his requirements and you run a proof of concept based on those requirements to make them confident of purchasing the solution. It is always better if a proof of concept is done. This way, everybody knows what they're getting into.

Its built-in security features are definitely helpful, but at the end of the day, you have to go further than using the built-in ones. You have to do a few other things yourself. The built-in features are helpful for compliance, but we, and most enterprise organizations, always want to go further than using built-in features because some built-in features could be more open to risks. We use the best built-in features, but we always want to go further and integrate other features into the RHEL system.

I have used Red Hat Insights only once, and I have not worked much with it, but my colleagues handling monitoring used it. It was helpful for the unpatched system. They checked Red Hat Insights and saw the systems that need patching. We got an email saying that it is a security requirement and that we need to patch them because it may affect the security of the systems. Coincidentally, after doing the patching, we read blogs about security hacks out there for some of the older systems that were not patched early enough.

Red Hat Insights provide us with vulnerability alerts, but I am not sure about targeted guidance. Vulnerability alerts have impacted the uptime, which is something that we take very seriously. Uptime was one of the major reasons we wanted to work with Insights because we didn't want any attacks that would cause downtime.

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

Our company uses one of the solution's varieties, mostly CentOS. We are restructuring and moving to the licensed version of RHEL and its derivatives. 

We use both RHEL 7 and 8 mostly in the cloud but also have a small data center where the solution is used on bare metal. Our team does a lot of AIML work where we set up instances to run simulations. 

We are moving a bit into Redshift because we do not have many staff members with containerization or Kubernetes experience. 

We run most things on the solution and its impact has been huge. We do have a few items on Ubuntu but question its use. Conceptually, Ubuntu is for amateurs and RHEL and CentOS are for professional organizations with hardened security. 

The YUM repository is valuable. We are in an interesting situation because we cannot have access to direct YUM or browser repositories so we have to copy to a Nexus server and pull from there. From what we have seen, pretty much everything is available right there. 

The solution's use of Kubernetes as an internal or core process on the system is brilliant. You eventually get to Kubernetes whether via Redshift or other tools and do not have to worry about your hardware because you deploy and push to the infrastructure without worry. 

The Cockpit makes it very easy to maintain systems because you do not have the overhead of running gooey but still have the interface. I am a Linux person and had issues with Windows because they required gooey on servers when it was not necessarily needed. 

The solution is moving away from CentOS and there are growing pains from the customer's perspective. It was purchased by IBM and they are for profit which everyone understands. There is a huge shake up right now because customers who run CentOS do not know what to do with all their systems. One of the reasons CentOS is used for government offices is its security feature that does not change because it occurs after route. The solution placed CentOS in the middle so government customers do not trust it. The way the rollout occurred caused a lot of mistrust with Red Hat. 

The SELinux is great but the Amazon security features cause issues. For example, we run RHEL and CentOS on AWS but they control the cloud and do not give us access to security features. We have to go through multiple layers to deploy an instance. Something that could be controlled with a firewall or blocking ports is now controlled by security groups inside AWS that we cannot access. 

I am newer to the solution but our company has been using it for a long time. 

I previously worked with an Intel customer who used a lot of CentOS, so I am aware in that sense. I am very familiar with the YAM and DNF. I have even played a bit with Rocky which is not specific to the solution. 

My work in systems and software supports one of our teams. 

Technical support staff are personable and quick to get to problems. Support is better than other vendors and I rate it a ten out of ten. 

Positive

I used to work for a government organization that was heavily into AWS. One of the reasons they embraced open source was because Oracle was too expensive. They put everything into AWS rather than open source, so they will soon be in the exact same position where everything is proprietary. 

The solution is easy to set up but sometimes there are issues with custom software deployments. For example, we want to use Ansible in RHEL 8 but the software is only supported in RHEL 7. We question whether we should install an old version of Python to get things to run. 

The solution is pretty easy to troubleshoot. 

Our organization is huge but I handle the setup for instances in our small data center.

I do not deal with money, but I see an ROI in terms of the engineers' skills because they can reapply them to multiple RHELs and incidents. 

The solution is moving away from its open source roots and licensing is a little bit of an issue. 

We use Ubuntu, but not much. 

Primarily, we are dedicated to RHEL and CentOS to the point that we do not see Windows as a viable server option. Microsoft's cloud is getting traction but it only makes sense if you have a solution meant for Windows. 

