Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Reviews

We mainly use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) to host containers. 

RHEL makes things easier for hosting containers and has really good integration with automation tools such as Ansible, which makes configuration management easier. Those were the two areas where RHEL helped us significantly. 

We haven't used Lightspeed yet; however, we are focused on containers. It's pretty seamless, and RHEL made it much easier for us to get things running when we moved. We were initially on PCF, Pivotal Cloud Foundry, and now we are on OpenShift. 

RHEL made development much easier, and we use it as a testbed to run our containers before moving them to OpenShift.

RHEL simplifies container hosting and offers excellent integration with automation tools like Ansible, making configuration management more straightforward. They have really good support, helping me adapt more easily because I already had a good understanding from working on open source technologies.

I find Lightspeed to be the most valuable feature about RHEL. It makes troubleshooting much easier. It's an LLM similar to ChatGPT, allowing me to query what my exact command is, and it provides me with that.

RHEL supports many different container runtimes and packages, making our job pretty easy to build images for developers to use on our container platform. Using RHEL as a base image simplifies our work compared to other options, as it comes pre-packaged with many necessary features. 

The fact that we also use a Red Hat-based container product platform, OpenShift, means it has everything needed to run on OpenShift.

RHEL is a pretty polished product, however, if it becomes more mainstream compared to other Linux distributions and if more people adapt it, it would be used as a much more universal product. This would make it easier for people to adapt to RHEL.

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

I would assess the stability and reliability of RHEL as good. I faced some issues due to the underlying platform on which they were hosted, but I didn't encounter problems with RHEL itself. Whenever we have issues, we have good Red Hat support, so it's very reliable.

I assess RHEL's scalability as pretty robust. Most of our footprint is on the cloud, and any new VMs we spin up happen quickly because of how easy it is to set up RHEL. Combining that with the capabilities of Ansible makes scaling up pretty easy on demand.

I evaluate customer service and technical support as excellent. 

They have a tiered structure for outage severity and type of environment, which is great. My experience has been positive, and we also had vendor engagements with Red Hat when implementing new solutions, with an engineer and architect helping us set things up. That was a really good learning experience for me as well, so my overall experience has been positive.

Positive

Prior to adopting RHEL, I used other distributions of Linux. I worked on Ubuntu and SUSE, and I even worked on some personal projects with Kali Linux. Every distribution has its pros and cons, but for an enterprise-level solution, I feel RHEL is a much better option because of the support it provides.

Security requirements were 100% a consideration in choosing RHEL in the cloud. Our company has its own setup with images we use, with our own vulnerability checks before pushing it. RHEL qualifies as one of the software solutions that has been vetted, and we use it as one of our primary operating systems.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has provided a return on investment of 100%.

I haven't worked on the RHEL side regarding pricing, setup cost, and licensing, however, I have worked on the OpenShift side. The pricing is competitive, especially when compared to our last vendor, PCF, which became quite expensive after being acquired by Broadcom. That's another reason why we started moving to RHEL.

In my current company, RHEL had a mature environment before I joined, but in one of my previous jobs, we chose between SUSE and RHEL. We felt RHEL was a much more polished option because of its larger user base and extensive knowledge catalog.

For other organizations considering RHEL, my advice is that if your organization is operating at scale and requires good support, RHEL is a great product. 

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

Our main use case for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) at the moment is for our dev machines, as we do software engineering for automotive, and we have a lot of developers who need Linux. We had a bunch of systems and other things, and we are now rolling them all to be standardized on RHEL.

The management dashboard, RHEL satellites, Ansible, and all those integrations have been the most valuable features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that really help us. 

The features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) allow our company to standardize our fragmented ecosystem, which consists of a lot of Windows systems and different development environments, so that we can move away from the 'it works on my machine, it doesn't work on your machine' issues.

We are deploying workstations with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), and we also look at deploying on-prem. We already have some cloud deployments through third-party contractors, and we are trying to tie it all together into one system. We also have high-performance compute on-prem for doing GPUs, CPUs, and simulations, and we have workstations on-prem with potential cloud workstations as a migration area.

We are migrating some workloads, such as local development tasks, to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), but we haven't really started with the servers yet. Currently, we manage our Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems using the cloud portal to build a custom image for our machines, but we want to move toward satellites and use that as our comprehensive management and patching tool.

Utilizing all the security features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is really important for us as an enterprise with a lot of security focus in automotive and intellectual property, and we are easing into some features such as different security profiles to ensure a secure experience for our users.

We have been trialing on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 9.5. We are now looking at moving towards RHEL 10, which is going to be one of our migrations before we go full production launch on this, and we're looking at doing incremental upgrades as we go to have the latest stuff available.

With Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), there's a lot of fragmentation in the documentation across different versions, and ensuring that the right version is being read can be challenging. Features such as AI assistants would provide a more unified experience, which is really helpful for IT teams who may not be Linux-centric.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for just a couple of weeks as we are starting to deploy it. We originally did not have any Linux systems with us and are now moving forward with that whole process.

The stability and reliability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) seems to be rock solid from our perspective, as we have workloads running continuously 24/7, and the only reason we shut it off is to install a full reboot update or if the workload fails due to our own issues.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is definitely going to scale with our company's growing needs. Other elements of the company have been using RHEL in production, and from our perspective as a small R&D center, it provides the flexibility to manage multiple sites in California, Michigan, and keep them all synchronized, reducing the need to send IT individuals to California to fix problems.

I would rate the customer service and technical support of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a ten out of ten. We really felt that with our Red Hat partner, there's personal service that has helped us build better solutions for our team; it has been a truly awesome experience.

Positive

I have only been with the company for a year and a half, so I'm not aware of anything they've done with other Linux OS solutions, however, we have primarily been Windows from a developer perspective, and now we are starting to get into using Linux systems on a daily basis, focusing on workstations for now.

We purchase Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) through a roster indirectly, and that will be our deployment methodology for any AWS deployments of RHEL AMI images. My assessment of the pricing, setup costs, and licensing for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is that our finance team handles it, and I've been hearing good feedback; they find the licensing model much easier to understand.

For us, the biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has to do with standardization and the ability to manage a fleet of devices, whether on-prem, in the cloud, or servers, through unified portals using standard processes and reducing fragmentation among machines.

Before choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), we looked at Ubuntu Pro and a couple of other options, however, we decided that RHEL fits better into our ecosystem, particularly in our adoption of OpenShift for DevOps, as it's best for our developers to have the same development environments from end to end.

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

Our main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are to host Java enterprise applications and middleware.

The feature I appreciate the most about Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is that it is solid and reliable. This solid and reliable performance helps our company as it makes it less problematic to troubleshoot issues; things just run and I don't have to be involved every day. If it runs smoothly, then we move onto other projects, but if it's wavy and bumpy, we have to pause and address the issues.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is a great product, and we don't have any major pain points.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) definitely helps to mitigate downtime; we reboot our servers twice a year and do our patches, and that helps reduce our risk of exposure to malware, worms, viruses, but also increases our uptime. My upgrade plans for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) to stay current include going to the website for RHEL 10; it has a lot of new features. I'll have to work with the server team to see if they're ready for it since it's a big jump.

I'm not really sure what I would like to see more of from Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

Customer service and technical support for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is an area they could improve.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) at my company since 2007.

The stability and reliability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) have been great; we never have to reboot unless it's scheduled.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales very efficiently. We're able to add CPUs as needed and add memory, and we're really happy with our Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

Customer service and technical support needs work. 

We submit an issue to them and go back and forth for three or four days just defining the issue so they understand the problem. That's frustrating when it could be solved in a 20-minute phone call; they just don't do that, it's just back-and-forth emails. 

I would rate the customer service and technical support a six out of ten.

Neutral

I don't really have much to compare to, as Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the only Linux that we've used.

I'm not too involved in deploying it. We just mainly use it.

I have been involved in the upgrade of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as we upgraded from 8 to 9 a couple years ago.

For me, the biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is having something that is widely supported; it's not a one-off that you have to hope there's support for. There's definitely support for it, and the Red Hat people are always good to deal with.

Another department takes care of the pricing, setup costs, and licensing for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). I'm not aware of the licensing costs, but they seem to set our new systems up pretty quickly, so I'm overall happy with that.

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

We use a lot of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for developing products for our customers. Since Red Hat is known as a popular option for many of our customers, it provides a standardized platform for us to deliver products on. 

Ansible has helped my company by managing disparate systems, allowing us to configure for specific use cases and providing common configurations, so it helps us wrangle all the disparate situations and configurations that we have across various different product teams in our labs.

When working with the Linux system, especially dealing with thousands of systems, Ansible is probably the most helpful tool. It has helped my company by managing the complexity of disparate systems, allowing us to configure for specific use cases and providing common configurations across various product teams in our labs.

My company is not particularly happy with the current pricing models that are available. We have been starting to diversify so that we can deploy machines quickly onto Foxconn or other platforms. We will probably use Oracle Linux instead because we don't want to deal with the licensing issues of putting Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) up and then tearing it down a week later. Our management chain is not satisfied with the current pricing model.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for at least a decade.

