Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Reviews

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 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.

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.

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.

Related to stability, security, and reliability, the absolute bedrock of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is that it uses rigorously tested, mature software versions. While not always the latest, this ensures zero unexpected changes, which is critical for systems that must run for years without failure. The security hardening includes tools such as SELinux, FirewallD, and SCAP.

I previously used Ubuntu workloads because they were a good option for another company. When talking about Linux or Unix environments, there are many open source options such as CentOS or Ubuntu that differ from Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

In most cases, the workloads are running in AWS. We are natively performing and invoking the instances by auto-scaling group primarily on EC2 instances, some of Fargate, ECS, or Fargate workloads, and that is where I experiment with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

I am working mostly in cloud environments, but also on-premise. My work includes various DevOps and operation tasks such as provisioning, automating with Terraform and Ansible, performing patching tasks, troubleshooting web services, and other infrastructure tasks per day.

We are using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in all our production workload environments, particularly in cloud adoption for AWS. We have very useful features from the marketplace for AWS that help us optimize our current workloads.

Regarding core Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and infrastructure optimizations, we utilize performance profile tuning and IDM profiles for database heavy marketplace back-end. We use throughput performance or latency performance for mixed workloads, deploying specific tune profiles with pre-configured kernel parameters. The system includes kernel parameters tuning, file systems to optimize virtual memory settings, and XFS by default for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). Security enhancements include SELinux enforcement with custom policies. For architectural and application optimizations, we use containerization with Podman for Kubernetes workloads and orchestration with OpenShift with Kubernetes.

The workloads primarily run in AWS. We are natively performing and invoking the instances by auto-scaling group on EC2 instances, some of Fargate, ECS, or Fargate workloads, and that is where I experiment with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

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

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is really stable. I have not experienced any downtime related to workloads or operating system issues so far. Regarding scalability, it has been rational, though I do not have extensive experience with particular use cases. The experience has been smooth overall.

The customer support is excellent. I reached out to them once about a monitoring matter, and the attention was really good. My rating would be nine out of ten.

Positive

The setup was very easy. While I am not in the finance department or performing license management, I believe it is really easy to use. I am not currently in charge of budget strategy, so I cannot provide detailed information about that matter.

I would recommend Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for production workloads in AWS or any cloud environment. In my case, it is AWS, and I have practical experience with critical workloads in on-premises solutions. The experience has been good, and I would recommend Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) to other customers or partners.

My company is a Red Hat partner. I was offered a gift card for providing this interview.

I use other tech products such as Scalr for FinOps in cloud environments, Splunk for monitoring, and AWS Backup for native cloud backup solutions.

The overall rating for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is 9 out of 10.

I used Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for my past job where it was used for VMware. It was always on VMware, JBoss, or WebLogic for web-based apps and similar applications. In my current job, we use it as a base OS for AAP or for VSOS, for a Docker host, a pod host, or various applications.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is valuable for us since it's stable and reliable. 

Some of the new features they're adding to it, such as RHEL 10 and the AI, sound really helpful. The federal security features are also beneficial. Especially the AI feature sounds useful.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps simplify processes and having support is super helpful. When I have an issue and try to track it down without success, I can submit a ticket and get support. They're usually able to troubleshoot the issue, so having support is beneficial for me.

Our upgrade or migration plans to stay current involve using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 8 for much of our infrastructure, while also deploying RHEL 9 for the past six months. Once RHEL 8 is deprecated, we'll probably start looking to migrate to RHEL 10 and building net new servers.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) definitely helps to mitigate downtime and lower risks through access to AAP. I've also heard you can do an in-place update for the kernel, which is something I'm curious to try but haven't had the chance yet.

Improving Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) requires good documentation and having a way to onboard people for new technology they're introducing. The AI will be helpful for that since they have that now. The SE policy is not very clear on how it's supposed to be implemented, which they can improve upon, or perhaps I don't know where to look for that information.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in my job for probably ten years or more.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has been pretty reliable from my experiences so far, with no major issues.

Customer service and technical support from Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has been pretty good overall. It has been fairly responsive, although I have had times when it was somewhat slow to respond to tickets and requests. I've had coworkers who have experienced that as well, so that could be improved. The response and quality of their responses could be better in some cases. In other cases, it's adequate for what we need.

Neutral

My experience of deploying Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in general has been pretty good so far. I use Image Builder, which is developed by Red Hat. I use that to create the image, and then satellite servers actually deploy it. For the most part, it's seamless and reliable.

The biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), from my point of view, is having the integration between all of the various platforms, whether it's AAP, or satellite, and IDM. We use satellite, AAP, and IDM, and the integration between all of these has been super helpful.

We haven't had a need for other solutions while using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) currently, but if something came up, we would probably consider it.

