Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Reviews

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.

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 installed the product at a very large hospital as their underlying operating system for Kubernetes, but it is not OpenShift. We use it for one-off servers and lab machines.

Copious documentation is probably the best feature of the solution. If you have a lot of high-quality documentation in one location, it is easier to search and get exactly what you need. It's more efficient when I get stuck on a problem or need help configuring something. It saves us time searching through Google or looking through GitHub Issues to solve the problems. It is a top-notch solution.

If the solution were easier to use and understand, it would not get disabled as often as it does. The solution should be made more secure. The changes made to CentOS make it hard for somebody to spin up and test it without having a preexisting relationship and license. 

If somebody wants to get something going quickly and is trying to settle on Red Hat, they don't have a free version to go to. Ubuntu and SUSE provide such platforms to the users. It is one Achilles heel in Red Hat at the moment. 

Even if Red Hat would enable a full version trial for people to test it, it would be less than what others are doing. Others are giving it away for free until you actually need support, and then you can choose if you need to buy it. With SUSE you can install it with SUSE Leap. It's pretty much the same thing. When you want support, you must enable support, and it becomes SLES.

There's nothing in Red Hat where I can run along on the free version for as long as I need to, and then when I want support, activate support on the same product. I have to reinstall it if I want Red Hat. Even with CentOS, it still wasn't possible to just activate it for Red Hat and make it become Red Hat Enterprise Linux. That's been something that's long been lacking in the product.

I have been using the solution since 1996 or 1997.

I have no complaints at all about the stability of the product.

As time goes on, the solution gets better. It adopts new features. I would say that it does a pretty good job.

The few times that I've encountered support, it was great. I don't really go through support channels. However, when I reach out and ask a question to the people I know in support, I get answers pretty quickly. I find that they have a good deal of product knowledge.

Positive

When I first started using the product in the 90s, it was just Red Hat. So I used Red Hat, and I used IBM Slack. I've used quite a number of different Linux distributions. Red Hat Enterprise Linux has been around longer than Ubuntu. I still use other solutions along with Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

Typically, the initial setup is pretty straightforward. If it's virtualization, it is really easy because we have an image already, or we can create one. We can use Kickstart. I used to run a 5000-node HPC cluster in the early 2000s based on Red Hat Enterprise Linux. We used a combination of SystemImager and Kickstart for it.

It's the default posture of a lot of the third-party vendors that you should just disable and leave them off. With containerization being prevalent everywhere, portability is across the board. Red Hat Enterprise Linux adopted Podman as opposed to Docker. Podman is a good tool, and I like it. Red Hat Enterprise Linux is the standard on which many others have based their platforms.

Using SELinux is largely misunderstood. If used properly, it provides a great platform for us. Red Hat is a big corporation, and we have people we can reach out and talk to. The same goes for SUSE. For Ubuntu, I have always gone straight to NVIDIA for support. I personally don't know of any great differentiators between all the products. I know Red Hat. It's been around longer, and I've had a long history that makes me comfortable. 

I wouldn’t recommend one over the other. It would come down to the use case. If someone wants Kubernetes on-prem, I would probably guide them toward OpenShift. I do have customers that don't run OpenShift on-prem. I often find that the customers already have a preference because they already have a license. So it's never really a decision that falls on me.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux uses firewalls, so configuring a firewall is easy. I have deployed the solution in multiple places. Overall, I rate the product an eight out of ten.

One of our use cases is for our in-house applications that the development team builds. We also use it for typical tasks like running Jenkins, GitLab, and other development tools to make them accessible for the developers who write code and do software development.

One of Red Hat Enterprise Linux’s valuable features is its enterprise-level security. We are guaranteed that it's secure, and that's important for us because we need to comply with security regulations. Security always remains a top priority.

We just run Red Hat Enterprise Linux’s built-in security features day in and day out. We know it's secure, and then we just move on to other tasks. It's like a routine where we don't have to think too much because we know it's already integrated into the whole enterprise. It's the next step, and it gives us more time to focus on other tasks.

We are trying to figure out how to enable encryption or just encryption. The last thing we want is to use locks, which are a hassle for encryption. We don't have the personnel to unlock the system every time it gets rebooted. I know there's a way, like on Windows, where they have TPM. I'm not sure how Red Hat Enterprise Linux’s TPM works. That's one of the issues we face—how to utilize TPM effectively.

