Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Reviews

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.

We mainly use Red Hat Enterprise Linux for general applications. We have Red Hat Enterprise Linux for identity management. We use it for NTP services. Most of the bank services that run on Linux run on Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Our core applications include bank cards solutions.

It is a stable operating system, and that is why we use it. We have many team members who understand how to use Red Hat Enterprise Linux, so it's much easier to use this version of Linux to deploy services.

There is ease of use. A lot of resources are available online if the team wants to understand something. There is also the ability to use various automation tools to run multiple tasks.

For risk reduction and compliance, we have CIS benchmarks. There are various configuration files that we are able to update and change. Using the benchmarks available from CIS, I can have a template and automate that across multiple machines using automation features such as Ansible. When examining permissions for file systems, enabling login, and enabling file integrity, these are the items we would use for security.

The simplicity of patching Red Hat Enterprise Linux is most valuable. We just use the DNF update. We use the Red Hat satellite for our patch repositories, which is quite simple. I look at it at an infrastructure level because I'm in the infrastructure team, not in the application team.

The knowledge base is good. When we troubleshoot or have issues, we go to the Red Hat website. There are a lot of documented issues. They have a good knowledge base.

Identity management could be simpler. Red Hat Enterprise Linux has Identity Manager, but it is not as simple to use as Microsoft Windows Active Directory.

I have been working with Red Hat Enterprise Linux for a very long time, approximately 15 years.

It is stable. I would rate its stability a nine out of ten.

So far, I have not been affected by significant issues in terms of security.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is scalable, so I would rate its scalability a nine out of ten.

We are using it across two sites. We have 6,000 people.

I have contacted tech support of Red Hat Enterprise Linux for some questions. Their tech support is quite good compared to other companies.

Positive

Before working with Red Hat Enterprise Linux, I used CentOS and Microsoft Windows. While comparing CentOS with Red Hat Enterprise Linux, I see stability as an advantage; Red Hat Enterprise Linux is quite a stable operating system.

I have done cloud deployments and upgrades.

It does not require a lot of maintenance. For managing Red Hat Enterprise Linux systems, when it comes to provisioning and patching, we use Ansible, which allows us to patch multiple machines. We normally use Red Hat Insights. Once we configure our machines to talk to Red Hat Insights via Red Hat Satellite, it can tell us the vulnerability status of various machines in the environment. Then, we can decide which machines are most vulnerable and patch accordingly. We can use automation tools such as Ansible to run various patches across the environment.

We have used Leap to do the upgrades from Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 to Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8. Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 was going end of life. Upgrading from one version to another can be a bit complex. It is sometimes an issue because of multiple compatibilities. You need someone who is a bit skilled on the operating system.

We did the deployment ourselves, not through an integrator, reseller, or consultant.

We have four people involved in maintenance because we have many servers.

The cost of Red Hat Enterprise Linux is reasonable.

I would recommend it for mission-critical applications. It's a good operating system to run mission-critical applications.

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux a nine out of ten because of the support, stability, and ease of use.

My main use cases for it are servers, such as web servers, database servers, and any type of server that we need.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps us solve pain points related to security, CVEs, and patching. 

The benefit for my company is that it saves time on compatibility issues. I don't have any metrics of roughly how much time has been saved, but I just know we don't have the combat. I've done Ubuntu, and Ubuntu doesn't compare to Red Hat, so I just know when I need to install something, it works. There are very few times when I've had issues.

Security requirements were a major consideration when choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in the cloud because they have secure patching. We review all RPMs and stuff that we import, and that's the major reason.

The feature I appreciate the most about Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the DNF, yum updates, and RPM, which make it easy to install applications and customize it.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) can be improved by making the licensing easier for Amazon EC2 instances. When we try to do auto-scaling, the licensing is hard to automate.

I have been using it since Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4, so probably 2005.

It's very stable. I haven't had any issues. We don't have to worry about it crashing.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales very well with the growing needs of my company. I've done from one or two to thousands, so it's not a problem.

Their knowledge base is great. Anytime we have patching issues or anything else, we reach out to support, and they always have an answer.

Their technical support has been great. I haven't had any issues with that as they respond right away.

Positive

It has been very good. I've done from one or two to thousands, and I've never had a problem. The only issues were hardware-related. They've been able to support drivers and things like that.

We have a hybrid environment with both on-premises and cloud deployments. I specialize in AWS.  Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) supports our hybrid cloud strategy. When we have things that can't go into AWS, we can spin up a Red Hat Enterprise Linux EC2 instance in AWS to run legacy stuff or stuff that's not compatible with AWS.