We also use Redshift and Cockpit. There is consistency across products so they are backward compatible with familiar operations. For example, you could use RHEL 8, YUM, or DNF because the syntaxes are identical.  

The solution is very into Ansible and we are trying to drive everything to it.

Look at the security features of the solution and compare them with other options. Open source is great, but at the end of the day, you need someone supporting the product. Another option is to just listen to groups that write on the internet, but you have to decide if you trust that along with their adversaries. 

Government offices have to worry about adversaries from other countries because the code they use is unclear. The idea of open source is to be able to evaluate the code but it is not clear if anyone actually reviews it. 

I rate the solution a ten out of ten. 

We have warehouse management systems (WMSs) where we run Oracle as our database. The app tier is basically Java. We are using a vendor-supplied Java, and the application itself is managed by the vendor. There are just one-offs here and there, such as utility boxes, but the majority is Oracle and the application that connects to Oracle.

On larger systems, like HANA, we have it deployed physically. On everything else, we have deployed it in a VMware environment. It is all on-premises. While there is some cloud, that is being done by contractors. 

We are on versions 6 through 8. As soon as version 9 gets released to GA, I am going to start working on getting that image ready. Currently, about half our images are on version 8, two-fifths are on version 6, and then version 7 is squeezed in-between.

The solution provides features that help me tweak or configure the operating system for optimal use, such as Insights Client, which I have used quite a bit to help me.

Our users are removed from the environment. They don't really know that they are running on RHEL. There have been very few complaints about speeds, application, or stability on RHEL platforms. Whereas, on Windows platforms, there are a lot of complaints.

Satellite 6.10 and RHEL integrate with each other perfectly. This integrated approach enables me to be a single person managing my images since it does a lot of the manual labor that I used to do, such as building patches, doing system maintenance, and keeping systems consistent. It does all that stuff for me. So, it has offloaded those responsibilities, giving me more work-life balance.

It is a bit on the pricier side. However, due to the stability and support that they provide to my management and me, we really don't see a reason to choose another way to go. Red Hat offers excellent support in a sphere where it is difficult to find good support.

I have been using RHEL since 2013.

It is a good operating system. It is very stable. It does not take a lot of maintenance. You set it up well and it runs. To give some perspective, we also have Windows admins. That team is about six people and growing. They manage twice as many servers as I manage, keeping them busy all the time. Whereas, I pretty much have a life; the work-life balance is very good.

RHEL is very stable. You build an image and deploy it, then it runs.

As far as the operating system contributing to reliability, it is very stable and has low maintenance. It keeps running.

We found that two of our outages in the past eight years were related to the operating system. All our other outages were related to the application and the use of the application.

I don't find the solution’s tracing and monitoring tools impact performance at all.

We can scale out. When we need more machines, we just build more machines. That is not a problem. We don't do the scale ups or any of the other scaling that is out there. That is partially because of the way our applications work. You need to scale according to the application. If the application requires new nodes, we just spin up another node and it is no problem. I could run 10,000 images, and it is not a problem.

Because we buy companies, we will probably continue to increase the usage of RHEL. I don't think that will be a problem because it is so stable. We are running about 200 images right now and about 60% of those are in production. I can't see it shrinking, but I can see it growing.

I like the fact that they really dig into things and then provide answers. As the single Linux guy, I kind of need that second admin next to me sometimes to say, "Hey, what about this?" and I am able to do that through the portal. I get my questions answered and trouble tickets resolved.

The technical support is superior to many vendors with whom we interact. They pay attention. Rarely will I run into a support person who doesn't seem to know what they are doing, then it doesn't take very long to get the issue escalated to somebody else. Out of a hundred cases, I have probably escalated three times. I would rate the support as 10 out of 10.

Positive

I came from a Unix background. I was on HP-UX on OSS and AIX. So, the transition to Linux was very simple. I am a command line person, so I wasn't scared. I just moved into it and found it to be very attractive. In fact, I don't run GUIs on any of my Linux boxes.

The biggest benefit for me, coming out of the Unix arena, was that it matched Unix very closely. So, I am able to draw on my Unix experience and use that in the RHEL environment. There is almost a non-existent learning curve in my situation.

The initial setup of RHEL is about 10 times easier than Windows. It is literally just click, click, bang. It just installs. If you have a problem with the install, you just reinstall it. It takes very little time to install, about 10 minutes. As a base image, it is very easy to set up. Then, you have post tweaks that you need to do, and I have scripts for that. Since I can script it all, I just run another command, then boom and it is all done.

