Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Reviews

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) We primarily use RHEL for hosting enterprise applications, database servers, virtualization workloads, web services, automation platforms, and secure production environments. It is also used for managing cloud-based deployments and containerized workloads in hybrid infrastructure environments.

My primary use case for RHEL is working with Docker containers and managing development environments. I use it for running containerized applications, installing development and DevOps tools, hosting services, and managing enterprise workloads in a stable Linux environment.

RHEL has positively impacted our organization by providing a stable and secure Linux environment for server and Docker workloads. Linux is one of the most important platforms for modern servers, and RHEL makes server management reliable and efficient. Installing and configuring development tools, Docker utilities, and required packages is simple, which helps save time and improve productivity. Its strong performance, security updates, and long-term support reduce downtime and make infrastructure management easier for our team.

Some of the best features of RHEL include its exceptional stability, enterprise-level security, and long-term support. The operating system performs reliably even under high workloads, making it ideal for mission-critical environments. Features like SELinux, Podman, system roles, and integrated automation tools improve security and administrative efficiency. Another major advantage is the extensive documentation and strong vendor support provided by Red Hat, which helps organizations quickly resolve issues and maintain high availability.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is very good. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) provides

RHEL could be improved by simplifying subscription and licensing management, especially for smaller organizations and development teams. Enhanced out-of-the-box monitoring and performance analytics tools would also be valuable. Additionally, improving the user experience for hybrid cloud and Kubernetes integrations, along with providing more lightweight deployment options, could make the platform even more flexible and developer-friendly in modern infrastructure environments.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for more than 5 years across enterprise server environments, virtualization platforms, and application hosting infrastructure.

Yes, RHEL is very stable and reliable for production environments. It provides long-term support, regular security updates, and consistent system performance. We run Docker containers, automation scripts, and multiple development tools on RHEL servers without facing major downtime issues. The operating system handles workloads efficiently and maintains good performance over long periods, which is very important for enterprise server environments.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is highly scalable and works well for both small and large enterprise environments. We use RHEL for Docker workloads, server management, automation, and application hosting, and it performs consistently even as workloads increase. It supports virtualization, cloud environments, and container platforms efficiently, making it suitable for scaling applications and infrastructure without major performance issues.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) provides strong customer service and technical support for enterprise environments. The support team is knowledgeable, responsive, and helpful in resolving server, security, and system-related issues. The official documentation, knowledge base, and community resources are also very useful for troubleshooting and learning new technologies. In many cases, issues can be resolved quickly using Red Hat’s support articles and technical guidance. Overall, the support experience is professional and reliable for organizations managing critical production systems.

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 initial setup and installation process for RHEL was simple and well-documented. Licensing costs are higher compared to free Linux distributions, but the enterprise support, security updates, and long-term stability justify the investment for production environments. Overall, the pricing is reasonable for organizations that require reliable server infrastructure, professional support, and enterprise-grade performance.

We evaluated CentOS and SUSE Linux before finalizing RHEL. CentOS was lightweight and community-driven, but it lacked enterprise-level support and long-term reliability after its changes in lifecycle management. SUSE Linux was stable and feature-rich, but RHEL provided better compatibility with enterprise applications, stronger Docker and cloud ecosystem support, and wider industry adoption. RHEL’s documentation, security features, and vendor support were stronger compared to the alternatives.

On a scale from 1–10 (1 = worst, 10 = best), how would you rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) overall? What advice would you give to other organizations considering Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)?

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 10 out of 10 for its stability, security, and enterprise performance. RHEL is very user-friendly and highly reliable for server environments, Docker workloads, and automation tasks. The platform makes it easy to install tools, manage services, and build automation scripts using shell scripting and CI/CD pipelines like Jenkins.

One of the biggest advantages of RHEL is its strong security architecture. The Linux kernel and networking security features provide a secure environment for enterprise servers and applications. It is very difficult to bypass the kernel-level security controls, which makes RHEL a trusted platform for production systems.