I think in the future, if the company requires us to encrypt everything, it would be a time-consuming process. I'm not sure how long that would take or if it will happen. I just want to understand how Red Hat Enterprise Linux and TPM work or if there's an existing solution that works similarly where I don't necessarily have to be present every time my system reboots and enter a password. At least for Windows, we know that it works, but I'm not familiar with the equivalent functionality in Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

In future releases, I would prefer a Red Hat Enterprise Linux image that fits on a DVD. The Red Hat Enterprise Linux image keeps getting larger and larger. One of the biggest requirements for my company is that it has to fit on a DVD. Now, with Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9 approaching close to ten gigabytes, it won't fit on a DVD anymore. The last thing we want to resort to is using Blu-ray. I prefer not to use Blu-ray. So we need to keep the image size on a DVD smaller. That's one of the main issues. And we can't use USB sticks either, even though they're a new option. Everything needs to be burned on a DVD. So having a Red Hat Enterprise Linux image that fits on a DVD would be beneficial for any future versions or releases.

I have been using this solution for eight years now. Right now, we're migrating. I'm trying to upgrade from Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 to Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7. And that process is painstaking. It's taking a lot of time. I know we want to get that done before October because I think that's when the security support for Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 expires. We need to move everything to Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7.

We have a lot of legacy systems, and it's very time-consuming trying to figure out what will work and which version of Red Hat Enterprise Linux will support all our applications. So it's just a lengthy process to go through.

In terms of stability, there have been some issues, particularly on the workstation side. The workstation tends to freeze up occasionally, requiring a system restart. The server side, on the other hand, works well as intended. Although Red Hat Enterprise Linux is primarily designed for servers, our developers use it as a workstation, and that can sometimes cause issues after a couple of days of continuous use.

They may need to restart their systems when something freezes or stops working. So it's one of those things we encounter.

I don't really use it extensively. I have some knowledge and experience with it, but I don't heavily rely on Red Hat support. Whenever I encounter a problem, I usually turn to Google for solutions.

The knowledge base provided by Red Hat exists, but I find it difficult to navigate. The information seems scattered and hard to find. I tend to prefer searching on Google since I can get immediate answers there compared to the knowledge base, which can be challenging to navigate. It seems like the knowledge base could use some improvement.

One of the main advantages is the level of support. Red Hat Enterprise Linux provides nearly ten years of support, including two years of extended support, whereas other operating systems typically have one or two major versions released within five years. It can be challenging to allocate the budget for frequent updates over such a short period. So I think that's the main appeal of Red Hat Enterprise Linux—its ten-year support with an additional two years.

Since I've been working with Red Hat Enterprise Linux for a long time, it feels easy for me. However, for someone completely new to it, especially coming from a Windows background, it might seem more complicated. But for me, it's second nature and not that difficult. So the initial setup depends on the level of familiarity with the system.

For a brand-new system, it might take around ten minutes.

I have worked with CentOS, Fedora, and Ubuntu. So I have experience with different flavors of Linux, from the Ubuntu side to Fedora. From a developer's point of view, the main difference, if I compare it to Ubuntu, is that they always get the latest packages, which helps them a lot. 

On the other hand, with Red Hat Enterprise Linux, I understand that it's set up to prioritize security. But sometimes, from a development perspective, it's challenging for them to obtain the latest packages. As an assessment, I have to go out there, fetch the package or compile the new package for the new version, and then bring it into Red Hat Enterprise Linux so that developers can use it. I think that's the issue. It's a balancing act between trying to get the latest package versions and ensuring stability and security. It's a problem that I think everyone struggles with.

Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten because there is always room for improvement when it comes to technology.

We use the solution for deploying middleware applications and many different applications that we have, like the ones we can use in the marketplace with different users. We use other kinds of solutions in many of the applications we develop. But in general, we use Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

Benefit-wise, the product is very stable. The product is also very compatible, and many people want to use it.

There are a lot of features in the solution. Red Hat Insights is one feature that we rely on currently.

The model, specifically the consumption model, is an area that needs improvement in the solution.

We had a really big challenge striking a chart between on-premises and the public cloud. The approach is that you pay as you go in Red Hat Enterprise Linux. In general, you pay for whatever you use instead of preparing for a full year.