For my implementation strategy, I build the gold image, which is basically just going through the CD and making my selections for a base image. Then, I freeze that image, which is on VMware, and run my scripts. My scripts basically set up logs for auditing. Whether we are going to ship logs or keep logs locally, it sets up the basic users. For instance, it will set up my account with pseudo access so I can do the remainder of the work using my account with pseudo access. It sets up tracing, the host name, IP addresses, and ESXi host files. It sets up the basic fundamentals of an operating system and gets it ready for deploying the application. 

There are also different kinds of file systems that need to be deployed and additional users that need to be added. Those are all manual processes.

We have one admin who manages all the images. That is the return on investment. The company hasn't had to hire a second admin (FTE) to keep things running.

We have moved to the Simple Content Access (SCA) model. It is much easier to do renewals and see how I am using my licenses. I used to have to do it all by hand. It would take me a good couple of hours every few months to make sure that we were up to snuff on everything. However, with the new model that they have, this is very easy. I just go to cloud.redhat.com to look and see how I am utilizing my licenses. If I am running out of bounds, I can find out why. If it is simply that we have images that need to be removed, we remove those images. If we need to buy more licenses, then we can start the process of purchasing more licenses.

I think it is worth the price. I wish the pricing was a little bit more friendly, so when I go to my boss, he tells me, "That's too much money." I can say, "It's not too much money."

Especially if you are a newbie, buy the support and use the support. Get a couple of images going and really play around with them: crash them, burn them, and figure out how support functions when you have a really gnarly situation. Otherwise, it is just inserting the CD and booting the machine. It is very easy to set up and run.

I have looked at SUSE or Ubuntu. They are so radically different in their total management, e.g., everything from getting packages to configuration and in how that is all done. Therefore, it would be a learning curve to go to another solution. So, there is benefit in staying with RHEL. 

I do not have a lot of experience with Ubuntu or SUSE. Those would be the bigger contenders. The thing that I keep coming back to though as I'm talking to vendors and VARs is that though SUSE is a contender out there in the SAP landscape, RHEL has the stability. SUSE appears to function more like a desktop operating system ported to a server environment, whereas RHEL is built from the server hub. The management tools show that. It is a mature management infrastructure.

There are some things that are nice about SUSE. People talk about their app configuration wizards, but if you're coming from a Unix background overall, RHEL feels like a real operating system.

My interaction with Ubuntu has been as a desktop. It is very GUI-oriented. In my estimation, it is more like a toy. It is deployed in server environments, but it is more because admins are familiar with the desktop version of it. They just port that over as opposed to having grown up on Unix and moved into Ubuntu.

A Unix admin will prefer to go into something like Red Hat, Rocky Linux, AlmaLinux, or even Oracle Enterprise Linux because they will simply feel much more like a data center operating system than some of these other solutions.

RHEL provides features that help speed deployment. I am currently learning how to take advantage of those features.

As far as deployment goes, I build a golden image VM and just deploy the images themselves. I don't really use any RHEL tools specifically for the deployment portion.

The solution is constantly expanding and moving into new areas, like jumping into the cloud.

I need more experience with their self-monitoring tools. That is the one area where I feel like I am lacking. I am still using a lot of the stuff that I learned in the Unix realm. I haven't really matured into using the specifics that are being supplied. I am a member of the accelerators team and have been exposed to some of these tools through their lectures. I am starting to play with them a little bit, but I have not fully gone into that arena. So, there is improvement needed on my access to RHEL.

I would rate the solution as 10 out of 10.

Our primary use case for RHEL is running our front-end web servers. When you visit our site, all of the front-end servers are Red Hat. The databases that are hosted are Oracle and they predominantly sit on Red Hat 7. We're trying to migrate those to version 8.

We also use it for BI.

We have a digital footprint in Azure and AWS, as well as on-premises. Things for us are very fluid. We're always changing and adapting to our environment, based on what the needs of our faculty and students are.

The experience depends on the user and what it is that they are doing. If somebody is a Windows user, they're not comfortable with Linux, even if it has a GUI. The graphic user interface can be off-putting to users that are familiar with Mac or Windows. It's not as fast, snappy, and showy as the Windows or Apple graphical user interface. So, those types of users for office production, probably, will not be happy with the Red Hat product line.