Another major benefit is the Red Hat knowledge base and learning resources, which help users improve their Linux and automation skills through practical documentation and training materials. I currently use shell scripting extensively for automation and Docker deployments, and RHEL provides an excellent environment for this work.

My advice to organizations considering RHEL is to choose it if they need a secure, stable, and enterprise-grade Linux platform with strong support for automation, Docker, DevOps, and cloud environments. It is especially valuable for organizations that require long-term reliability, easy server management, and strong security features.

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) to install our Linux versions. We are using a product called Appian, which is a low-code/no-code platform BPN. On top of that, we will be installing our products in Citibank, which means at the client location. We will run that installation and everything in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), and we will be bringing that instance where end users develop their use cases on that. Apart from that, we have four to five products called Boardwalk and Apptio which are running on the on-premises Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)-based versions.

Before choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I previously worked with Kubernetes, but for the past four years, I have been working on OpenShift administration and as an application developer.

Red Hat OpenShift has the best GUI for a friendly user experience, and regarding security, it is number one compared to open-source tools like orchestrating Kubernetes. Red Hat OpenShift also provides excellent customer support where responses come immediately when we get stuck with anything. Security constraints are an added feature because they restrict non-root users for all applications, making it immutable and not overwritable by any malfunctions, which represents the best practices in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

I am currently working with the Red Hat Insights feature, which is a customized one for us in the banking sector. Although I may not have all the features, the best things we have for enabling security come into the picture, including RBAC, security services, and firewalls.

System Roles are organization-dependent and will change from organization to organization, not only in Red Hat. Those are the default system roles, but the organization can create roles on top of that. If they have an enterprise license, they may ask to create some system roles which are defined for the organization with privileged access.

In my hybrid cloud strategy for my clients, they will select any data center and install the bare metal racks there. On top of the racks, they will install the physical servers, which involve CPU utilization, and they will apply the security policies to the cluster, making it the best for deploying resources.

I feel there are no pain points that Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps me solve, and I do not have any complaints.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) saves time because it provides the best GUI, making it easier to perform changes without relying solely on CLI.

From my perspective, the best features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) include security patches which are the best, and the OS is very good compared to Ubuntu or other alternatives. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) offers UBI images or UBI versions that are very eco-friendly for use by the end users of those Linux machines that are deploying their services or applications, making it user-friendly for them. Whenever we get stuck, the support from Red Hat is very responsive, and we receive the best support from them.

I decided to switch to Red Hat because our products have the capability and we need to have the flavor based on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). With Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), the security and compliance are the best part, and building applications on that platform will give security constraints. The dependency can be installed, and whatever packages we get from Red Hat are the best things to have compared to Ubuntu.

I have worked in both hybrid and purely on-premises environments, specifically on-premises bare metal.

The business value of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) compared to other Linux distributions I have used is that a separate team is always engaged with our organization. Whenever we face issues, there will be a ServiceNow or an INC raised, and they respond immediately along with dedicated people available for support.

I would prefer better handling as sometimes the PVCs may get stuck, and there are numerous things like release notes that may affect some applications depending on the binaries, which they can manage and improve.

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

I have not seen any performance issues with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). Performance issues may arise if any node goes down or a cluster drain occurs. When a new release happens, every organization receives notification via email that applications should be built per Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) guidelines to avoid any performance issues, which depend on how the applications are built on the platform.

I find Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scalable, and there are no limitations because scalability depends on the replica set, allowing flexibility from 100 to 10 or whatever you need.

I would assess the knowledge base offered by Red Hat as four out of five because whatever issues we encounter, we immediately go to that customer portal and get those things and raise a ticket for them.

I rate the tech support for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as nine out of ten.

I previously worked with Ubuntu, but currently we are using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) flavors only.

The initial setup with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is straightforward, and there are no significant complexities in the deployment process. Red Hat provides the necessary binaries or TAR files, allowing you to bring it into your Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) system and run it with command line access directly from the local machine to the OpenShift cluster, demonstrating how user-friendly it is.

The ability to mitigate downtime and lower risks depends on how I build my applications. If you create them on a good platform, they generally behave well. If a new release occurs, only then would it cause disturbances, but that usually does not happen.

