Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Reviews

We use this solution as our operating system.

The security, ongoing support, and ease of taking a system and getting authorization from a government agency have helped the way our organization functions.

The built-in security features support certain security standards such as encryption. It is simpler to meet FIPS 140 encryption requirements such as the ATOs.

The ease of use of this solution has been most valuable. 

The cost of this solution could be improved. 

I have been using this solution for two years. 

This is a stable solution.

We previously used Linux. Red Hat meets our needs more comprehensively.

Our main ROI is in the ability to readily get ATOs.

For somebody familiar with the Linux platform, it is not difficult to troubleshoot when using this solution.

I would rate this solution a seven 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. 

Typically, we use this solution as a base to create and secure container images. Sometimes we use SELinux through RHEL and sometimes we only use RHEL. It is easier to apply STIG baselines to a RHEL system than other systems. We mainly use it for building and securing containers.

RHEL is different than any other Linux distribution folder. Folder locations are different and using this solution makes us more secure.

We are assured of added security because of the STIGs, automation and all the repositories that exist for securing Red Hat and SELinux. We have scripts that can automate the STIGing out of an RHEL machine, RHEL container or an RHEL BM.

It is also easy to troubleshoot using RHEL and follow the same process as other solutions such as Ubuntu, Debian, or Arch.

RHEL's effect on our organization's management and efficiency is noticeable because we check all the compliance boxes when we run STIG machines. It helps us because Red Hat is trusted in the governmental space. It also helps management save people's time by just having use of templated containers.

There's a lot more automation for STIGing out a Red Hat machine than there is in a Ubuntu or a Debian machine and this is one of the most valuable features. 

Since it's based off Fedora, I don't like the DNF package manager. 

I have been using this solution for six months. 

It's very stable. I've never had any breaking issues when upgrading packages or versions. 

We run this solution on a really small scale. We are a development group so we're not working on large-scale systems. We generate proof of concepts and then show that to the company for them to use so I can't really speak to how it scales.

Red Hat's tech support and customer service are really good. The Red Hat team are my favorite people to work with. They are easy to work with and genuinely care. I would rate them a nine out of ten. 

Positive

The initial setup is mostly straightforward depending on the specific setup. We build our own containers and that is more complex but there are simplex supported setups. In both scenarios, maintenance only involves a few commands and is simple. It is maintained by two security engineers. 

From an ROI perspective, this solution helps us win contracts. Contract values are negligible to what the RHEL licensing cost is. It has a really large effect on our contract deals because it gives our work and service credibility.

I would advise others to read up on the solution first. Try Fedora first before you get into Red Hat. There are some similarities and a lot of what you know about Linux transfers over. 

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten. 

We are using it for application services.

We find the Red Hat Satellite deployments very useful. It integrates well with other solutions.

It could be a bit more user-friendly. It could also be cheaper.

It is very stable. It is more stable than Windows Server.

It is scalable. The number of users would be in thousands. They include IT teams and end-users who obviously don't even know that they're using it.

I don't call them directly, but their technical support is good. 

It was straightforward. Our deployments are automated. To deploy a build internally, it only takes half an hour, but that's usually in automation. It would probably take a couple of months to put the infrastructure in place to be able to deploy it.

We have a site license on a yearly basis. Generally, we're okay with its price, but everything could be cheaper.

I would recommend this solution to others. I would advise others to do their research before deploying it and make sure that they are up to speed with the OS and what it can do. It is fairly easy to use as long as you know what you're doing.

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

We deploy front-end and back-end software applications on RHEL, and it's our app server. Most of our app servers and our production servers are on RHEL. They're running on RHEL, and that's why they are profiting from it. I2C is the issuer in the processing payment industry. Basically, we do the issuer processing for credit cards, and all the bank magic that happens when you swipe a credit card is handled by us. We're also using RHEL servers for processing debit card payments.

Customer support is valuable. Because most of the Linux distros are open source, most of them don't have customer support. RHEL isn't open source, and that's why I prefer it more than other distros.

Their pricing and documentation can be improved. They need to have developer variance that's more developer-friendly and less costly. They have a free developer version, but that's very limited in terms of features from RHEL. They also need to build their own open source community.

I've been using RHEL for about four months.

RHEL is very stable. Unlike Kali-Linux or Solaris, RHEL solutions are very stable. We have licensed projects, and they must be stable to provide all customers with instructions. They're stable, compared to other Linux options too.

It's very scalable. When you're using the right machine and the right settings or right parameters, it's highly scalable

Technical support from their customer service team is very good. They give responses unlike other Linux distros, and I think RHEL has better customer support.

My current company was using Solaris before. I was using Core Linux for three to four years. From Ubuntu, I shifted to RHEL and Solaris because I changed companies and jobs. We are using RHEL and Solaris in my current job, and I had to shift to these operating systems.

I have used the Ubuntu Linux base, I have used Kali-Linux and Debian. Of all those Linux systems, I think RHEL is much better, but I find Ubuntu much easier to use than RHEL.

Ubuntu is Debian-based, and Red Hat is, I think VM based. Another difference is open source systems have less support. Still, the community of Ubuntu is very strong and answers your query very promptly. But Red Hat is a certified, licensed product, and customer support from them is very good.

