Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Reviews

Our primary use case for Red Hat Enterprise Linux is to set up and manage servers for various application teams, especially those dealing with hospital ADT applications. These applications handle critical data related to patient admissions and management within healthcare facilities. 

While configuring Red Hat Enterprise Linux and its associated tools can be complex and sometimes frustrating, I have found that leveraging the support and resources provided by Red Hat is invaluable. Through collaboration with Red Hat's support team and a better understanding of the intricacies involved, we have significantly improved the speed and efficiency of managing our extensive infrastructure, making the process smoother and more manageable than before.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has improved our system's security. 

While measuring uptime is important, what matters most to us is improving the value and efficiency of patch and reboot cycles. Red Hat Enterprise Linux's tools, including Satellite and Ansible, provide valuable visibility and transparency regarding vulnerabilities, packages, and infected systems, helping enhance security and patch management.

The most valuable feature of Red Hat Enterprise Linux is the Ansible Automation Platform, closely followed by Satellite. These two tools are integral to our environment. 

Satellite helps with provisioning, managing metadata, and licensing, while Ansible ensures uniform setup across our extensive environment, making the management of our infrastructure much smoother and more efficient.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux could be improved in several ways, especially regarding transparency and communication of new features. Enhancements could include better documentation and quick reference materials for various user groups, including developers, system administrators, etc. 

Additionally, there could be improved visibility for new and improved commands within Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Many users still rely on outdated commands when newer, more efficient alternatives are available. Providing frequent updates and maintenance for resources like the admin blog would help improve communication and transparency regarding Red Hat Enterprise Linux's capabilities and features.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for 11 years.

I would rate the support for Red Hat Enterprise Linux an eight out of ten. There has been a noticeable improvement in their support, particularly after their acquisition by IBM.

Positive

The deployment of Red Hat Enterprise Linux was initially complex because we were not aware of all the available tools to streamline the process. We had to learn, but now we are more proficient. 

Tasks that once took a month can now be completed in a week. We worked directly with Red Hat Enterprise Linux, without an integrated reseller or consultant.

We have seen a return on investment with Red Hat Enterprise Linux. By transitioning applications to the Red Hat Linux platform, we have been able to reduce our data center footprint and associated costs, such as electricity. This cost savings in other areas has been a clear benefit of using Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

Our upgrade and migration plans are focused on a balance between stability and staying current with the latest and most secure versions of Red Hat. 

While there is a desire to be on the cutting edge, we must consider what is currently in use by our clinicians and staff who rely on our hospital systems. We aim to strike a balance between these factors and leverage a sandbox environment to test the latest versions before deploying them in our production environment. 

We have been thoroughly impressed with Red Hat Insights and are currently in the process of exploring Leapp, which has shown great results in our evaluations. The web console has been invaluable for us, particularly when collaborating with application custodians who may not be familiar with the command line interface. 

We use Ansible for managing our Red Hat Enterprise Linux systems for provisioning and patching, which has improved visibility and reduced issues compared to third-party solutions. Overall, I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux as a nine out of ten.

Red Hat Enterprise Linunx's most valuable feature is patching. 

I am not happy with Red Hat's support. It is difficult to find knowledgeable people. It's hard to troubleshoot. 

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linunx since 2009. 

We used Solaris before Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Solaris' environment is closed, while Red Hat Enterprise Linunx is open-source. 

Red Hat Enterprise Linunx's knowledge base is good, and you can find answers there. 

I rate the product a nine out of ten. 

We host our applications and database servers on Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

We mostly have an on-premises setup. We also have Red Hat Enterprise Linux running on a virtual machine.

Compared to our previous Unix distro, it is pretty easy and less time-consuming to do patching and maintenance. It saves a lot of time during maintenance.

I started with Solaris 10, and then we migrated to Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Apart from local zones and a few other things, its features are similar to Solaris 10. It is getting our job done. It is hardware-independent. We can use Dell, HPE, or any other hardware. It is also more reasonable than the other operating systems.

It integrates closely with other products of Red Hat, such as Ansible, which makes it more efficient.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux since 2010.

We are getting all the support that we need on a timely basis. In the case of any issue, we are getting all the support needed to bring the production back online. I would rate them a nine out of ten.

Positive

We were using Solaris 10. We moved to Red Hat Enterprise Linux because it is cost-efficient and hardware-independent.

I am a part of the team that does the OS deployment. Its initial deployment is straightforward. We use automation for deployment. We have a kickstart to deploy the OS. Once we create that kickstart configuration file, the deployment is straightforward.