For user benefit, end users do not know what platform it is sitting on. They experience the best latency with low latency, allowing them to utilize the products and resources running, making everything compatible, which is the best for them. Therefore, this is essential to design at an architectural level.

I have not faced any missing features, so I cannot comment on those.

I can provide advice if they need to migrate from on-premise to OpenShift based on my experience in working as an architect in that area.

I will recommend Red Hat because in OpenShift clusters, it is user-friendly with a GUI that offers excellent visualization alongside Kubernetes. There is no need to create additional dashboards. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is a best security product managed globally by the Red Hat team, and all binaries are available for download. The support portal allows for quick issue resolution, with responses available in a fraction of hours depending on the ticket's urgency.

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

Our main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) include managing systems for many customers whose systems are hosted on RHEL, as we have different kinds of verticals such as ports, hospitals, and critical services managed with RHEL.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) supports our hybrid cloud strategy through a huge partnership; we also have our own public cloud and still use RHEL servers.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps us solve pain points by providing a really strong engineer team. Sometimes we need to pass the first level quickly because we also have really deep knowledge and really strong engineering teams. These things could perhaps be enhanced or improved, but with each major problem, we trust them and maintain a really good partnership, so we go to the market together.

What I like the most about Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is that it is a reliable system. Regarding the features, I cannot exactly point out something specific, but we have also used many products, including Red Hat Satellite; it is a reliable system.

The features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) benefit my company by being really important when we are working on critical services, as we are not alone when talking with customers; we collaborate with those who create the product, which gives us a lot of confidence and allows us to offer more professional services.

The features in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that we use to navigate our security risks include using Satellite. We leverage Satellite by allowing us to download all the official packages to keep our platform updated, and with Ansible, we manage all the patching setup.

In terms of how Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) can be improved, I think the next release should focus on enhancing AI capabilities, which will help us in managing systems and could lead to more autonomous systems.

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

We have experienced some downtime, crashes, or performance issues with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), especially now with AI and many vulnerabilities that appear. We struggle with those issues, but whenever we raise a case to the maximum level, we immediately get a solution or they work on it.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales really well with the growing needs of our company; when we need a Linux solution, it is really easy, and we do not face any significant difficulties.

The knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is really huge; I think that AI will become available there really soon, making it much easier to get information. Even now, there is a kind of AI integration, but it is not mature; that is why we directly try to contact the engineer team, as the knowledge base is good for learning or investigating, but in critical situations we do not have time to search deeply in that knowledge base.

The capabilities that assist with this include engineer support; each time we have a bug or something similar, they provide us with a workaround or something comparable.

I think we have a really good pricing model for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as a cloud-certified service provider, so we should maintain this partnership and relation with the pricing model.

Before adopting Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), we had different flavors of Linux; our whole farm is not only Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). However, if we can suggest to customers, we definitely go with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), but we also have other Linux flavors, even a Unix one too.

The experience of deploying Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is straightforward; we deploy it as a base image and then customize it with Ansible. We get the image from your store and install it, depending on which use case we have for that server.

Regarding major version upgrades with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and Ansible Automation Platform, we generally do minor upgrades, and then start from scratch with the new Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) release because we feel much more confident in that way; we also try to do live patching, but it is not suitable for all use cases, especially for some applications.

From my point of view, the biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is that we achieve our SLAs, which is really cool as there are no penalties with customers.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped to mitigate downtime and lower risk for my company.

Pros and cons of those other Linux distributions compared to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) include support; you have really good engineer support when reaching that engineer team. I think you should maintain that; with customers, it is essential to connect directly with those who have a certain level of technology knowledge to avoid unnecessary back and forth.

The business value of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) compares quite similarly to the other Linux distributions we use; so for me, there is not a huge difference in that regard.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is a really enterprise solution and an enterprise operating system. If you also see in the summit how many customers trust this operating system and how many in the industry, including critical services such as health and flights, you will understand its value; so why not use it? I give Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a rating of seven out of ten.

