Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Reviews

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.

My main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are mostly just running applications, web servers, app servers, databases, etc.

I don't have a preference on features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), as I appreciate many of them. While just getting into cloud, I'd say the best feature is YUM, DNF, and related tools, which are simple and easy to use and manage. 

The simplicity of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) benefits my company in general since we're under many audits and regulations that allow us to track any discrepancies we may find in the reports, as to remediate those vulnerabilities and apply the necessary patches so that we can be compliant with our systems.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps me solve pain points through vulnerability management, and its Satellite has been a really good tool to help us track vulnerabilities as well as patching the server.

We are hybrid, so we deploy Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) both in the cloud and on-premise. For our cloud needs, we use both Azure and AWS. We have a good track record with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and security, due to their ability to produce Day 1 patches, quick responses, and great customer support when we face problems.

When it comes to provisioning and patching, we usually manage our Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) patching in a monthly cycle, using Ansible to help update our monthly downloads from Red Hat Enterprise Linux, move it to our satellite, and then push it out to our servers.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) supports our hybrid cloud strategy. We mostly use both Windows and Red Hat, making it our primary Linux operating system for applications, and we've been using the Red Hat images that we've created for cloud, deploying them there with the necessary utilities and applications.

I assess the knowledge base offered by the Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) system fairly positively, especially for support questions, however, the only issue I have is that often, you have to log in with your provider ID; in some cases, I understand. That said, there are others that are not just generally support specific to Red Hat, which is a problem.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped to mitigate downtime and lower risk through our ability to patch quickly, with relatively fast reboot times, and the amount of changes applied that don't affect systems much, especially with patching, so everything works as designed with very little incompatibility issues.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) can be improved by offering more on the Ansible side, with more integration with Ansible Satellite and all their tools for a one-stop area that manages both vulnerabilities and image deployments in a workflow pipeline.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) since Red Hat 4, which was a long time ago.

Its stability and reliability are fair and stable, with not too many issues encountered as long as no one is messing with the kernel configuration.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales really well with the growing needs of my company, as long as we have licenses.

I find customer service and technical support for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) better than most; it's good.

Positive

Before Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), we were using SUSE Linux, starting originally with Red Hat, then switching to SUSE 10 and 11, and ultimately switching back to Red Hat 7.

My experience with deploying Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has gotten easier over the years, especially with Ansible, as it has become more automated, replacing a lot of the tasks we used to do by command-line interface with more Ansible playbooks and workflows.

From my point of view and a technical perspective, the biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the ease to spin up the instances and the fact that many people still prefer the command-line interface, which has significantly less overhead than a Windows system.

Regarding the pricing, setup costs, and licensing of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I'm not really involved with the budget, however, it seems to be okay for what we currently have.

A while ago, we considered SUSE and looked at Ubuntu before we ended up choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as our solution.

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

To make it a ten, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) would need to allow systems to remain operational even if licenses expire, especially on a virtualized platform, and perhaps also improve Ansible integration.

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) to run our web servers and application servers, and in some cases database servers. It is our primary operating system, and the majority of our servers run Unix, especially Linux.

The virtualization in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) benefits my company as the web servers and application servers allow us to grow and be elastic about our loads and costs.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps us solve everything, from security compliance to running the core infrastructure of the company. 

My favorite feature of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the virtualization. 

I have been involved in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) upgrades and migrations. We upgraded from version seven to nine recently, first from seven to eight, then to nine. Security requirements were a consideration when we were choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in the cloud.

The reason security was a consideration is that primarily we're dealing with the container section of Linux shops. The core of the OS cannot be touched or hacked, especially when it comes to financial transactions. When dealing with financial transactions, we need to keep certain aspects more secure, such as PCI compliance.

My team works directly with kernel patching on a monthly basis, and it's excellent; we always get the fixes for any vulnerabilities, which we have to keep up with based on the financial transactions. We need to keep up with the security patches.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped to mitigate downtime and lower risks. While I don't have a specific number, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has definitely helped in being more stable than other operating systems. When we had other operating systems, we experienced a lot of general panic with infrastructures such as older HP-UX. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is definitely more stable than that.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) can be improved by making it lighter. By making it lighter, there should be versions for specific cases, for customers or images.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) since 2003.

My experience with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in terms of stability and reliability is excellent. 

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales with the growing needs of my company excellently, and that is one of the reasons we use it. We scale on a day-to-day basis using the virtualization, which allows us to add resources if we have a new client tomorrow.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) supports our hybrid cloud strategy as we have some legacy systems that we maintain both on-premise and elsewhere. We offer services that are not for the area where we work, which allows us to offer a better response to our clients that are further away, using Azure and different regions for them, so our Red Hat Enterprise server is closer to them instead of having it here.