There are always bugs in any software product, but it seems pretty stable.

The technology of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales greatly, but the pricing doesn't scale as effectively.

The customer service and technical support are outside of what I deal with as a system administrator. I use the Red Hat support through the website most often to look up technical issues, which works effectively. If I were to rate that support from the website on a scale of one to ten, I would give it an eight or nine.

Positive

We transitioned to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) from Fedora approximately a decade ago. More recently, we've decided to diversify so that lab compute loads that are internal, which are going to be kicked over repeatedly, are moving to Oracle Linux. We have also acquired several companies whose systems are set up to run on Ubuntu, so our environment is diverse.

We manage our Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems with our own internal Ansible playbooks for performing upgrades and patching, so it's all integrated for us.

Our upgrade and migration plans to stay current are a continual process. People in our labs prefer to maintain what they have because they want to stay at steady state indefinitely, but that isn't possible. We are continually working on eight to nine upgrades simultaneously.

I see a return on investment when using this product in general, as it helps us support our product development teams, which generates revenue.

I have not been involved in any cloud migrations because that's handled by a separate team. Regarding upgrades, transitioning from version six to seven was more complex. We are currently in the process of upgrading much of our version seven base to versions eight and nine, which is progressing more smoothly.

I haven't purchased Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) on AWS Marketplace, as that falls outside of my responsibilities and would be handled by the cloud team.

Regarding Red Hat management for security, we have dedicated security teams that assist with evaluations, and we partner with them for implementing solutions to security issues. 

Overall, I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) an eight or nine out of ten. The pricing structure is the main factor preventing it from receiving a perfect score, as improved pricing would enable more ubiquitous use.

I'm supporting a client in North America, specifically in Canada, where they are using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) servers in their retail business. They utilize it for back office software service, specifically a software called BOSS (Back Office Software Service). We are using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) on almost 1,200 servers, but this year, we have started migrating to Rocky from Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

Vulnerability management and patch releases are done on time. There are no delays, and we are not leaving our environment vulnerable, which minimizes risks.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped us mitigate downtime and lower risk. With our current patching process using Kpatch, we frequently do not reboot the servers. We only reboot once a year during application downtime to upgrade to the next kernel level, while all security patches are applied live.

Some of the best features I noticed with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) include the LVM and the patching mechanism through the Satellite system. We do patching whenever there is a security vulnerability, and we are able to do it with the support of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). For me these two big features, LVM and patching, are essential. 

If I can resolve an issue myself, that would be ideal, as it means I wouldn’t need to raise a case at all. The KB articles should contain all the necessary information for reference.

It would be great if they're able to reduce the price. It will be easier to convince customers to use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) instead of open-source solutions. 

I have almost five years of experience with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

Scalability is fine; I don't have any challenges there. However, we are not using many of those features because our application is not ready to utilize them.

We use their knowledge base to find the solution.

I would rate the technical support with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a nine out of ten. 

Positive

The customer is moving to Rocky. It is not our decision; we still insist on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) due to its security and additional features. The customer is moving away primarily for cost-cutting on licensing. 

Compared to other Linux distributions such as openSUSE, SUSE, or Rocky, I believe Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) offers better features. In Rocky, we don't have a live patching mechanism.

Deployments or migrations are quite easy for us since we have been working with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for the last five or six years. It feels like a piece of cake. Whether it's a minor or major version update or a migration, we don’t face any significant challenges. The process is smooth.

Initially, it took us two days to spin up a VM with all the requirements when on-prem. Now, the code is in GitLab. We have set up a code to build the servers, so after submitting a request in ServiceNow, it can be ready the next day. It is all automated.

It was on-prem, but last year, all of the servers were migrated to GCP.

There isn't much difference whether it's on-prem or on cloud, because the patching mechanism we follow through the Satellite system remains the same. From an admin's perspective, there isn't much difference between cloud and on-prem support.

As we lift and shift, our application is not cloud-ready or digital-ready, so we are still working in legacy mode. Therefore, we need to recode the entire application stack to make it compatible with cloud features.

If Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) can reduce its pricing, then it would be easier to convince others that there is not much difference between open-source solutions while still receiving several features for a licensing cost.

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

Our use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are diverse; it powers our servers, runs desktops for our development network, as well as some of our production hosts, and we'll see if it expands further.

Red Hat is giving that level of enterprise support helps us build a Linux ecosystem that makes sense for business.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps us solve pain points by providing tremendous support from our Red Hat representatives. 

The flexibility that we get through Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and the ability for people to build their own tools as they're working without having to deal with something like PowerShell or hack it through backwards ways in Windows is a real relief. 