My main use cases include running our application in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) since all our applications are based on a Red Hat server. Everything we use is Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

As SecDevOps Lead, I drove the adoption of Red Hat’s Ansible Automation Platform, which transformed our deployment process. Previously, manual scripts led to inconsistencies and delays; now, we achieve consistent, error-free deployments in under 10 minutes. Weekly RHEL patching, integrated into our CI/CD pipeline, has strengthened our security posture—critical for meeting regulatory requirements. These improvements have directly supported our business goals of agility and reliability.

A key area for improvement is the ability to apply patches without requiring a full server reboot. This would minimize downtime for mission-critical applications. I’m actively evaluating Red Hat’s live kernel patching solutions and advocating for their adoption to further enhance our uptime and operational efficiency.

I've been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for almost seven years.

I assess the stability and reliability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as good since I didn't see much downtime with the servers or any random problems coming up with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). I would say it's good in terms of stability.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales well with the growing needs of my organization because whatever solutions we are trying, we are able to do in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). It's coming along well.

I evaluate customer service and technical support as something I'm not sure about because I didn't directly work with them.

Neutral

I didn't consider any other solutions before Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), and I haven't used any other solution to address similar needs.

My experience with deploying Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is nice, but I didn't deploy anything from a Linux perspective. Overall, I think it's a nice experience that I have with Red Hat.

When it comes to managing my Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems for provisioning and patching, it has come up well over the years. Before, I think it took a lot of time to provision a server and patch it, including securing and hardening the server. Nowadays, it's very easy. I didn't work directly, but I have provisioned.

I feel that we've seen ROI since I'm not involved in purchasing, but I can feel that it's a good ROI.

My experience with pricing, including cost and licensing, is that I'm not sure.

I haven't expanded any usage of it, apart from using Ansible and Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

My assessment of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)'s built-in security features when it comes to simplifying risk reduction and maintaining compliance is that it's pretty good from what I've heard when I talk with the team, even though I'm not directly working on that.As for my upgrade and migration plans to stay current, we recently upgraded to Red Hat 8. If we want to do another Red Hat 10, it's good.Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped to mitigate downtime and lower risk as it allows provisioning servers very easily. In case the servers go down, it comes up very fast as well.I assess the knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as very good. Recently, I had a walkthrough of a trial, and it's pretty much simplified and whatever we need is there.My advice to other organizations considering Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is to just use it. It's easy. I gave this review a rating of 10.

My main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) include everything from file servers to system endpoints, user endpoint devices, system machines, development boxes, and automation with Ansible. The range of applications is quite broad. My primary use case is patching for identified CVEs or risks that need to be mitigated.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps me solve pain points at my company by making it easier to install across a broader range of platforms, whether on-premises or in the cloud. Its customizability is a key advantage, allowing us to tailor it for many different scenarios, making those probably the two main benefits.

The features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that I appreciate most include its customizability and how easy it is to harden from my point of view. It is easier to harden and secure from a customization perspective, and I also find that support is good.

To navigate my security risks, most of it relies on Satellite support for installing packages. I am here to look at some of the other options and security options available.

Satellite helps my company by enabling us to keep updated with patches, allowing us to push updates from various locations in a timely manner to mitigate any CVEs that come out.

From an end-user point of view, I have two recommendations for how Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) can be improved: adding more user-friendliness, particularly for desktop or laptop environments, and incorporating features from Fedora that enable mapping services such as OneDrive. Additionally, from a server-side perspective, having more security tools similar to Hummingbird would be useful to aid in hardening and meeting security requirements.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) since 1999.

Regarding the stability and reliability of the platform, I have not experienced any major downtime, crashes, or performance issues, though occasionally issues occur, usually related to hard drive failure or improper kernel modules. That is one of the key reasons we have always remained with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), as its stability is vital.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped mitigate downtime and lower risks through its uptime, which has been very good from my experience, especially in system engineering roles I have held previously, where we relied on it for mail servers and web servers due to its rock-solid uptime.

I have no complaints regarding scalability, as Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales very well. It works great for lightweight distributions or when scaling across many servers, whether on physical systems, in a box, or in the cloud.