I have been involved with upgrading from Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 8 to RHEL 9, and from RHEL 7 to RHEL 8 because RHEL 7 has been sunsetted. In these cases, we build net new rather than doing in-place upgrades.

For upgrades, we use satellite to deploy, and AAP for our host provisioning and whatever we need to layer on top of the infrastructure. For managing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems regarding provisioning and patching, we use AAP. We have a written playbook that reaches out to the host and takes a snapshot of the host in VMware. Then it runs the patching and reports back if it succeeded or failed.

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

My main use case for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is server administration, so we provide a group that delivers server software from RHEL, including Ansible and Satellite.

The features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that I appreciate most are the standard ease of use through Satellite and Ansible, which help us keep up with our demands. The benefits of those features for my company include managing compliance issues or demands we face for the business, so we need to keep up with patching on a regular basis, which is important.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) could be improved, and it appears 10 is a good way forward. Having been in this industry for so long, I don't have much on my mind, however, there is generally a barrier to getting used to it. The Lightspeed is improving it to help newcomers, so it seems a good idea.

My thoughts on RHEL's built-in security features are that they might be better; we haven't really gotten security to be very smooth, so we're not using much of it, and we have other tools to ensure compliance. At the moment, there is nothing I really miss from RHEL's features.

I have been using Red Hat's products since 1990. I've been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) since 1996 or 1997; RHEL came in the 2000s.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped to mitigate downtime and lower risks since we don't have much downtime when it comes to Red Hat systems; it's quite stable. The stability and reliability of the RHEL platform are good.

Regarding scalability, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has been able to scale to the needs of the company; we haven't met any limitations yet, and we mostly deploy it with scale-out and scale-up strategies, but we haven't managed to scale up fully yet.

My experience with customer service and technical support is that they respond, which is good. Sometimes, the bug fixes take a little while, especially on their supporting systems such as Satellite. From one to ten, I would give the customer service and technical support a seven or an eight.

Positive

While using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I considered other solutions such as Ubuntu for client-side use; tying it into Microsoft software, such as Microsoft Entra ID, which was not possible at the moment when we started looking into it, could work even more with connections or using external vendors.

The deployment is very easy. I've been doing it for a while too. Satellite helps a lot. AIP helps even more.

From my point of view, the biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the stable environment it provides, along with the solutions going from A to B, from all the way from A to Z; we get the patches, it's updated, and it's alive.

The price is always an issue, and it depends on what you get; we have lots of development, yet I'm not economical and don't deal with finance, so it's not my area of expertise anymore. 

We haven't made any upgrade or migration plans to stay current with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 10 since that's just released; most of our systems are running 8 and 9 at the moment, so it depends on the applications running on them, their dependencies, and we have many systems that can't be upgraded, however, we want to stay on track for the most important systems.

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

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for engineering simulation activities.

The features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) benefit our company as we're able to run the simulation software without question.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps us solve pain points. We design our engineering products and need Linux systems to design the products. 

The feature I appreciate the most about Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is that it's supported by our vendors that support the applications we run. 

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is fine; I don't know how it can be improved. I don't think they could enhance one of their features. 

When we go from version seven to eight, and eight's a little slower, or certain things don't work, they should ensure there's 100% improvement or stability; I don't want anything broken.

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

The stability and reliability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are fine; I'd be surprised if it wasn't stable.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales to my needs just fine.

The customer service and technical support for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are okay; I would rate it a five out of ten. What could make it a ten are improvements in customer service to reach Dell quality. It might be an unfair advantage since Dell is all hardware, and the quality of their support is top-notch for hardware, while Red Hat's all software. It's a whole different situation; support is easier with hardware than it is with software. My only suggestion would be to get support to the right people. 

I don't want to go through two levels of support to get somebody who can solve my problem; I want to talk to somebody who can work with me around the globe. If I call and get someone who's in the UK on his shift when it's ending, give me someone in San Jose to pick up where he left off.

Neutral

I considered other solutions before choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). We were all open to CentOS, AlmaLinux, and similar options, which is why I've been using the open-source software for 15-20 years.

The deployment process of Red Hat is good. There were no problems.

The biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for me is just its compatibility. We have one source of truth that's generally accepted in the industry for application software.

I don't handle the pricing or setup costs for my company as we've got a big contract.

I chose Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) due to the fact that when Red Hat bought CentOS, they eliminated the model; otherwise, we would probably still be using CentOS.

Our upgrade or migration plans to stay current with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are limited by the applications we run, so I won't upgrade to version ten until the applications say they can run it; that's the number one thing. 

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped us mitigate downtime and lower risk as we have plenty of extra systems. I don't have an application that's a 24/7 application that I can't shut down. 

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

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.