At times, language is a barrier when it comes to support. That's one of the aspects I would like to improve about the solution.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for six to eight years. My company has a partnership with Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

Red Hat's support is good. Sometimes cases take a little bit longer to resolve. If you are clever enough to upgrade the case and put it at a very high level of priority, then it gets resolved faster. In general, the support is good. I rate the support an eight out of ten.

Sometimes, a customer doesn't speak English or we need people who speak Spanish for the case to be easier to understand. In those cases, we lose time. I can't push all my engineers to learn to speak English. My customers and our engineers speak Spanish.

Positive

We've been working with Red Hat Enterprise Linux since the beginning.

I was involved in the deployment a long time ago. The setup process is easy. The solution is also easy to use.

Regarding the time taken for deployment, we can do it with a machine at this moment using Ansible. In our orchestration, we passed more or less, creating one machine for Red Hat and the entire environment. It took us eight days and an hour. At this moment, we can deploy it on a machine in an hour with all the security. If a developer comes to us and tells us that they need a new machine or new instance, we can provide that in an hour on-premises. In the cloud, we have to use a lot of tools.

I have purchased the license via hyperscalers and transferred it as well. I purchased the license from the marketplace and also from Red Hat.

Pricing is something that can always be better.

We have not evaluated other options since we trust Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

I am running my workloads on-premises and on the cloud. I mainly use AWS.

Resiliency-wise, the solution is very good. It's good because we don't have a problem with our environment at this moment. When we don't have a problem, we don't need to explain what is to be improved in the solution. It is reliable and doesn't break or bring us any problems.

Regarding how easy or difficult it is for me to move workloads between the cloud and my data center using the solution, we don't have problems. In general, it's easy.

We are talking about moving applications from on-premise to the cloud. We need to see if that represents any cost savings. We would need to go through a migration process, and that would be an extra cost.We would need to see if that is beneficial.

I rate the overall solution a nine out of ten.

We are running databases and applications on it. We are also using the Squid proxy server, NGINX, and Apache, so we are running multiple services on the servers.

We are using Red Hat Enterprise Linux eight and nine. We also use Red Hat Satellite and Red Hat Ansible Tower.

I've mostly worked with the telcos and banking sectors, and they mostly have on-prem setups. We do have a hybrid environment where we have multiple machines running on AWS. I am based in Saudi, where they are using another cloud called Din. They are running Red Hat Enterprise Linux on Din as well.

Their trainings should be free.

It's more stable than the other operating systems. That's why everyone is using the Red Hat Enterprise Linux platform instead of Windows on the server side.

They regularly send us updates regarding patches and security vulnerabilities. We patch our servers quarterly. Mostly, we do patching every three months. They always send us updates on our official email, so it's quite good.

It would be very good if we can easily migrate from CentOS to Red Hat. We are about to move from CentOS to Red Hat. It would be great if they can give us a free version. Otherwise, we need to purchase licenses, which are quite expensive.

I've been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for five to six years. I have only been working with Red Hat Enterprise Linux over these years.

Its stability is quite good. I'd rate it a nine out of ten.

I'd rate it a nine out of ten in terms of scalability. It's being used in the banking center, and they are running their applications and databases on it. 

We have LVM configurations, so according to the application, we can increase the disk size. The environment is quite good for my use.

Their support is quite good, and they're responsive, but they first send us to the platform to check the issues. They don't provide direct support immediately. For a new engineer, it can be quite difficult. It would be good if they put us directly on the call in case of an emergency.

Some of the newer engineers require support in a quick manner. Those of us who have experience of six to seven years don't require the support, but in the beginning, we required support, and their support was quite good.

Positive

The product selection depends on the company. Telco companies have the budget, and they are using licensed products, whereas small companies usually use the free versions of Linux. They go for Oracle Linux, CentOS, etc.

We are using CentOS and Ubuntu on some of the machines. The company wanted to go for a free product, but I told them that for any support in the future, we need a licensed product, and they are now migrating to Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

It's best in terms of security features. We configure the templates and then we implement the CIS controls, security features, and complete patching of the server.

In terms of maintenance, Red Hat provides us with the details about the security vulnerabilities, and the engineer needs to implement all the security on the servers.

We did it on our own.

We haven't seen an ROI.

From a management point of view, it's quite good, but everyone is complaining that it's more expensive than the other operating systems.

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

We are running our critical applications on it. We are using versions 7, 8, and 9, and we are running our workload on private clouds. We are currently testing Azure, but we don't have the production workload on it. 