The customer service and technical support of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has always been good, with a solid relationship with Red Hat, including on-site employees who provide support.

Prior to adopting Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) at my company, we were not using another solution to address similar needs, as we have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for a very long time.

The deployment process of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is straightforward. While I am not too involved in that process these days, in the past you would boot up a kickstart file, put it on a USB drive, and install it or spin up a virtual machine in the cloud, making it easy.

As a Satellite user, I would say it has also helped mitigate downtime and risks by allowing us to quickly patch and configure systems and make changes rapidly.

From my point of view, the biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is performance, as you can run it with low resource consumption, which means low impact on hardware and easier specification to hardware requirements. This ultimately saves on resource usage and helps in the long run, as Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is adaptable to various installation scales.

I honestly have no knowledge about the pricing, setup cost, and licensing for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), as someone else handles that for me. I have not heard complaints, so it must not be too bad.

I have not really considered switching to another solution, as we have a diverse environment with Microsoft systems and other Unix systems, but I do not see any appetite for switching away from Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) plays a big role in my company's implementation of the zero-trust model, as zero trust is a significant part of our security hardening strategy. There is a big executive order from a couple of years ago about it, and Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps us meet those STIG and hardening requirements and track identity management for what services have access.

I do use Satellite to help manage and maintain my hybrid cloud environment.

The infrastructure team might use Red Hat Lightspeed, but if we do, I am not currently aware of it.

I have not personally done any AI workloads with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), but I know other teams that have.

I have not tried either Red Hat Enterprise Linux Image Builder or system roles, but that was another thing I wanted to look at, especially since Image Builder is new to me.

I have not personally done a major version upgrade with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and Ansible Automation Platform, but I know our infrastructure team has done many, especially going from Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 to Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9, and pushing out major patches and software upgrades. I have heard no complaints about it.

Managing regulatory compliance is part of my process, and Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) plays a key role in our compliance and auditing workflows, as it meets compliance requirements for the Risk Management Framework and NIST guidelines. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has to meet those standards during hardening, patching, and monitoring, making it a big part of our processes for ATOs.

I find the knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) to be very good, as I can usually find whatever I am looking for if I have a question.

There is not much else I want to add about my experience using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), but I appreciate the long-term support feature, as it allows me to maintain systems that cannot be upgraded for a long time, ensuring they can be patched and maintained, which is a significant advantage.

To other companies considering Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I would advise evaluating it and giving it a shot, as there is a reason Red Hat became the first billion-dollar open source company. It works well and typically meets your needs. My overall rating for this product is 9 out of 10.

My principal focus in using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) currently is as an integrator in Linux, where I have many services in consulting, deployment, installation, and troubleshooting in Linux. I have a recovery system, deployment clusters, databases, and work in any environment in data centers. At this moment, I am a senior consultant in the data center in open source.

The best features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) depend on the client because the client can decide to use RHEL, not me. The principal thing is the support for the clients because many clients are corporate and have a need for enterprise support. It's the principal focus and is different from using Ubuntu or Debian or any other Linux.

Other good things about Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) include the focus on system patching, upgrades, and security. The security advisories and authorization are very strong in Red Hat, and that is the principal focus—security.

I manage Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) by provisioning patching, new deployments, automation, and anything else needed.

I am satisfied with the management experience of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and find it satisfactory for this purpose.

I would rate customer service or tech support with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a seven, no more.

I give it a seven because of the time it takes for responding to problems; it takes too long.

For management, it is medium; it is not easy, it is a medium level.

I see a medium ROI with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) because it has a high price. OpenShift may provide better ROI, but OpenShift is very high.

The initial setup of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is complex.

On a scale of one to ten, I rate it a five—medium complex.

A very expensive time is needed for deploying clouds with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

It takes a lot of time.

In many cases, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) does not help me save time because the principal problem is that in AWS, Red Hat Linux is not the natural Linux for deployment; the default deployment in Amazon is Amazon Linux, not Red Hat Linux.

In many cases, it does not depend on direct Red Hat support for saving time.

My thoughts on the knowledge base with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are that it is good but it does not have it all because I have the medium and plus; it needs more knowledge base.