Every time we have to work on a case with customer service and technical support, the response is fast. Usually, I send the information, and they have something for me within hours, sometimes even minutes.

Positive

We have considered other solutions while using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). We have different kinds of operating systems for different clients or solutions, and while we still prefer Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), our goal is to standardize between AIX and IBM. 

We use Windows, which is challenging. We have AIX, which we run within the IBM Z environment. AIX is good, however, the hardware is not optimal, and there's a license for the hardware that is especially used for databases such as Oracle, where you need to license a whole mainframe just to run it.

From a technical point of view, the biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for me is interoperability and the ability to automate a lot of the processes, from scratch to day-to-day basis.

My experience with the pricing, setup costs, and licensing of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has been a journey. Licensing for on-premise was different; you have your license for the hardware you're using. When doing it for the cloud, it's more of a subscription-based system. It's been variable with different pricing; we still prefer the older way.

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

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is user-friendly and easy to use. The affordability and free open source nature are main points. Multiple tools can be installed easily, and the interface is very user-friendly.

I am using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) on Docker. I work on Docker with both Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and Docker. Installation of so many tools is easy and simple for my Red Hat machine.

The features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that I find to be the most valuable and useful are that it is user-friendly. The command is very user-friendly and easy to use, and easy to remember. That is a main point. I install it everywhere on my cloud server because I am using a virtual machine also on my PC.

A specific feature of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is that I can install multiple tools without any interruption. I can configure everything easily, such as network ports. I can configure networking using vim commands and multiple commands. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) provides more alternate commands for my convenience.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is very good. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) provides the updated latest version yearly. However, they could provide more flexibility in areas such as adding more networking features. For security reasons, since security is a main key point for privacy in upcoming years, they could provide more DPDK for fast signaling and add more new protocols.

I have more than four years of experience with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) needs some improvement for stability. I am currently working on the latest version only. The latest version is not familiar to me, and I need to upskill on my side also. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) should provide more free courses for the upcoming or latest version that explain what changed between the latest and previous versions. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is not providing courses on sites or readable materials that explain what commands should be used.

I have communicated with the technical support of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). Previously, I did receive technical support in my previous company, and they provided an update for my servers. I rate the technical support services of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as good, giving it a 9 out of 10.

Positive

I used SUSE Linux and CentOS before Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is much better than CentOS and SUSE. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) provides its own cloud, OpenStack.

The knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) provides free courses for everyday work. I am currently using shell scripting, which is very useful for automation and easy to deploy on Docker and CI/CD pipelines for Jenkins. Shell scripting is the main knowledgeable area right now.

The most important security feature in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is that it provides multiple ports in the Linux machine that are connected via the kernel. The kernel is the main core of the network of Linux. No one can bypass this kernel line. The networking security feature is a main point.

I am not familiar with Image Builder for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and have not built any images using Red Hat.

Regarding the pricing of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I am not purchasing any membership right now. I purchased it previously, but I am not currently.

I chose Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) because it is so user-friendly. In every server, I need to use it for security reasons, and it is user-friendly for everyone. The source code is very simple. I can create my own tools and automation scripting.

My overall rating for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is 10 out of 10.

My main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in this company include running some mission-critical databases, which include Oracle, and one of our document imaging applications.

The best feature of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the easy virtualization on any of the VMware platforms, and now we are also trying on OpenShift, which is very helpful. These features benefit my company by reducing the downtime, which is the main help.

I describe my experience with deploying Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as a bit challenging because it is very advanced on the AIX side or HP-UX side in terms of creating the image and directly building a new server or recovering a server; that is still a challenge on the Red Hat side with that rear image, but now they are improving upon that, and I'm hoping Red Hat 10 will have better options. 

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) can be improved to keep pace with the dynamic world of IT, especially as artificial intelligence and other technologies evolve.

So far, we are very satisfied with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)'s built-in security features when it comes to simplifying risk reduction and maintaining compliance. However, we are exploring further, as there are always challenges, especially when it comes to well-known bugs that need addressing before deployment. I’m expecting more automation in this area. Ideally, it should be handled automatically, allowing us to say, "You don't need to do anything; I’ll take care of that."

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for probably fifteen plus years.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped mitigate downtime and lower risks because we used a lot of freeware Linux systems before, which posed challenges when bugs came up, leading to struggles when solutions weren't available. With Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and support from Red Hat, if issues arise, we can get quick support and resolution, making it very helpful.

So far, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales with the growing needs of my company, but we need to see how this next big change towards artificial intelligence will unfold.