In terms of our upgrade and migration plans to stay current, we upgrade it before the OS is end of life. It is pretty straightforward. We are pretty satisfied with Red Hat Enterprise Linux systems when it comes to provisioning and patching.

We deployed it on our own. 

It is cost-effective.

There were not many options available.

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

I'm a consultant, and our customers use this product. I work for a company that works with this product. I mostly work with Red Hat Enterprise Linux. We do designs of infrastructure projects from the bottom to the top. We install Red Hat Enterprise Linux at the system level. Based on the application requirements, we design, configure, and update the systems.

Our customers use it as a basic operating system on which they deploy applications. They have enterprise application servers such as Tomcat or custom applications that need an operating system.

I've worked with it both on-prem and on the cloud. It depends on the client. On the cloud, the cloud providers are both AWS and Azure. This also depends on the clients, but it's mostly AWS and Azure.

Mostly, our customers use Red Hat Enterprise Linux because of its performance and security. They want to have an operating system that is supported and secure because they don't want to spend too much time supporting a Linux version that is not enterprise. They want an enterprise product that is secure so that they don't have to think about it all the time.

It isn't difficult for our customers to move workloads between the cloud and the data center using Red Hat Enterprise Linux. The integration from on-prem to the cloud is quite easy because the operating system is the same. The operating system works the same in both places, so it's easy.

It has helped our customers avoid cloud vendor lock-in because they didn't need to buy a specific subscription from a cloud vendor or use a specific operating system from a cloud vendor and change the code of their application in relation to that. It's important to have a solution that avoids cloud vendor lock-in because they can move freely from one system to another system without any issues.

It has saved costs for our customers because it's a stable operating system, and they have no problem with security, patching, and so on. The operating system and the environment are stable. It works everywhere without any issues, so the development of the applications is not impacted by the system. Red Hat Enterprise Linux is easy to use and well-supported.

Support is most valuable. If a customer has a problem with a feature or a bug, we can open a support case for that, and the issue is resolved or taken care of. That's the main benefit of the product.

The resiliency of Red Hat Enterprise Linux is quite good. 

Some low-level aspects, such as the file system support, can be improved. There are a lot of file systems that are supported by other Linux distributions. Red Hat Enterprise Linux is a little behind those. For example, BTRFS is a file system that is not supported by Red Hat.

Some of our customers use the image builder tool to build the golden image to deploy to the cloud or to build a custom image to deploy on the cloud or on-prem. The golden image created by the image builder tool is good. It's the golden image. It works without any issues. However, the build process of image builder could be improved because it's not up to the standard or at par with other tools that build the golden image. However, it's quite useful and quite easy to use. It's not a big problem, but it could be improved. There is not a lot of information about how to use it. The process is not as well documented as the other parts of Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

The knowledge base offered by Red Hat is very good, but it could be improved and made much easier to search. Currently, the best way to find an article in the knowledge base is by using Google Search. By searching on Google, we can find the right knowledge base article, but it isn't easy to find information by using the search option within the knowledge base.

I've been working with Red Hat Enterprise Linux for the last four years.

It's very stable. I didn't have any issues with the stability of the product most of the time.

Its scalability is very good. It scales very well in the right infrastructure.

Their support is good. It's one of the best support in the IT world for a product because you always get a response for every bug or issue. Overall, I'd rate their support a nine out of ten.

Positive

They were using Ubuntu.

It's straightforward. It's pretty easy to deploy Red Hat Enterprise Linux. It can be difficult based on the workflow of the client, but overall, it's pretty straightforward to deploy on the cloud environment because all cloud providers support the deployment of Red Hat Enterprise Linux. The golden image of Red Hat Enterprise Linux is compatible with every cloud provider. There is a feature in the cloud console for joining the Red Hat Enterprise Linux account with the cloud account, so you can create cloud images from the console. It's pretty easy from that.

Our customers have seen an ROI because after they choose Red Hat Enterprise Linux, they stay with the product and renew the subscription. It's a good investment for the IT department.

Its licensing is pretty confusing. There are a lot of subscriptions, and it isn't always clear which subscription is the best, but with their support, it's easy to find the right one.

Our customers sometimes buy it directly from the cloud provider, but most of the time, they have a hybrid infrastructure, so they already have some kind of subscription, and they use that subscription on the cloud.

We evaluated other options, but other options don't provide the support and stability that come with Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

To someone who is looking at open source cloud-based operating systems for Linux instead of Red Hat Enterprise Linux, I would say that if they are looking for an enterprise OS on a cloud environment and they want to have some stability and security, Red Hat is the perfect match for that.

Overall, I'd rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux a nine out of ten.

Our use cases are pretty broad. We develop the automation that provisions the VMs, and then anyone in the company can request the VM for whatever intended purposes.