I have been using this for 20 years.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has high scalability; it is high for horizontal scalability in any environment, and there are many solutions for scalability.

I would rate customer service or tech support with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a seven, no more.

I give it a seven because of the time it takes for responding to problems; it takes too long.

The initial setup of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is complex.

On a scale of one to ten, I rate it a five—medium complex.

I see a medium ROI with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) because it has a high price. OpenShift may provide better ROI, but OpenShift is very high.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is less expensive than OpenShift, which is very expensive.

I am a reseller and a partner with Red Hat.

I am involved with Red Hat.

I use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for my labs, so I am a reseller, partner, and user. I would rate this review overall as an eight.

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) at the enterprise level to host various applications. RHEL is our enterprise strategy for the Linux operating system, and it helps us host most of our mission-critical applications.

The feature of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that I appreciate the most is the security features. The security features of RHEL protect our environment. By having strong security hygiene with RHEL, we are able to provide business value back to our stakeholders.

I have been involved in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) migrations and upgrades. I would describe the experience of RHEL migrations as challenging since it's not an easy task to migrate thousands of machines in one major release window. RHEL has helped to mitigate downtime and lower risks, as we keep RHEL current with patching.

The image model that is currently being deployed with RHEL 10 is going to be a way of improving RHEL. I'm using CICD pipelines to manage the OS, just as we do applications. We don't have specific metrics on how much less risk has been lowered or how much downtime has been mitigated, howrever, we do keep our systems patched within 30 days of CVE being released, so our risk exposure is quite low.

To make Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a ten out of ten, addressing the enterprise management tools, such as SELinux policy management and firewalls, would bring it much more in line, especially regarding security features and overall operations management.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for approximately 14 years.

The stability and reliability of the platform are excellent.

We have scaled both in the data center as well as in the edge with over 15,000 devices.

We have a very good relationship with Red Hat for support and customer service. We have a TAM service, so from a support perspective, our cases are handled very efficiently.

Positive

I considered other solutions while choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), and we have a combination of RHEL and open-source free versions of RHEL. The biggest difference between RHEL and those open-source versions is support; at the end of the day, it's the partnership for support from Red Hat versus the binaries where it's self-managed and self-maintained.

Currently, we deploy Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) on-premises and we use open-source technologies to provision and deploy both bare metal and virtual.

The biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the whole ecosystem and partnership with Red Hat.

We have enterprise contracts with Red Hat, and regarding pricing, we have a good deal. On a scale of one to ten, I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) an eight.

I am currently working on dialing up telecom services that are due to telecommunication needs in Sri Lanka. We are using this for mother data center activities, not only as a solution but for multiple purposes. I am currently handling the data engineering team.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), we are testing. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) ten point one is also there in beta. In that manner, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) does a couple of things. We are the partner of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in our dialogue at the digital lab.

At the moment, we are using ten. Because we use it most of the time for the test bed, which is the development bed, ten is at the moment our version.

The main thing as a cloud-based solution is valuable. Beyond that, it is an on-premises solution. We are also using a stable established version called nine point two from Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). We are supposed to move to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as well.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is paid. When it comes to the total Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) management, they are using project insight for part of the services. We will take that Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Insight.

That is really helpful. It is a kind of dashboard, not only a dashboard. We can get decision-making capabilities going forward when it comes to security.

OpenShift gives a good solution for us on the Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) end. The session, not only the station, has the CI/CD pipeline and operators connecting. That is a really good improvement on the Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) side.

Sometimes we are lagging in the Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) part because we have to deploy in non-straightforward environments. Some environments have third party deployments where party enhancement happened.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is lagging in these scenarios. The main problem we are facing is the cost factor. Because it comes to long and short terms, stakeholders do not want to move to a good business solution because of the cost factor. That is still where we are lagging.

I have been using this solution for more than industrial use, more than fifteen years, almost twenty.

I think that now, as of just now, there is no downside. It is not crashing, basically. The application is rebooting every time because of some kind of bug.