The knowledge base on their website and other resources is quite helpful. However, I have faced several challenges with support, not only with Red Hat but also with other vendors. Typically, when we open a support case with Red Hat, it is assigned to the first level of support. Even when we clearly outline the issue and request a timely response, the case often takes longer than expected to resolve. Sometimes, the support team asks unnecessary questions that are not relevant to the issue at hand.

I believe this is not just a problem with Red Hat; many vendors exhibit similar behaviors. There are knowledgeable individuals on the support team who could assist effectively, yet the initial support level often asks basic questions that do not pertain to the problem we're experiencing. It would be beneficial to streamline the process to ensure that appropriately skilled personnel are assigned to cases more quickly.

My experience with customer service and technical support has been mixed; sometimes it has been excellent when we get the right person at the right time, but otherwise, it is always a challenge, even though we pay for the highest support and have a special Account Executive or Account Manager assigned to us.

Neutral

We mostly used free Linux, but our critical systems were on Red Hat ever since we started migrating from HP-UX, which is not Intel-based, but rather RISC-based systems, even AIX.

I expect to see a return on investment once we start migrating from VMs on VMware to Red Hat or OpenShift.

I have not considered switching to another solution that does the same, but there is always pressure from the company to reduce costs. They question why we don't just use free Linux, Ubuntu or other flavors, which we are using, but not for our critical applications. The main difference is support.

Security requirements are always a consideration before choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) because we are living in a different world. I always have upgrade or migration plans to stay current and we are very aggressive about it, except when the application vendor says it's not supported on the new version yet, which is the only bottleneck.

For the management of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems, a lot of processes are currently manual, although we are using some features and trying to do a lot of automation with Ansible, which we just started implementing, to complete the automation process.

We are always very aggressive with upgrades, except when an application states that it does not support the new version. That's the only drawback we face.

For someone considering Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for their company, I advise conducting some kind of PoCs to understand how it works, and I would then recommend going ahead as it represents the future.

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

We provide a hosting platform on which internal business applications will want to host their applications. Depending on what our internal app teams want to use to host their applications, some may want to host on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). These are the main use cases that we deal with - app teams hosting their applications in our hosting platform for internal use.

From a consumer preference perspective, we have folks who prefer options for teams to host their environments in the cloud. It feels there is more security with the product and more configuration customization that app teams appreciate. Certain vendors require that Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) specifically be used, which helps in those cases.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) provides a certain base set of security features and capabilities that we have found other flavors of Linux do not provide or are required by governmental agencies to meet CMMC controls. The security controls that go above and beyond other types of Linux, along with the manageability from an enterprise perspective, make it valuable.

One of the pain points we have found is that for Windows systems, it is pretty easy to domain join those in a federated model. It seems we have to either have a third-party product or it is not quite as straightforward to domain join Linux OSs. This would be something that could potentially be smoother in the future.

The knowledge base would be more helpful if it was more easily searchable. There might be opportunities to leverage AI for being able to search the knowledge base and articles more effectively.

We have been using the solution for about 12 years now.

Compared to other OSs, stability has been solid.

It has scaled very well. We have not experienced any scaling issues from our perspective.

I have not had to directly engage customer support. Mmy team has not provided any issues or complaints when they have had to reach out to support.

Positive

We tried using CentOS type Linux or Amazon Linux. However, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) checked the compliance and security features much better than those product offerings.

We have been actively moving systems from on-premises into the cloud since 2017, including moving Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) versions to newer versions in the cloud.

It is pretty easy to deploy. The main challenge is domain joining it at the end, however, we have not had many issues with getting things STIG hardened, which is welcome when it comes to the OS itself.

We are deploying everything via automation using the Ansible product. Everything is deployed leveraging Ansible, and we have a desired state config post-deployment that provides post-permission hardening.

Based on our latest agreement, we are seeing cost savings and optimizations.

I wasn't too involved in those discussions. For the most part, our sourcing team carried the heavy burden of negotiating the licensing agreements and similar matters.

Depending on your use case and compliance requirements, take a good look at all the different flavors of Linux and you will probably recognize that Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is going to check the boxes much smoother and easier than some of the other versions or implementations. It will save time. 

On a scale of one to ten, I rate this solution a nine.

I use OpenShift as part of my system because most clients require it. I work as a forward engineer. For ten years, I've worked for companies where I'm deployed to their site to do one-day to six-month projects, similar to Geek Squad for coding. My specialty is architecture, so I've used Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), mostly Ansible and OpenShift. In instances where I'm working with a VPC directly and everything runs Linux and I'm running RHEL, I'll have some workloads. However, I don't manipulate the OS itself. I use the tools built on top of it.