We usually use Ansible for provisioning and patching. I am 100% satisfied with the management experience of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems when it comes to provisioning and patching, and I have no issues.

From my point of view, the biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is probably stability, as I don't have to worry about it crashing. I've had issues with other forms of Linux, so it's been pretty stable.

It's been good, but I don't really get involved with that.

We did consider other solutions, such as Ubuntu, Amazon Linux, and Rocky Linux. but Red Hat Enterprise Linux was the one we went with. The biggest reason Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) leads the way is support and security.

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux a 10 out of 10 because of the stability and security. That's the main reason I use it.

My use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) include doing OpenShift tasks and general Linux use cases.

The feature of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that I value the most is automation. Automation saves time for me as I don't have to keep doing the same tasks repeatedly. My company benefits from automation in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) since we use Ansible to deploy numerous operating systems. 

We can initiate 20 deployments, and they get configured automatically, which is efficient.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) might have helped to mitigate downtime and lower risk, though I cannot think of a specific example.

Improving Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is a challenging question. Regarding SELinux, they could make that clearer or make it easier to use.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for about a year.

The stability and reliability of the Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) platform are really amazing. There are many instances where I'll have an Active Directory server go down, and I go into the remote consoles because Windows is doing forced updates, and it drops, which is extremely annoying. I haven't experienced any similar issues using RHEL.

Evaluating how Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales with the growing needs of my company is challenging because much of what I do is lab work, so most projects are not scaling out. They remain at a set scale, then get torn down, and we create another one at that same scale.

I've had limited experience working with Red Hat support. 

I submitted a ticket because I was trying to access training material since we were a partner and were supposed to get it free, however, I had an issue with my account. 

I opened a ticket, and the person who took it responded in 20 seconds and fixed it immediately, which was excellent. I would rate the customer service and technical support of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) at a ten out of ten. It was extremely fast.

Positive

I'm not certain if Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the first solution of its kind that our company is using.

Most of my management of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems for provisioning and patching is done in labs, so I don't see many persistent workloads. Most systems get torn down. I haven't done much patching, but I'm familiar with Cockpit, and I have personal VMs that I manage that way.

When upgrading from RHEL 8 to RHEL 9, we encountered some issues and had to use a leap utility for jumping between releases. Once we found the documentation, the process was straightforward.

Since we operate in a lab environment, instead of upgrading Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), we typically download the newest release.

The biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) from my technical perspective is automation. I use automation daily to provision VMs and other systems. You can initiate the process and focus on other tasks while it runs, which increases efficiency.

I get our licensing for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) through our account team, so I don't handle that aspect.

We did not consider other solutions to my knowledge before choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) since Ansible is ubiquitous in our environment.

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) overall as a nine. There are some inconsistencies with commands, since it's built upon years of development, some legacy commands remain with opposite rules compared to newer commands. If it were more consistent, it would merit a ten.

My main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are mostly as our platform, control plane, and for VMs.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped me mitigate downtime and lower risks. Anyone coming from security will tell you that more patches in a timely manner will save you a lot of time.

What I appreciate the most about Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the DNF feature. DNF benefits our company since it's my personal preference; that package manager makes sense to me. I've also used it longer than other ones, which contributes to my familiarity.

Package managers in general are a core component of our operations, keeping our platform clean and running smoothly, and it's essential.

Insights is nice since I get information on my background and security matters, and it's been helpful to have it there as well.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) can be improved regarding security-side integrations that can be tightened with the releasing of images compliant with CIS controls or DISA STIGs, so they're built in and not an extra step.

To make Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a ten out of ten, the best Linux OS solution in the market, the only immediate change that comes to mind is security-related; releasing images available at different security levels would be helpful. If something is locked down to DISA STIG Level two or whatever environment, having that as a baked image to pull down and deploy would save a lot of time for many companies since building that pipeline is difficult and time-consuming.

There's also a limited number of those they'll have to deal with for Red Hat, so it's a lot of work. If they're doing those images for each level for STIG and then CIS, there will be a finite number to go through, and if anyone else needs to tailor them beyond that, then that's on them. It should be pretty small changes; it's kind of locked in.

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

My thoughts on the stability and reliability of the Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) platform are that it has been excellent. When I consider reliability problems we have had and how much relates to RHEL, most of the issues aren't Red Hat-related; something else fails, and the Red Hat side has been consistently reliable.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales with the growing needs of my company very effectively. My specific team is not on a huge scale right now, however, it's growing quickly, and we haven't had any issues with RHEL so far.