You have to master the tips and then come to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). The knowledge base is actually lagging because most of the people do not want to work with the backend coding and Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). We are commanded to use it to upgrade anything.

Because of that knowledge gap and Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in Manam, but people are not using much more. Even administrators are not using proper principles and guidelines to do so.

When I was in the consumer space, I realized console R is also more toward Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) kernel. Exadata and now Oracle are all moving to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) because of the kernel quality.

It will help a lot. When it comes to big data development, we have twenty servers to deploy with all kinds of packages and modules. Then it will easily deploy using the Ansible playbook to write the code and everything. So it is easier to deploy, actually.

It is an integrator, basically. It is cloud and cloud enablement because I had experiences when we were going to do that Cloudera migration.

That is really helpful now when it comes to the integration point of view. That is Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) too, I believe.

Then we are going to do some implementation. They are aligned with the Dell partners. Those kinds of matters come up because of the cost. This comparison comes to the picture.

When it comes to the backup solution, we are using tune the profile to utilize the backup solution. When we are using performance stack, we have tuned the performance stack to do a couple of testing in production as well. That is the main thing we are basically using most of the time.

Our engineers are supposed to do that base. Now they are implementing that base. I carry it forward to the next level, which is the business solution. When we are seeing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Insight, we can take the next action as much as the next action method allows. For instance, when we say we want to patch the environment, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) we are testing. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) ten point one is also there in beta. In that manner, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) does a couple of things. We are the partner of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in our dialogue at the digital lab.

Next year, I will recommend Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) because they have a lot of features and functions, especially for the enhancements. When it comes to security, now they have a lot of features. For instance, saving us is a really good enhancement way to achieve the environment. When it comes to the use of solution, that is really interesting.

I am using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for almost fifteen years now. I really understand what Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) did then and what kind of solutions they provide. Accordingly, I am aligned and most of the time when I say I am going to do some kind of upgrade, I definitely use that release and knowledge, principle, and guidelines. Otherwise, we cannot do it. I have given this review a rating of ten out of ten.

My main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are primarily our websites and applications that run on top of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) operating system platform.

What I appreciate most about Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the SELinux policy that has been introduced; I believe that is truly good security, although it was difficult initially to become accustomed to it. In the modern world, you don't want every user to have accessible permissions. It gives you a granular level of control over each and every file and directory, just as ACLs used to provide in the past. By using SELinux policy, you can actually secure these accesses and establish a strong security posture.

The main business problem that Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helped us solve is automation of tasks and scalability of the business. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped reduce downtime because in modern infrastructure, you do not face out of memory issues. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has affected the downtime by reducing it to a minimal level; the reboots are very speedy.

I think the support for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) can be much better; when it comes to something such as SUSE Linux, I feel those providers are doing a much better job in terms of support than what Red Hat provides. One area where Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) stability could be improved is with Ksplice; Ksplice is used for online patching. The problem I have seen with it is that it applies patches at the user level, but not at the kernel level. That was a problem in terms of our security architecture because it doesn't recognize that the patch has been installed. I evaluate the customer service or tech support for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as needing improvement; addressing the tickets takes a little longer and there has been a lack of consistency. Not every engineer who handles a case handles it correctly. Everybody has a different way of handling the tickets. So, the support needs to be a little bit more streamlined.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for the past three years.

My assessment of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)'s stability and reliability once it is deployed in production and maintained is that it's straightforward, but there's a huge functionality and learning curve. We started using it and actually understood the reason why Red Hat has implemented it and the level of granularity in terms of security posture that it provides. We understood that it's doing a really good job.

I assess the stability, availability, and reliability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as pretty stable and very reliable.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has crashed or failed here and there, but there were some settings that needed to be changed. We make sure that we match those parameters.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales to my needs pretty much up-to-date.

The support from a competitor I've used is Oracle. My experience with Oracle support is that Oracle on-premises support, what it provides with Oracle Enterprise Linux, performs very well, and many of our customers believe that something from Oracle is more secure. When they compare Oracle with Red Hat, it has a much better support system and a much more secure posture than what we get.