Red Hat Support is really good. Support has a fast response time. The product has good security. We deal with very urgent issues. The response time should be optimal if the issue requires Red Hat Support. 

My company is a utility company. Outages are a major issue for us. A faster response time is very important to get the applications back up so we can keep up with our production time. Red Hat's documentation is always really good.

As a software developer, documentation is very important to me. The solution should provide better documentation.

The solution is very stable.

The product is scalable. We're able to provide as many VMs as we like. We never run into an issue with how many VMs we are provisioning.

Support can always be improved. I rate the product’s support an eight or nine out of ten.

Positive

The solution can get pretty pricey depending on how many machines we're licensing but for a good reason.

We purchased the solution from Red Hat. We use Packer by HashiCorp to build our templates. I am a junior developer. I have been employed with my company for about five months. I don't know the initial issues that led to us choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux as our Linux solution. I speak from a developer’s perspective because I deal with Ansible.

The product has really good built-in security. The product provides good support, which helps us manage downtime and get the service back up and running, thus producing more money.

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

Most of our servers are low latency, and it's easier to have low latency applications run on Linux. Red Hat Enterprise Linux's installation is easy. We don't have to reboot Red Hat Enterprise Linux like Windows, where there are a bunch of system updates that you have to do. Red Hat Enterprise Linux is just easier to manage.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux's most valuable feature is its stability.

We would like to have a better understanding of what to expect when we move to a different version of Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

A latency always gets introduced when we move to newer Red Hat versions. I wish we wouldn't see that as often as we do nowadays. It would be nice to know the changes upfront rather than when we have to open a case, go through a couple of months, and then find a good resolution. We want a better understanding of what we will see when we update the kernel from seven to eight.

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

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is a pretty stable solution. Its stability is a lot better than most other operating systems.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux's scalability is better than other competitors.

For the most part, Red Hat Enterprise Linux's support has been really good. Most of the time, we've had to escalate it to get a good response.

Neutral

Red Hat Enterprise Linux’s initial setup is pretty straightforward.

Whenever we see a compliance issue and need a patch, it's been relatively easy to get Red Hat Enterprise Linux to update it.

We have a mix of Windows and Linux. Around 80 percent of our systems are Red Hat, but we also have Windows. So it depends on the application.

Most applications are compatible with Red Hat Enterprise Linux. It's easier to tune on a Red Hat system than on another OS. We could pin applications to a core with Red Hat Enterprise Linux. In terms of tuning, Red Hat Enterprise Linux performs better in the long run.

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

We use the solution in our company for normal application support and for databases.

In Red Hat Enterprise Linux, we use Red Hat Satellite as part of all the patching and deployment, even from on-premises and AWS, and that's been really helpful since it is one product that can be used in a hybrid environment. It's just one place to manage everything. It's good since you don't have two different products or places to manage, especially if you have a multi-datacenter and not a multi-cloud but a multi-location environment.

The room for improvement depends on how we use it. It's just a normal operating system. Considering an area where the solution lacks, I think we can look into a lot more automation and integrations with Red Hat Enterprise Linux and other products. However, I cannot say specifically where the improvement should be because it mostly depends on how we are using it. It just works the way it's supposed to work.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux on the cloud for six to seven years. Currently, we are using Red Hat Enterprise Linux Versions 7 and 8.

The product's stability is good, with 99.99 percent uptime.

Scalability is something my company hasn't delved into that much. Right now, scalability is mostly on the backend hypervisor or how we leverage AWS.

I would probably rate the support around an eight out of ten.

Positive

We have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux since I've been with the company. Linux is our platform of choice.

I supported those involved in the setup phase peripherally.

The initial setup was straightforward.

Regarding the straightforward setup, building the base image and deploying it with our internal security standards was pretty straightforward.

We used to get our own license model. We purchased a license through Red Hat.

We haven't necessarily evaluated other options, but there are a lot of requests coming from other application developers that want to deploy other operating systems because they are much more common, especially in an open source environment. So we have looked into those options. However, Red Hat Enterprise Linux continues to be the main platform that we support. We are also looking into other solutions just in case a scenario arises where a vendor cannot support Red Hat Enterprise Linux for some reason and we will need a backup.

Regarding the problems we are trying to solve by implementing the solution, I would say that it is our operating system of choice. I think the support is good since we have Red Hat Enterprise Linux subscriptions. We get support for all the operating systems from them. It's great and stable.

Regarding the solution's resiliency, it is good. We've been running, and we have over 99 percent uptime all the time. We also do monthly patching and everything, so it works. Kernel upgrades also work as expected. So it has been pretty good.