If on the other hand, you're a developer or you're a database administrator (DBA), it is different. My experience with my developers and my DBA is that they love Linux. It's easy for them to use. It's easy for them to deploy things like Oracle databases and web servers. Continuous development integration tools like Maven or Tomcat or any of those frameworks are already put in place.

For all of the backend tools that do the work to build the infrastructure, Red Hat really does a good job to make it easy to deploy those consistently, securely, and upgrade them in the same way. There are a lot of pluses for the developers, the DBAs, and the like. But, if you're a regular office user, Red Hat is probably not the tool or the OS that you want to use.

When using RHEL for tracking or monitoring, they do a very good job with respect to the impact on the performance of existing applications. The nice thing about Red Hat is you can get very granular with your logging. We do log aggregation, we use Elasticsearch, and we use Filebeat. These things are part of our log aggregation applications and services that run on the backend of our Red Hat boxes, and it does a very good job of that. We also add bash logging into our hardened Linux deployments, so we see everything. We want to monitor everything, and Red Hat does a really good job with that.

RHEL has given us the opportunity to accelerate the deployment of our cloud-based workloads, although because my organization is a very small college, and we don't have a lot of funds, we can't afford to have all of our workloads in the cloud. It's actually cheaper for us to run most of our applications and servers on-premises.

The workloads that we have in the cloud are typically mission-critical, like student transcripts and stuff like that. These are the types of things that we need to have backups of, which is something that Azure does with Red Hat very well. We are moving in the direction of using Red Hat in the cloud, with the caveat that we deploy only as we can afford it.

With respect to disaster recovery, Azure and Red Hat are probably one of the best pairings that you can get. It provides a lot of redundancy, it's easy to deploy, and the server support is excellent with Azure. There is also good logging, so if you do have an issue you can troubleshoot rather quickly and resolve the problem.

The integration with other Red Hat products, such as Satellite, is excellent and I haven't had any issues with it at all. Everything works very well together with all of the products that we use. For example, Ansible works very well with Satellite. We also used Salt at one time, and we used Puppet. We've moved away from those and just focused on using Ansible. All of the tools that we've used work very well with Rad Hat. The product is mature enough that there's enough support for it from all of the other vendors that run on the Red Hat platform.

There are lots of good features in this product. Because I am a system admin, I don't tend to use the GUI or end-user features. Everything that I do is executed from the command line, and this includes features like monitoring tools, such as netstat or iostat. These are the tools that are built into RHEL. Their toolboxes are good but I wouldn't consider them a great feature because there are things that they still need to work on.

The feature that I like the most is that we can integrate it easily with our existing infrastructure. We found that it is much easier to deploy RHEL in our environment compared to a competing distribution like Ubuntu. This is because we also use RHEL Satellite, which is the patching and lifecycle management application that binds all of our RHELs and allows us to push out new stuff.

Satellite is an important feature because it helps to speed up deployment. Satellite is Red Hat's solution to Windows, where the Windows equivalent would be Server Center Control Manager (SCCM), which is now Intune. Satellite is the lifecycle management application for deploying, maintaining, and upgrading your Red Hat systems, and it does a very good job of that. Satellite works in tandem with Red Hat, as you use it to deploy your server.

The main point is that Satellite makes it quick and easy to deploy, and it is also easy to automate the process. I'm the only Linux person at my organization, with the rest of the people working with Windows. Using Satellite, a Windows end-user can deploy a Red Hat server without any Linux experience.

The security updates are done very well, so I feel confident that I'm not going to get hit with ransomware or a similar problem. Their security patches are pretty up to date. Also, it's rather easy to harden a Red Hat deployment because they provide tools to help you do that.

Red Hat gives us the ability to run multiple versions of applications on a single operating system, although we only use this functionality for Java. Even then, it's specific to the underlying applications. For example, Oracle uses Java on the backend. Also, we have multiple versions of Java on some of our web servers and it does a good job.

The biggest thing that is crushing RHEL is documentation. Their documentation is haphazard at best. The man pages that you can use locally are pretty good, they've been fleshed out pretty well, but the documentation from Red Hat itself really needs somebody to go through it and review it.

The only real negative that I have with Red Hat is that you can tell that when you look at the documentation, they cut and paste documentation from the previous version. Because they update it that way, what happens is that there's nobody doing Q&A. For example, in Red Hat 7 and Red Hat 8, they changed the way they do deployments. Instead of using YUM, you use DNF but when you read the documentation for Red Hat 8, they intermix the two. This means that if you're a new Linux user, it's very difficult to distinguish between the two commands. The fact of the matter is that one is built on top of the other. DNF is backward compatible on top of YUM, and that can cause confusion with users and system administrators. However, it wouldn't be an issue if there was good documentation.

