Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Positive

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Positive

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Primarily, our use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are web hosting, but we have a lot of other IBM products running on the machine.

The feature I find most valuable about Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is security. For our company, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped us significantly. We used to be on Sun Solaris approximately 12 years ago, and we have migrated to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), on 7, 8 version, and now on 9 version, and I'm trying to go to 10 as soon as possible. This has resulted in faster app migration because we're running an elevation of many IBM products we had at the legacy, and we see significant improvement in how fast they can build services.

From the web app perspective, my experience with the deployment of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is that they are fast to market; when they request a new VM instance, they can do it very quickly, in a matter of minutes. Security requirements were a consideration before choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

Based on my personal observation over the last several years, there is definitely room for improvement on how to collect the troubleshooting logs, especially in live production. Many times my server team has to open a case with Red Hat to collect their dumps, and there should be a better way of live collection without shutting down or restarting the machine. If you restart, you lose the opportunity to capture the issue, and that should be much more improved.

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

My personal observation is that Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales effectively with the growing needs of our company. We are currently migrating from VMware, which is showing more improvements.

We used other solutions in our company before choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). We had Sun Solaris and also IBM AIX, and currently, we are using both AIX and Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

The big difference between AIX and Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is definitely in how they interact with the application side, as the underlying hardware for IBM AIX runs on P-series compared to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), which runs on the Intel platform. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is extremely reliable.

We are deploying Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) both in the cloud and on-premises. Currently, we are doing upgrades from RHEL 7 to 9 and 7 to 8, but not directly. I manage and own at least 10 to 12 servers.

The biggest return on investment for me when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is not necessarily financial. The command interface and the way it offers faster response times make me feel much more productive working with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

From the OS perspective, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is very good at mitigating downtime and lowering risks; however, certain things when bundled with other components show significant dependency. I definitely recommend using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as long as the financial cost is acceptable.

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) an eight or nine out of ten overall. To make it a perfect 10, from a system admin perspective, my only concern is that for an actively reproducing issue, I should have the provision to collect live logs without needing to depend on a Red Hat support case for minor issues, as that takes time. Other than that, I'm very satisfied with the usage perspective.

My main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) include workflow development. We are running the workflow in that.

The features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that I appreciate the most include OpenShift. These features have benefited my organization through working on on-premise cloud migration. 

Some of the high sensitive data cannot go to the public cloud, so we are trying to use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for the internal migration. We got rid of the VM maintenance and related tasks.

Security requirements were a key consideration in choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in the cloud. We are from the financial industry, so customer data is one of our big responsibilities. When it comes to managing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems for provisioning and patching, we currently work with our middleware team for upgrades, however, the plan is to work with AWS or the Red Hat team for future upgrades.

My assessment of the built-in security features is limited as I'm from the development side. Our upgrade and migration plans to stay current involve recommendations from our vendors.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped to mitigate downtime and lower risk. Our restart used to take considerable time initially, but through optimization, it now takes significantly less time. I would assess the knowledge base as good. We received dedicated training this summer from Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), with trainers coming to our office for two days, which was very beneficial.

The pain points that Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps me solve include the transition from a Microsoft background, where I had a habit of everything with a GUI. I see very few GUI elements in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and many command lines. I'm not proficient in that, which makes me struggle sometimes. Overall, we have the tools, however, there should be drag-and-drop, window-type functionality.

I've used the solution for 11 years. 

I would assess the stability and reliability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as very good. As a developer, I have never seen any downtime, so it is working perfectly fine from the middleware side.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales efficiently with the growing needs of my organization. They consistently release new versions. The scalability has been going well. 

We have expanded usage, and the process was smooth. In the beginning, we had very few applications, and now I can see many applications running on that side. It is definitely expanding.

I would evaluate customer service and technical support as very proactive.

Positive

Prior to adopting Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I was using Microsoft Windows Server. Now our focus is more on this area. The factors that made us want to change include transitioning from Microsoft technology, moving to Pega and Java side. This technology is much more supported on this platform.

The initial deployment was very good. 

I have been involved in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) upgrades or migrations, and due to our many internal dependencies, it takes time, however, we successfully completed it.

I have seen a return on investment with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) because we have many critical applications running without any issues. There is significant ROI on that.

The other solutions I considered before choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) include using three or four vendors as a business continuity plan. We have Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), AWS, Windows and others. We cannot rely on one vendor; we have to work with multiple vendors to maintain business continuity.

The advice I would give to other organizations considering Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is that it's a really good tool to use if they have applications in Java, Pega, or IBM workflow or Lombardi. 