My experience with customer service and technical support for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) so far has been really good. I haven't encountered just a create-ticket-get-a-response type of interaction yet since we still have a consultancy going on for different pieces identity management and AAP. That remains to be seen in terms of what it will be when we don't have somebody readily available. So far, the response times and helpful responses have been good.

Positive

I've used other solutions. The main difference between Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and the other Linux solutions we use is a level of comfort. I sleep better knowing I have official support and can call someone, or there's probably a consultant or somebody on Red Hat's side ready to help me figure things out. If I'm running a Debian system, I'm really relying on the community, which can take time, and if I'm running something at work on that, then that can hurt.

Regarding usability, I've gravitated towards RPM-based Linux systems in general as I find them more intuitive.

The deployment is super straightforward. We do some environmental stuff, and that gets a little bit trickier based on the core running on top of it. 

From my point of view, the biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the number of things tied together in a somewhat neat package. There's something to be said for setting up Satellite or the other pieces of the infrastructure, AAP, or whatever it is I'm going to be using, however, all the tie-ins are there, and once I've done some initial footwork, having those things work in tandem and reliably with support on hand when they don't is really helpful.

We consider different solutions while using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). Actually, we use a few different Linux OS solutions. There's some Canonical in our environment through VMs, and there are tools particularly suited for deploying on bare metal that we use. So, we have a bit of a mixed environment within Linux.

My upgrade or migration plans to stay current depend on where it's at or the platform team; our stuff is going to be separate, and I'm unsure exactly what the cadence is for release and into the patching cycle. That'll be a pretty quick turnaround. We have situations where it needs to stay on older systems since the team using it needs that to prove out or test whatever they're working on. 

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

Our main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are for our centralized O&M platform, while on the edge we use CoreOS.

My company benefits from RHEL features by avoiding drifts in our solution. If it gets out of engineering, we don't exactly know if the solution is going to drift if someone implemented manual configuration.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps me solve pain points such as security, upgrades, patching, and all that is related to long-term support. 

The feature I appreciate the most in the newest version is the image mode and the upgrade in an immutable way. 

Security requirements are a consideration when choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). It's the platform that really allows for longer-term support in terms of security patches, which is also one of the requirements from our customers; this is why we are on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for those services. 

When it comes to managing my Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems for provisioning and patching, I start from zero. We provide a golden image scenario, and we install based on that golden image while customizing the product through our software itself, providing new bundles and everything around there. Patching is very similar; we provide additional packages and everything around the upgrades, and I'm looking forward to the image mode so that we can provide steps and immutable AB upgrades.

They should try to converge all the different product lines, in both Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and CoreOS and OCP based on CoreOS, to get to a single point where it would be easier to move from one to the other. 

Sometimes we build products for one specific application or product, and it would be beneficial to move to CoreOS due to further requirements, however, it's not always straightforward. All the different teams working on the different Red Hat products are pretty much self-contained, which is understandable, but if there were more of a common baseline, it would be much easier to consider moving from one license to another, from one product to another.

In the company, I've been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) directly for three years. Before then, we have been partners and have also been using CentOS and Fedora for a longer time, approximately ten years.

The stability and reliability of the platform are top class.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales pretty transparently with the growing needs of my company. It scales effectively when we need to add additional resources or knowledge, and it's straightforward for people to gain those and for our structure to implement even more servers around these others. Both technically and knowledge-wise, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales effectively.

The customer service and technical support are excellent, especially through the partner program. It's easier to get support over specific issues, and I have noticed when we had bigger issues that could have prevented market problems, there was a good escalation path towards the right people to get answers.

Neutral

I have considered other solutions rather than Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

When we were considering getting out of CentOS, we were evaluating everything, including other open solutions such as Rocky, as cutting-edge solutions such as Fedora. 

I personally pushed for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) since it was the best solution for us at that specific moment. I understand there are other solutions such as SUSE and Ubuntu that are all in the same market, however, with different approaches. I prefer the Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) approach.

The deployment is generally very easy.

The biggest return on investment while using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) from my technical point of view is the continuous patching and security fixes that are constantly being added and the support around it. If we are having an issue, we can directly reach the right people for support.

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as a product today at a solid eight out of ten, considering improvements already in place for the roadmap. With the features coming in RHEL 10, I could provide it an overall nine out of ten.

My main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are mostly development at first, and then after that, it's actually running full production loads on it.

One of the nice pain points that Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) addresses compared to other distributions is the polished applications within it. 