My job is pretty easy, but the documentation would really help me be able to communicate the things that I do to the rest of my team. They're all Windows people and when I go to the Red Hat documentation and tell them that we're migrating to this and we're using this tool, but the documentation is horrible, I get laughed at.

By comparison, Microsoft has its own problems with documentation, but it's a little bit more organized and it's definitely fleshed out a lot better. I commend Microsoft for its documentation. Red Hat may be the better product for the things that we do in our environment, but Microsoft has better documentation.

I have been working with Red Hat Enterprise Linux for the past four years.

This is a very stable product.

In terms of scalability, you can't beat it. It's easy for me to scale up and down, especially with Satellite. I can push out 10, 100, of the same servers for the same configuration and set up with the push of a button.

On the cloud side, Azure also allows us to scale very nicely. This means that we can scale locally if we need to because we use Hyper-V for our VM management and we can spin up 10, 15, or however many servers we need, relatively easy with the push of a button, and you can do the same thing in Azure. We haven't done that in AWS.

Most of the servers that we spin up are proxies. We use a product called HAProxy, and we can deploy those proxies as needed. There are also busy periods where we need to scale. For example, when it's the time of year for students to register for classes, we'll see an increase. 

Another thing that is nice is that Azure will scale as we see more users come online. It will automatically spin up Red Hat boxes to accommodate, and then it'll bring them back down when that surge is over.

Overall, scalability is very nice, either in the cloud or on-premises. As far as setup and configuration, you can make sure that it's consistent across the board, no matter where it is deployed.

I would rate their frontline support, where I submit a ticket, a seven or eight out of ten.

In terms of support that is available through their documentation, I would rate it a three out of ten.

Before I started working for the organization I work for now, I used a product called the FOG Project. At the time, we used Ubuntu Linux. FOG was the equivalent to Satellite and Ubuntu is the equivalent to standard Red Hat.

Comparing the two are apples and oranges. The FOG Project is not as mature as Satellite; it doesn't have the bells and whistles that Satellite does. In general, their lifecycle management tools cannot be compared. Satellite outperforms the FOG project, it's easier to deploy and easier to use.

When comparing Ubuntu and Red Hat, the big difference is that the releases for Red Hat are more stable. They do lag a little behind Ubuntu, as Ubuntu is more bleeding edge. This means that they're pushing out updates a little bit faster, but they're not clean in the sense that they may push out a patch, but then five days later, they have to push out a patch to patch the patch. This is in contrast to Red Hat, which is a little bit more consistent and a little bit more stable. What it comes down to is that Red Hat is much more stable than Ubuntu in terms of patches, updates, and upgrades.

Those are the key differences for somebody who manages that infrastructure. You want something that's easy to diagnose, troubleshoot, and put out solutions. Ubuntu may push out a patch or an update that's so bleeding edge or so out there that vendors haven't had time to come up with solutions on their own, so if it's a driver issue or something like that, with Ubuntu, you may have to wait around as a user for those kinds of solutions.

With Red Hat, they make sure that when the product goes out, that there is some Q&A, and they've done some testing. They make sure that there's compatibility with other products that depend on that particular feature, functionality, or service.

RHEL is very easy to configure and deploy.

When we're talking about RHEL in the cloud, Azure is probably the better platform for RHEL. AWS has some licensing issues. The business end of using RHEL on AWS is not as mature or fleshed out as it is on Azure.

Incidentally, I'm not a big fan of Azure. Rather, I have most of my experience in AWS, but Azure deploys Red Hat without issue. We don't have to worry about licensing and connecting things. Everything is already bound to Azure AD, and that makes it really nice because on-premises, we have to do that manually.

For the on-premises deployment, part of the deployment package requires that we add our Red Hat servers to our local AD. But in Azure, it just does everything for you all within one PowerShell command. Ultimately, deploying Red Hat in Azure is much easier than deploying it either on-premises or on AWS.

We have seen a return on our investment. Our organization is probably going to stick with Red Hat because the licensing fees are low enough to offset the maintenance and support cost of that OS.

Pricing is always a critical factor for all IT departments. The cost of doing business is part of the nature of the job. If you're going to buy a bunch of Dell servers, for example, you have to take into consideration not just the licensing, but the hardware support and other things. The licensing with Red Hat is on par with other organizations like Microsoft.