I evaluate the customer service or tech support for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as needing improvement; addressing the tickets takes a little longer and there has been a lack of consistency. Not every engineer who handles a case handles it correctly. Everybody has a different way of handling the tickets. So, the support needs to be a little bit more streamlined.

Neutral

My experience with the deployment of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has been smooth because back then we were on-premises and all our information used to be on-premises, rather than run them completely as we do now.

I have evaluated a couple of operating systems including Ubuntu, Oracle Linux, SUSE, and then came to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) because Red Hat is considered the pioneer.

I have considered replacing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) with another solution; specifically Oracle Linux.

If I were to switch, I would consider factors such as security and support.

We are currently considering using the Ansible Automation Platform for configuration and patching; we are using a manual approach and a little bit of Ansible here and there, but not fully deployed an Ansible Automation Platform or command line approach. But today I had the experience in the lab with the Ansible Automation Platform. That looks truly promising. I hope to get a chance to do a proof of concept and show my company that this is the product we can use in the future.

I have used the in-place upgrades to migrate machines to a newer release of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL); I used LEAP which has been designed to upgrade Linux 7 to Linux 8, and it was smooth. I think that was truly good work, especially because it supports you in situations where you do patching.

The upgrade process for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is straightforward and we didn't have any problems.

We are planning on upgrading from Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 6 and 7 to 8, though we do have some legacy applications that would not support it. However, other systems which are web servers or Apache, we are trying to upgrade them.

I haven't found any limitations in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)'s security.

My assessment of the documentation offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is that Red Hat's documentation is top notch. You cannot compare that with SUSE.

My specific goals that led me to choose Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) include the security posture.

Current, I am using the standard lifecycle support add-on for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL); I think we are still sticking with the standard and haven't upgraded yet.

The advice I would give to a team considering Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is that one of the new features that it has is promising, and everybody promises great things with new features. My overall rating for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is nine out of ten.

My main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are that previously, I used it on database servers, and right now, we are using them for web servers, JBoss, and JDV servers.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales well with the growing needs of my organization because RBC always needs new servers, whether they can be Linux or Windows servers, but mostly we are using Linux since we don't use JBoss or JDV on Windows.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps me solve pain points because it is very versatile and stable, and we always use it for our new business.

Specifically, I can say that if we have a subscription, we can make installation easily and access repositories easily.

This benefits my organization significantly because Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is really useful, very stable, and very versatile.

In terms of additional features for the next release, I saw it comes with AI integration, but we don't know the architecture yet. We want to see it first, then we can say. AI will be important for us.

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

I would assess the stability and reliability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as nine out of ten.

I have experienced downtime, crashes, or performance issues, but it happens only maybe once a year or something. There is not very much downtime.

I'm not sure if we have expanded our usage at all.

I am very satisfied with the technical support experience; it is very nice.

I would evaluate customer service and technical support as nine. I can give a nine because if we have any problem, we can get a response in a short time, but sometimes it is not the relevant solution; that can happen one or two times in a year, which seems normal.

Positive

I have not used another solution to address similar needs prior to adopting Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

Our deployment model is that RBC is using all of them—on-prem, cloud, and hybrid.

I would describe my experience with deploying Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as limited because mostly it is our Linux team working on it. They are the ones deploying it while we mostly are ordering servers and using them.

I have not seen an ROI with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), as I'm not on the finance side and I'm not calculating it.

My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing indicates that if you compare it with other operating systems, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is cheaper than them.

We are not on the selecting side before choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) because if you want to use Linux, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is always our first option. We don't check other options.

What stood out to me about Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is that I remember Oracle released a Linux for their database installation, but I don't see anybody using that, as we are mostly using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

I prefer Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as an operating system.

I'm not sure if Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped to mitigate downtime and lower risk.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has improved since version five, then six, seven, right now eight and nine; it always comes with new features, sometimes new application security enhancements. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is improving, and it has improved.

I would assess the knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as very nice because if we have any problem or error, we can find it easily at the portal.

Nothing is perfect.

My advice to another organization considering Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is that I prefer to use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) always. I recommend Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

I gave this review a rating of 9 out of 10.