By implementing Red Hat Enterprise Linux, we wanted to solve some of the reboot problems of Windows. Every patch on Windows affected our applications because the system had to be rebooted. Red Hat Enterprise Linux has improved the uptime of the applications.

For our company, Red Hat Enterprise Linux is a very secure operating system. It's much better than the Windows system. It's great for us. SELinux is a great tool to protect us from attackers. SELinux is the most important for us.

We have been Agile for two years, and Red Hat Enterprise Linux has been a part of it.

Its stability is most valuable. I'm a technical guy, and I love Linux. For me, it's the best platform.

Writing SELinux policies is sometimes very hard if you want to deploy a new application on it.

I started working in 2006, and my first job was administering the Red Hat Enterprise Linux system. 

It's very stable.

Its scalability is extremely good. You can scale it everywhere if you want. We have 600 to 700 Red Hat Enterprise Linux systems. 

The support from Red Hat is very good. The response time is rather low. We have premium support, and we sometimes get an answer to our questions in one hour. If you explain to the support guy your problem, you will get the current answer. Overall, I'd rate them a nine out of ten because you sometimes get someone who doesn't understand your question.

I don't know about the knowledge base of Red Hat Enterprise Linux, but I know the knowledge base of OpenShift is very good now. In the past, it was updated in one single version, whereas now, the change is there for each major and minor version. There is separate documentation, and that's much better than in the past.

Positive

It's getting better and better. In the past, versions 3 and 4 were very complex, but now, it's very easy to do it. We are now creating images and deploying it on our VMware farms, and it's much easier than making a PXE boot from our bare metal systems. 

We evaluated other solutions. We went for Red Hat Enterprise Linux because of better handling. It might also have been cheaper, but I'm not sure. My company decided to go with Red Hat.

As an operating system, I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux a ten out of ten.

We use the product for application hosting, availability, and CI/CD pipelines.

The solution has good availability and is easy to use. It saves money and resources like support staff.

The product should provide a portal to manage licenses.

I have been using the solution for more than five years.

The solution’s stability is fine.

The product’s scalability is fine.

The support is good.

Neutral

We have seen an ROI on maintenance. As long as our servers run, our company makes money.

We evaluated SLES and Windows.

We purchased the solution via a cloud provider. We use AWS, Google, and Azure. The resiliency of the product is the same as other products. 

The solution helped us reduce costs. We use SLES and Windows alongside Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Application support and vendor support for Red Hat Enterprise Linux are better than other products. 

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

I use the solution to build web applications.

The tool provides more support, resources, and documentation than other products.

The product is super easy to use.

The default settings are confusing. I often change these settings to avoid problems.

I have been using the solution for a couple of years.

The stability of the product is very good.

I did not have issues finding configurations and changing settings as needed. I haven't had any issues like bugs or downtime while using Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Overall, it was a good experience. Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

We use this solution for disaster assistance. 

This solution has increased the speed of our technology. It is easy to troubleshoot using RHEL. RHEL's built-in security features and security profiles for helping to reduce risk and maintain compliance are good. It has also improved our organization's management and efficiency.

The cost of this solution could be improved. 

I have been using this solution for four years. 

This is a stable solution and we have not had any major issues when using it. 

The customer support team are very responsive and always provide the help we need. I would rate the support a nine out of ten. 

Positive

We used to use JBoss at my previous company.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten. 

For applications, we are the OS support. We build servers and deliver applications.

RHELs overall effect on our organization's management and efficiency has been good. It's easy to support and involves no downtime. It is simple to handle, apply patches and maintain.

The most valuable feature of this solution is how easy it is to use.

When there is down time from a system admin perspective, this solution could improve how they communicate why this down time is happening. 

I have been using this solution for seven years. 

This is a stable solution. Our machines reside on vSphere and when a server goes down, we have to find out the root cause. This requires pulling information from the vSphere. 

I would rate the support for this solution an eight out of ten. 

Positive

We previously used Solaris. We moved to Red Hat because it is easier to manage and more cost-effective. It is also easier to manage patches and security using Red Hat. 

I was only involved in testing this solution during the deployment process. During testing, it was easy to make changes to configurations which also support our decision to use Red Hat. 

This is a cost-effective solution.

I would recommend this solution to others. It is easy to use, manage and handle with very little downtime. 

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.