We buy our licensing in bulk, meaning we buy perhaps 1,500 licenses at a time. They changed their licensing structure over the last couple of years. It used to be per system, whereas now, it's all or nothing. We don't have a subscription, as they used to offer, because they moved away from that. We have a site license, which gives us a certain number of servers, perhaps 25,000, for the type of license that we have. That works really well for us.

The way our structure is set up is that we just buy it by the tier system that they have, so if you have so many servers then you buy that tier and then you get so many licenses as part of that tier or enterprise package.

There are additional fees for using other Red Hat tools, such as Ansible Tower. We use Satellite, and it uses Ansible on the backend. However, we use the vanilla Ansible out of the box, rather than the official Red Hat Ansible Tower, simply because we can't afford the licensing for it. Satellite bundles everything together nicely in their suite of tools but we have moved away from that because of the additional cost.

This is one of the downsides to any operating system, not just Red Hat. Windows, for example, is the same way. They try to bill every organization for every license that they can by adding on different suites of tools that they charge for. A lot of organizations, especially the smaller ones, simply can't afford it, so they create workarounds instead. In our case, Ansible is freely available and we can use it without having to pay the fees for Red Hat's Ansible.

The nice thing though, is that they give you the choice. Red Hat doesn't force you to buy the entire product. They still have Ansible entwined with their Satellite product. The point is that if you want the additional features and functionality then you have to buy their Ansible Tower product, but you can still use the basic product regardless.

The fact that RHEL is open-source was a factor in us implementing it. This is an interesting time for Red Hat. The great thing about Red Hat for us was that we could use Red Hat and then we could use their free, commercial version, which is CentOS. It stands for Community Enterprise OS. Unfortunately, they are no longer going to push out CentOS and I think that 8.4 is the latest version of their free Red Hat distribution.

When we first went to Red Hat, in all the organizations I've ever worked at, being able to test things was one of the key factors. We could spin up a CentOS, implement a proof of concept and do some testing before we actually went to use RHEL, which is a licensed version. The real plus was that we could do testing and we could do all these things on the free version without having to eat up a license to do a proof of concept before we actually invested money moving in that direction, using that particular product or service.

Now that this ability has gone away, we are going to see how that pans out. I think Rocky Linux, they're hoping that that's going to be the next CentOS or free Red Hat. We'll see if that pans out or not but right now, it's a scary time for people that are dependent on CentOS for their free development environments, where we can just spin that up and play around. Right now, we're looking at how we're going to resolve that.

It may be that we have to eat up a license so that we can spin up a machine that we just want to do a proof of concept. This is something that we don't know yet. I don't have an answer because we simply don't have enough data to make an assessment on that.

Everything considered, having a free commercial version available, in addition to the paid product, is a big lure for us. They worked really well in tandem.

We have approximately 14 servers running Red Hat 6 but we used Red Hat 6 all the way to Red Hat 8.

The AppStream feature is something that we have tried but on a very limited scale. We have had mixed results with it, although it looks promising. At this point, I can't say whether it is a good feature or not.

My advice for anybody considering Red Hat depends on the role of the person that is making the decision. If they're an end-user or their organization is using office productivity software, then they're probably not going to want to use it for the backend. This is because there are not a lot of users that are using Red Hat as their office productivity operating system.

If on the other hand, you're somebody that's looking for servers that just need what they call five nines or high availability, Red Hat is your solution for that. That's what I would say to anybody, any technical person that I've talked to, if you can afford it, definitely get Red Hat for your web development. Your web servers should be either Apache, or NGINX, which is their web server stuff.

Red Hat should also be used to host an Oracle database. We found that that works really well and is very competitive with Microsoft's SQL server. It's about the same cost; the Red Hat product is actually a little cheaper than Microsoft's SQL product.

Considering the cost, ease of deployment, and ease of use, Red Hat is the better product for your main infrastructure. For things that just have to be up and running, Red Hat is the product that you want to use.

I can't be strong enough in my opinion that Red Hat does what it does very well for the mundane tasks of infrastructure. For instance, when it comes to web servers, no other OS does a better job than Red Hat for web servers or databases. Similarly, it does a very good job for proxies. For things that just need to run and have very little human interaction, Red Hat's your solution. If you're looking for something that's for an office, such as for accounting, then Red Hat is not the solution to choose.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.