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

My main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) cover all the tiers from web application to the database.

The feature of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that I prefer most is Insights. I have been using Insights, and it can give me the health of the system, CPU, memory, and everything, allowing me to see everything including security patches, vulnerabilities, and missing patches. 

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps me solve pain points because it is a stable platform, so I don't have to fix many issues because we're using Ansible to automate everything. Since we have a very stable environment and Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is very stable, we don't have much pain. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) benefits my company significantly because by using it, we are using a stable platform, and all our environments are working as expected.

It has excellent features in terms of security. Everything is there. I just need to deploy it, and we have the SELinux, OpenSCAP, and many tools that I can use to configure the system to make it more secure. For upgrade or migration plans to stay current, we're using the automated LEAP process for migrating from a lower version to the latest version.

I see that there's a lot of improvement needed, but I can see that Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 10 has some of the features that I'm looking for.

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

I have peace of mind, so everything with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is reliable and stable.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped me to mitigate downtime and lower risks because we have everything in place to mitigate any issues since we have a failover on the other side.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales effectively; all the needs of our company are being met by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

I have experience with customer service and technical support. The experience with customer service has been pleasant, but some of the features that I am looking for are not met, so they're still working on it. I would rate the customer service an eight out of ten.

The knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has improved now because of AI. Previously, when I searched for something, it didn't give me everything, but now I am more satisfied.

Positive

My experience with deploying Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is smooth. We are using an automated process; we're using VMware VRA and Ansible to customize the environment. Everything is smooth in building Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) because we have the process from end-to-end, it's very well-defined, so we don't have any problem deploying Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

We have a hybrid environment with on-premise or cloud deployment. We use all cloud providers. 

When it comes to managing my Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems for provisioning and patching, we're using automation with Ansible Automation Platform, AAP, and everything is going smoothly, and I am satisfied with that experience.

I am looking to make the deployment much easier because there's the Image Builder that I prefer, and in building using the Image Builder, all the packages or repositories that I need are inside that feature. 

The biggest return on investment for me when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is peace of mind; I don't have to worry about the operating system because it's running smoothly as expected.

Security requirements were a consideration when choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) because since we're in the government, I'm the one that set up the compliance requirements, and I deployed using the OpenSCAP, but I cannot tell the profiles as it's confidential.

While using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I have not considered other solutions; we are working on moving to OpenShift, which is still Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as a nine out of ten; I don't give a ten because it's a perfect score. 

My advice to other companies that are considering Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is that it is the best operating system currently, so they can use it in deploying their system, wherever they want to deploy the applications.

Our use cases for Red Hat OpenShift revolve around telco environments, where we deploy telco applications using container microservices architectures. We have around 32 to 35 OpenShift clusters, with multiple worker and master nodes running on them, totaling more than 500 nodes across pre-production, test, and various production environments. We onboard different applications onto these OpenShift clusters, which primarily operate in private data centers on bare metal rather than in VMs, since the motive of this client project is to align the telco environment with a cloud-native approach.

It enables customers to deploy any type of application. A lot of enterprises are moving to the Linux environment from the Windows environment.

When it comes to development, it saves time because, unlike Windows, you don't require a lot of different things and licenses.

I appreciate the features of OpenShift, particularly its built-in capabilities such as operators and integration with multiple identity providers. Operators eliminate the need for creating helm charts, and considering Kubernetes, which Red Hat OpenShift is built on, the enhancements make OpenShift a preferred choice for many enterprise customers.

The documentation and knowledge base for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are quite good, allowing for effective searches, though I would prefer something more interactive.

I have tried the Insight features in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), which provide a good overview of clusters, but most customers at the OpenShift level do not opt for the Insights feature for two reasons. Firstly, Insights is specific to individual clusters and does not offer a single pane of glass for multi-cluster environments. Having a centralized Insights feature for multiple clusters would be more appealing, especially for customers managing a fleet of 50 or more clusters.

There is one feature that could significantly enhance our time to market: enabling AI capabilities. For instance, if you have a fleet of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) servers, potentially thousands running, they can incorporate a built-in agent that monitors key metrics. This agent would allow us to easily query and track the CPU and memory status of all clusters. Instead of generating traditional reports through Insights, we could leverage AI to curate this information directly. If such features could be included in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), it would be a game-changer. There would be no need for external AI solutions; just an integrated AI agent would suffice. This enhancement could help minimize operational costs. From a customer perspective, while capital expenditures (CapEx) are already being handled through Red Hat solutions, we need to focus on reducing operational expenditures (OpEx), especially related to reporting. Even when Insights are generated, someone still needs to analyze them. By incorporating this advanced capability into Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), they can streamline processes and deliver valuable insights more efficiently.