Regarding how easy or difficult it is for you to move workloads between the cloud and your data center using Red Hat Enterprise Linux, we don't use relative migrating solutions. It's considered a separate environment, but we use the same base image. 

I consider the solution to be the main OS because going with an open source solution like Red Hat Enterprise Linux, you have better support.

The support is great. We also have integrations with other products, especially with whatever Red Hat releases. We have all those integrations available and we can easily take advantage of it.

I rate the overall solution between seven and eight out of ten.

We are in a closed environment, so submitting a ticket can be painstaking as only a few of us have access to do so. We primarily use Red Hat for its stability, and it's one of the few Linux operating systems that meet our security constraints.

I find the satellite feature the most valuable. It allows us to manage disconnected workstations, keeping their patching, software updates, and bug fixes up to date. We can collect all the necessary updates on a connected system and then transfer them to a disconnected system. Each client thinks it's connected to an external satellite infrastructure, making management very easy.

The Image Builder feature seems very helpful. We currently use Kickstart to build systems.

The support can be lackluster sometimes, especially in our disconnected space where we have specific requirements. Occasionally, we encounter support representatives who are not familiar with our setup. So, in that space, personalized and tailored support based on each use case could be better.

In additional features, I would have said being more on the bleeding edge, but RHEL 9 was released, which is a nice push forward. So right now, I don't think there's anything specific. I find the product stack to be pretty decent.

I have been using this solution for three years. We are using versions 7.9 and 8.7.

It's very stable, but that's also why it falls behind at times. For example, if you have newer hardware like systems A and B that were released within the last year, there might be potential sleep issues, specifically with S3 sleep, that require manual patching and intervention in the kernel. It's because they are trying to support newer systems on a much older framework.

I believe RHEL 9 is supposed to mitigate that a little bit. It aims to provide a balance between the latest stable release and the older version that is, like, five years old. They're trying to meet somewhere in the middle.

We have around 30 workstations and approximately 60 servers.

The customer service and support team depends on the environment you are in. The support can be spotty. The support can be spotty; at least they've tried to be helpful. Sometimes they'll just point you to a documentation link, practically like Googling it for you, and it's like, "No, we've already looked at this. Can you please review the logs further?" And sometimes, I'll have to go and pinpoint specific areas to look at. And then it's like, "Oh, okay." 

It's not always very thorough. But it's hit or miss. So I think it's just a people thing. If you get somebody in support who really likes their job or enjoys fixing things, they're going to go out of their way, as opposed to someone who does the bare minimum.

Neutral

The initial setup is very straightforward. It's pretty easy to enable it. After weeks of setting up a Linux Kickstart, the whole system can be deployed. The whole bare-metal system can be deployed in around thirty minutes. So it's really fast, especially for a bare-metal image with a lot of packages installed.

When it comes to maintaining compliance, I think it's pretty good. However, for risk reduction, we have to rely on other software and tools. So I can't really say that Red Hat provides that specific functionality for us. But I think it's good for maintaining compliance is very easy, especially with satellite. It makes it easy for us to access package and vulnerability information, allowing us to identify and resolve any issues. Overall, it works quite well. If you use the right products, I believe you can have all the necessary components in one place.

The portability of applications and containers is pretty good, although there is one issue. With the transition to Red Hat 8, Docker was removed. As a result, there is an issue with using Podman, specifically related to certain types of authentication in a mixed Windows-Linux environment. Due to the way secrets and related functionalities work, Podman cannot be utilized in that scenario. Therefore, there are some challenges to address in this regard.

I believe Red Hat should have maintained compatibility with Docker or at least their own Red Hat Docker until they could bring their software up to speed.

We did the implementation ourselves. The documentation is pretty good.

I save at least a few hours weekly using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). 

We got the license through a third party. They buy licenses in bulk for us. We pay them, and they handle the licensing.

Moreover, Red Hat's pricing and licensing structure seems fine. There's not a huge separation. The licenses can cover everything without worrying about the core count, socket count, or similar complexities like VMware and other big companies. It's simple enough to figure out which support contract you want based on the level of support you need.

It's an open source product.

Overall, I would rate the product an eight out of ten. The product is good, and the documentation is really comprehensive. The support is satisfactory as well. Based solely on the product itself, without considering support, we find it stable and capable of supporting various architectures. The documentation is particularly good and stands out. It provides valuable resources, including bug fixes, to people with developer accounts, which are free. Having all that information available is very helpful and resourceful, especially when troubleshooting Linux-related issues.

The documentation is very good, making it easier to troubleshoot any peculiar Linux-related problems.