Their repository tends to be more foolproof. The SELinux feature in RHEL is pretty strong. 

SELinux is not something that I was ever using before in the open source community, and it was very confusing at first; however, after a while, it made sense why that layer exists. The SELinux feature and other features of RHEL benefit my company by allowing us to lock in the server more traditionally than we would be able to with special permissions. 

It's about getting very granular versus just putting an umbrella on some things, and security-wise, it's very effective.

The security features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), including SELinux and its features, make it easier to be aware of compromises.

The Insights tool is very good at providing CVEs to alert us about vulnerabilities quickly. I can't quantify the impact in percentage terms since I haven't faced specific situations. However, the outlook compared to other distributions looks good.

To improve Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), it would be helpful to have a step-by-step process to make setup easier. Cockpit needs more features to manage complex tasks such as RAID configurations, as most of that is reserved for the command line.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for about a year and a half.

I find Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) to be super stable and super reliable.

I have not scaled Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) outside of using templates and cloning features. I haven't scaled it out with OpenShift yet; it's something I want to explore, as I now understand what tools OpenShift can offer to scale out RHEL machines effectively.

My experience with customer service and technical support for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is mixed. On a professional level, they are very responsive, which is part of the contract, but on a personal level, responses can take forever, and I often get pointed to community posts.

Positive

We did not consider any other OS solutions while using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), although there have been discussions about using Ubuntu. I don't think it will go that way because we are very satisfied with what RHEL offers overall.

The biggest return on investment with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is that every time I put an application or tool in there, it's going to work. I don't have to second-guess it or go back; I know it will be a polished application.

Regarding the experience with pricing, setup costs, and licensing for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I would say it's beyond my pay grade. That said, it's not cheap at all. While it could always be cheaper, they provide substantial value for the money, and they consistently introduce new features that add value.

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

It's a great OS that has grown on me over time, and the more I use it, the more I understand its value and why it costs what it does.

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux as the operating system to host various applications developed by our application group. It has our test tools, web servers, and Java applications. We install it based on the requirements of the applications.

It is a good product. All Linux solutions are pretty solid. It carries a different business model than a lot of them, which fits more into our business model. That is where it excels. We do not prefer unsupported ones or buying third-party support.

The most valuable feature of Red Hat Enterprise Linux is its support. I primarily use the product because it offers a phone number for support when needed. 

It integrates well with our existing systems like SaltStack for patching and provisioning. However, its primary value is in having support when issues arise.

There is room for improvement in terms of pricing and its knowledge base. 

I consider the cost high. The knowledge base is extensive and deep but can be confusing due to outdated or non-applicable information that you have to sift through to find relevant answers.

I have had experience with the basic and extensive use of Red Hat Enterprise Linux for about 15 years.

Customer service varies. I would rate their support a five out of ten, as it depends on the person at the other end. Sometimes the support is good, and sometimes it is not so good. It is like any other support organization.

Neutral

I did not switch from any previous solution. Red Hat Enterprise Linux has been in use since before my tenure.

I work in the casino gaming industry. Most of our servers are in Windows. We have about 30 Linux instances. We install it based on the implementation requirements of an application. There is a justification for putting an application into our environment. It goes through a process at our company, and then where we install it or what we install it on is usually up to the requirements of the application.

We have on-premises and cloud-based environments. Red Hat Enterprise Linux is running in one of those environments. It has adequate features for security in cloud environments. 

We use SaltStack, and we built the patching mechanism ourselves. We are pretty satisfied with it. If we were not satisfied, we would change it.

The upgrades with Leapp used to be painful. It used to not work at all for us. When we went to Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9, it did work, but it was a fairly painful process. The advantage is we do not have to reinstall the apps on top of the new image of Red Hat. It is an in-place upgrade. The problem is that you can install Red Hat Enterprise Linux in 50 different ways, and in the past, Leapp assumed you did it the default way. They have added some flexibility so that we can work around some of the stuff, but it makes you install it a certain way, which is not necessarily the way we would do it, mainly because of our security standards and performance needs.

We have not experienced a noticeable return on investment with Red Hat Enterprise Linux itself, as the operating system serves its intended function without bringing additional advantages.

Pricing depends on the model used, costing about $3,000 per virtual host in the virtual environment. It varies depending on whether you get high availability. There are modules that are upsold such as kernel patching, which we do not use due to cost considerations.

In the cloud, we use their licensing. For on-premise, we use the subscription, so we have two different licensing models.

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux a seven out of ten.