We are using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for our customers. We have been using it at the infrastructure level for more than 10 years. However, we have been using Red Hat OpenShift only for the last two to three years as our container platform.

It helps reduce downtime. Overall, it's stable, but it also depends on the type of workload you are running. 

It is scalable. For example, creating logical volumes and extending disks is straightforward. This process is quite easy.

Red Hat's support is generally good, but sometimes they take a long time, which can be frustrating for customers, particularly when dealing with products still in development, such as new versions of Red Hat OpenShift. When bugs arise that lack solutions, both customers and Red Hat are searching for answers, leading to delays until new releases are issued.

Positive

I have used Ubuntu and CentOS. I find Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) better than Ubuntu and CentOS.

Its deployment is easy. The number of people required and duration depend on how many servers you're deploying.

We utilize a hybrid environment with some of our customers operating in the public cloud, allowing us to manage both on-premises and cloud infrastructures.

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

My use case for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is for dockerization; I use it for Docker or Postman. We use it for microservices, for example, to install JBoss and deploy some applications and pipelines for processes such as CI/CD. A summary of what I do includes microservices for applications such as Tomcat or JBoss, or for microservices in Postman, and installing Jenkins and launching pipelines.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped reduce downtime and lower risks for me. There are rarely crashes or errors.

Image Builder or system roles feature is beneficial because it is a feature that allows you to create small images for what you need. With these images, you can go to a registry or whatever with VMware or KVM, and you can deploy them very quickly and efficiently. I tested it because it's better than having to install another machine all over again and losing much time. With Image Builder, you can create a small image tailored to your necessities. It is a good solution; you have to embrace automation, and the Image Builder helps you automate the creation of servers and images.

I appreciate all the Red Hat products available and the support provided when encountering any issues or needing help. You can open a case, and they answer very quickly. 

The other reason is it is a very strong OS for your needs. For example, I work in a banking system and in a financial system, and all kinds of products that you have—the problems may come from development, not from the server or machine.

In the knowledge base of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I can find everything I need. I don't have to go elsewhere. There are some videos with practical advice, all in one place, and all for free. I'm very happy with this kind of resource and knowledge base.

I find Red Hat Insights very helpful and beneficial. In all IT departments worldwide, I find it important because when I call my colleagues or other companies, this is a very significant feature. Insights gives many opportunities, particularly regarding security, and provides more facilities to improve security in your servers. In my opinion, the most important security feature in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is Red Hat Insights. When you use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), you can install an agent in your Linux, and this agent runs on your Linux and gives you all the CVEs or security issues you have. For me, as an administrator, this is very helpful because with minimal clicks, I have the solutions and instructions on how to solve them. You only need to connect to Red Hat, and they provide a deployment, scan your machine, or all machines with Ansible, and give you a summary of your vulnerabilities, and you apply the solutions they provide.

The areas that have room for improvement in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) include having more case bases and possibly more forums or places. A community that is not just informal but rather official could be beneficial. Everything else is good.

I would suggest improving compatibility. Sometimes I find that Red Hat is not aligned with the rest of the world. They create their own solutions, such as Docker, Podman, Kubernetes, and OpenShift, which can be better than what others offer. This can be both good and bad, depending on the situation. On the positive side, their innovations can enhance the overall quality of the company’s offerings. On the downside, when you need certain images or components that deviate from industry standards, it can become confusing. I find it difficult to understand why they choose to differentiate themselves from the rest. 

I have been in IT for 24 years, working with Linux and Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for about 10 years.

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

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is scalable for my business. It is very important, and I cannot imagine working without it.

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

Positive

I have worked with Ubuntu and SUSE, but I prefer Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) because the support is better than others. All solutions, how the machine or OS works, and all the other products, for example, OpenShift, I appreciate. I feel very comfortable with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) because it is a solution based on CentOS and Fedora, and since my early career, I studied and learned in this distribution.

The deployment of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is very easy.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has saved me about 40% to 50% time.

I would recommend Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) to other users; it depends on the company size. For medium and bigger companies, it is necessary because all the components needed, such as support and stability, are available. I cannot help much with the pricing because I do not work with licenses; this comes from another department. I discuss with my boss about how many machines or servers we need, and they coordinate with the commercials. I do not have information about whether it is cheaper or expensive, but I hear that they are very comfortable depending on how you deal with them. 

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

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

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

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

The support can be better. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neutral

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

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

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

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

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

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