My specialty is finance and medical, so with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), it's all hybrid. Those two sectors have significant compliance requirements, especially medical. I do many hybrid clouds and must build two or three redundancies. That's why all of the nuances of the Red Hat platform stand out to me in a way it wouldn't for someone else. For example, in a hospital system, they have emergency generators for power. The same concept applies to data, HIPAA, and transferring. I notice things that others may not. It means I'm always concurrently running two or three clouds for disaster recovery for compliance. All of the clouds have nine nines, 11 nines, whatever they're marketing now for reliability, but the time from start to production, the shorter that is, and the better it plays with the rest of my tools and system, the better. Red Hat really excels at that.

The main benefit is time savings, which is something that can't be easily quantified. By not breaking or causing problems, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) saves time, headaches, money, anguish, fees, violations, and penalties. This becomes apparent when teams are happy to use a tool that doesn't slow them down. For high producers, having a reliable system that doesn't require extra steps or workarounds is crucial.

There are two big pain points that Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps me solve. First, Red Hat being interoperable and not taking a side is humongous. Every other platform has tricks and questionable behaviors for lock-in. RHEL is the only platform I don't have issues connecting. Everyone is running hybrid multi-cloud environments, so the fact that others make their products purposely not work with others is obnoxious. As a professional who has made money making APIs and connectors, those companies being stubborn benefits me financially. However, from an efficiency or executing on an idea standpoint, it's frustrating. The fact that Red Hat isn't that way is excellent.

The second aspect I really appreciate, and I don't think they get credit for this, is how Red Hat's interfaces, design choices, and options work very well for producers. For example, Amazon Web Services' approach is to add 200 features a year. They throw everything at the wall to see what sticks, resulting in a confusing experience when logging in, using CLI, or setting up a bastion host into VPC with PEM keys. On the other side of the spectrum, some clouds are too simple. Red Hat hits the perfect balance.

The only thing I can think of is the RHEL AI, which has only been announced for a couple of months, so I'm still sorting it out. The way that gets implemented will be very key to the future of the company and the stack. Until I listened to the seminar, I wasn't even sure what RHEL AI meant. What I understand now is that RHEL AI is the regular RHEL with pre-installed, AI-specific tools and tooling. That's fine, but as a company, they should make that more obvious. Additionally, it seems to only save a few minutes of typing in the terminal. It sounds similar to how people took Ubuntu and made flavors, where they changed two apps and called it a distro. Red Hat should make something actually different because they have that capability, and users would definitely use it. The AI implementation is the future, and it's just a matter of how that gets used.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for production for approximately five to six years.

I have extensive experience with stability issues in Linux systems. Since 2017, I have run Debian derivatives on my personal machines. However, for work, it's always RHEL. The built-in security, secure groups, and overall architecture make it a more robust and stable system. Linux did not become stable for home users until after COVID, when everyone was at home fixing issues. RHEL's advantage lies in its architecture - it's harder to break the system due to its notifications, invisible files, and pre-reboot checks.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) solves stability problems in two ways: the architecture of the software stack is exceptionally stable, minimizing downtime and risk, and when issues occur, the recovery time is minimal. Using OpenShift, I can spin up new instances quickly and seamlessly.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales effectively. An OS by itself doesn't determine a company's success or failure; it's about the usage. While Windows, Linux, and Mac have their differences, they share basic components such as a kernel and a user interface. RHEL excels in stability, preventing system crashes even when inexperienced users interact with files, which saves time, money, equipment replacement costs, and prevents employee downtime.

I have had limited experience with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) customer service and technical support. I've used email support, which is efficient and quick. I once needed phone support while working in a data center basement without internet access. I called RHEL for assistance, and the service was excellent. I've had no issues with Red Hat or IBM service, whether it's resolving login issues via email or getting help with critical situations in front of clients.

My experience with the deployment of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) tends to work well. Due to the nature of my work, I rarely build from scratch. I typically join existing projects to iterate upon or fix something. I'm not usually the decision-maker, though I can influence clients through my expertise and trust. The migration path is relatively smooth, even when jumping two versions, and it doesn't break everything.

The pricing, setup costs, and licensing of RHEL are reasonable. While some people complain about the subscription model, I understand and accept it.

The main difference between other solutions and RHEL is configuration and security, which helps maintain stability. Since RHEL is used on web servers, both public-facing and internal, security is crucial. While any modern OS can run without crashing, RHEL's advantage is its resilience against external threats and operations that might compromise other systems.

RHEL is a reliable solution that saves users from numerous technical headaches, though these savings aren't easily quantifiable. The system's reliability speaks for itself.

My advice is to dive in and use it. There are no gotchas with RHEL. There's a large ecosystem, many knowledgeable users, and a strong community.

My review rating for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is nine out of ten.