RHEL is expensive. The servers or cloud images are quite expensive. But I guess the client groups they target can afford that kind of a license. If you're a small business owner or a student and want to shift to RHEL, you must spend a lot of dollars. The developer version of RHEL has minimal functionality, but it's given away for free.

I would tell potential customers that they should go for the latest releases. If they want to buy it, they should get a developer account from RHEL first and use that dev account before buying it. They might have some hands-on experience before spending too much money on Red Hat.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) an eight.

I use it for running RAID servers, Database clusters, and a lot of other open-source tools. I have also used it as a firewall.

We have on-premises dedicated servers located in some data centers. We also have cloud servers on the public cloud. I am currently using the latest version, and I have also worked on previous versions as well as Template.

Its security is the most valuable. It is very stable and has many features. It also has good performance.

Some of our clients were using Windows servers and products. I suggested Red Hat Linux to them and described the features. They switched to it, and they really loved it. There were around 50 servers in my last company, and they switched all those servers from Windows to Red Hat. I used to manage those servers.

It is mostly better than other solutions. However, it is sometimes difficult for disaster recovery, so we have to plan accordingly.

I have been working on Linux for the past ten years.

Based on my experience, it has been stable. I did not experience any issues.

It is scalable. I scaled it in a way that I put a load balancer and a few servers running behind that. When working with clients, we scale or expand usage based on the need.

I used to work on and manage a website, which was just like YouTube. Around 1,000 users used to use the site, which was definitely putting a load on this server. There were around 30 servers managing the traffic. I could manage 1,000 simultaneous users.

I have never used their support. I just do some research to resolve an issue.

I have also used Ubuntu and CentOS in different companies and for different clients. The utilization of packages, commands, and configuration files are different in Ubuntu. For example, if you want to restart a service, the commands are different in these solutions. They also have different firewalls. Red Hat uses firewalld and Ubuntu uses ufw.

The deployment is actually okay. It is not too easy and not too complex. It is easy for experienced people, but if you don't have the experience, it can be a little hard. 

The deployment duration depends on the type of deployment that we are doing. It could take from a day to a week or two weeks. We can also use Jenkins for auto-deployment.

I worked with a Cloud hosting and deployment company that provided different Cloud services to their clients. They had servers based on Red Hat. It does require regular maintenance. We had a team of ten people.

Red Hat Linux is inexpensive. Linux solutions are generally inexpensive.

I would definitely recommend this solution. It is my most preferred solution. I like using terminals, and with Red Hat, I get to work on terminals and shell commands. It has good security. 

I would rate Red Hat Linux (RHEL) an eight out of ten. I find it excellent, but no system can be 100% perfect.

Business: workstation and server.

Open architecture allows for accelerated growth while secure repositories guarantee stability.

• Multipath
• Yum 
• LVM
• Selinux

Workstations: More applications for graphics.

Servers: More applications for monitoring (e.g., nmon).

The GUI for network adapters and built-in tools provided by RHEL, such as the Mozilla browser, have been valuable. Since they come built-in, it saves the time of having to install them, and you have everything necessary with the installation itself.

There are several tools which Red Hat provides as add-ons such as ReaR (Relax and Recover) which can be used for disaster recovery.

Improvements are necessary to stay in the market and face the competition. I really think that the upgrade policies between the major versions, like from from RHEL 5 to RHEL 6, should be much easier, similar to what is in place for upgrading from RHEL 6 to RHEL 6.8.

Until now, RHEL has been the most stable OS I have ever seen. Nothing seems to break, with frequent updates. I have been running it 24/7 for the past 18 months and it runs flawlessly.

No issues so far. You can always scale the hard disk as much as you want, add NFS, CIFS disks and still the enterprise solution would run seamlessly.

I would rate technical support at eight out of ten. Though they have some excellent engineers available, the case mostly goes through level-3 support staff and then it moves forward. This can sometimes be a time consuming process and lethal for a company.

No, we did not use a previous solution. We knew about Red Hat from our inception. It was a pretty well-known enterprise platform.

The setup of RHEL is straightforward, there is nothing complex about it. Everything is well documented on their website.

The pricing is a bit on the expensive side, mainly because of the support they provide. However, it is quite affordable if you are an organization. If, as a small company or individual, this is an expensive option, I would recommend CentOS, which is an exact replica of RHEL, minus the customer support.

I have worked on a few Linux platforms, but Red Hat is a different experience. Due to its stability, it makes an excellent choice. It’s so-called invincible security makes sure that your data remains safe. The excellent customer service support agents are ready to get your problem resolved almost within an hour of opening a case (as long as you have the premium license for your servers). Taking all this into consideration, I would say this solution is a nine out of 10.

I have been working on Red-hat for two years and I must say I enjoy working with it. No day is like another, since there will always be something which will enhance your learning curve.

I would say if you are managing high-end servers running complex programs, Red Hat would never do you wrong. It has a lot of built-in tools if you choose the maximalist installation. If you are running a low-end server, you can even go with the minimalist installation which would only cramp a few megabytes of your processor power.