Interactive Brokers is powered by our workforce, and we have really brilliant engineers, top to bottom, especially our developers. The flexibility that we get through Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and the ability for people to build their own tools as they're working without having to deal with something like PowerShell or hack it through backwards ways in Windows is a real relief and something that we couldn't operate without.

We deploy Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in both cloud and on-premise environments in a hybrid environment. Currently, our management of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems when it comes to provisioning and patching has gone through many changes throughout the years. We are currently using KVM. We're exploring OpenShift and some other options, and I am satisfied with that management experience.

Security requirements were considered before choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). We've been primarily with Red Hat for a very long time, and security concerns have kept us with RHEL throughout the years as we have not been comfortable with anything else.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) supports our hybrid cloud strategy effectively, and many of the options I've seen at the conference will make spreading out into the cloud without compromising our on-premise systems more convenient than it might be with another distro. I assess the knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as very strong; the customer relations management, support, and the fact that it's an open-source platform gives you huge clarity versus Microsoft or some other type of closed environment.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) can be improved by providing more support for on-prem. As you go by industry by industry, the more regulation and control you need over your data, the more precious data sovereignty becomes, and being able to work in a hybrid environment with a push in that direction would be better.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for 11 years now, and our company has been using it for maybe close to 20 years at this point.

The stability and reliability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are very good. It's not throwing out mystery patches that break things constantly, as certain other server solutions do, so that stability has been strong because we can say we don't need that patch now, and review them on their own merits. We are looking forward to RHEL 10.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales to the growing needs of our company excellently, and the scalability is a big draw.

The customer service and technical support of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has been wonderful so far. The community is a never-ending well of support, and my personal experiences with our customer relations manager have just been top notch.

I would rate the customer service for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as a solid ten out of ten. I have less experience needing their support for technical issues. Just as a partner, it has been very strong.

Positive

We have considered other solutions in our Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) journey. There have been arguments this way or that, however, they've never been enough to dislodge us. We do run Windows and other things. That said, our whole program base and everything we do back and front relies on having an enterprise Linux solution.

The biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the appreciation of being a Linux shop with enterprise-level support, enabling us to keep it up. Trying to imagine running a worldwide company purely on free open-source software would be wholly unsustainable and require unfathomable levels of worker hours, so having the power and flexibility of a Linux ecosystem with that level of enterprise support makes it all work.

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

Our main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) include our shift from VMware Tanzu container platform to OpenShift container platform about three to four years ago. We are also starting to use the Ansible platform to automate some networking.

One of the main benefits was that we were able to integrate with Github and minimize deployment to minutes versus days. 

The feature of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that I find most valuable is the Ansible automation platform, which is very user-intuitive, and there is abundant documentation and guidance available. 

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps us resolve many automation issues that we are facing now, as we attempt to automate setups and restore through Git and integrate with GitOps. It is working for us, and we are still in the deployment phase. We have been working closely with Red Hat, and it has been effective.

Currently, I don't have any specific improvements in mind for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). One of the tools I'm examining is the automation platform, and it appears there is still room for improvement since it is relatively new. Red Hat is working on this, and it will improve, though there are some bugs present. 

To make Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a perfect ten, improvements could come from newer features and software additions, such as Ansible. They are transitioning from Galaxy to the automation platform, which is new and has some issues, but this is expected. As the platform matures, it will continue to improve.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for approximately three to four years.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is very stable. We have been running it for approximately three to four years as our main container platform, and support is excellent. We can get people on the phone, and the response time is great. We haven't had to address any major issues.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales excellently with the growing needs of my company. It is easy to scale. With our OpenShift platform, downtime is close to zero when it comes to upgrades or scaling, and it is very easy for us, especially when integrating with GitHub.

The customer service and technical support for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are very responsive. I would rate them a nine out of ten.

Positive

We are deploying Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) on-premises. I have been involved in many Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) upgrades or migrations to on-premises, and it is straightforward. The documentation and how-to guides make it very simple.

The biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) from a technical perspective is minimal downtime for end users.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is superior to other solutions I've used in the past, such as VMware, primarily due to cost savings, which was our main reason for migrating.

When managing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems regarding provisioning and patching, we use a cluster environment, so everything is cluster-based, and we use GitHub to perform upgrades and patches almost seamlessly with no downtime. 

Our upgrade and migration plans to stay current with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) involve upgrading our clusters. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped us to mitigate downtime and lower risk with zero downtime achievement. 

I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) an eight out of ten overall, as I am still relatively new to it on an enterprise level, having previously worked on standalone systems.

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.