Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Reviews

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.

My main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are everything from research computing to hosting websites. We've run a gamut of different things with RHEL. 

I used to use it a lot for a healthcare company and healthcare software. Now predominantly, it's research that is very statistically intensive. So anything where we have to do data computations, data rates, we need to synthesize data, aggregating it from instruments all over the world or within the lab itself. We take all of that, and we also use it to produce applications for people, whether it's just interacting with it via a website or an actual homegrown application where they can go through, search, look at the data, and do their own data manipulation.

My favorite feature of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the ease of use; it is streamlined, making it very intuitive to do things. 

The ease of use of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) reduces time for my company. It reduces the time to do things, allowing us to do very complex tasks in a very short period, since it is very straightforward and makes it easier to get things done. 

It has been around for so long, and it's such a standardized platform that the knowledge base from the employee perspective is usually pretty high compared to other enterprise Linux distributions. Therefore, the overall time savings with RHEL is huge.

Our upgrade or migration plans to stay current with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) involve adhering to a rule: once a version reaches end-of-life, we do not enter the extended life cycle. We plan that out ahead, ensuring that all of our systems get migrated and updated about a year before the end of life of any version. Some systems get migrated to the latest version while others remain and just get updated to whatever is current. It depends on the application and its external dependencies, but it's just a solid plan we follow.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped us mitigate downtime and lower risks, as we've utilized virtual machines and process load balancing to minimize issues. While we've had downtime with any systems, there tends to be a lot less with RHEL. We have had some systems running just for fun for three years without any downtime, which reflects their stability. I would say that RHEL has reduced risks by at least 80% compared to open-source distributions based on experiences in recent years.

To improve Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), the biggest thing is the availability of some tools that unfortunately have to be paid for. While I understand that you have to pay for resources, it would be nice to have a centralized location where you can easily find those tools.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for close to 20 years.

Regarding the stability and reliability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), we have systems that we've kept running for years without any downtime, so I have never had a problem with stability or reliability.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has scaled right along with our growing company needs; the only exceptions to that are with supercomputers, but that's a whole different animal.

My experience with customer service and support from Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has been good so far. I haven't needed to use it often, which goes back to its reliability. Whenever I've had issues reaching out, they've responded quickly with appropriate information.

We have looked at other solutions while using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), such as Debian, Ubuntu (a Debian spinoff), FreeBSD, and some others, however, we keep going back to RHEL due to its reliability and available resources.

The deployment experience with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has been very easy; we've been doing it for years. The automation that they've built over the years to do the deployments just makes it easier and easier every year, transitioning from kickstarts to using things OpenShift. I'm excited to see how this Image Builder works with that, too, so it has continuously improved.

The biggest return on investment for me from using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is just overall time saved. 

We have looked at other solutions while using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), such as Debian, Ubuntu (a Debian spinoff), FreeBSD, and some others. We keep going back to RHEL due to its reliability and available resources.

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) overall at least a solid ten 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.

Our use case involves modernizing applications for our clients. We take the application, extract the main functions and features, and modernize them to have those features in the cloud with a new customer experience. One way to do this is to prepare a new platform or solution in the cloud. Then we get the data from their on-premise services and move this data to the cloud. 

We mainly have customers from the public sector, telecommunications, and fintech, and these customers require many systems to modernize because most of them are 15 or 20 years old, and that's why they need to modernize for a better customer experience and journey.

It's almost a standard for us because all of the infrastructure in the cloud is based on Red Hat Enterprise Linux. We are using OpenShift as an orchestration platform. We work with several orchestration platforms, such as Kubernetes and EKS from AWS. In the case of Red Hat, we are using OpenShift. The main feature of OpenShift for us is the continuous integration, continuous delivery, and security; the granularity of security is important for us. They have a lot of features on top of Kubernetes. 

Red Hat is a good partner for us, and the service and support guides are really valuable for understanding and improving our knowledge in this area.

The main benefit of Red Hat is the huge community. They are delivering better quality by constantly updating and adding features for different products. The stability and quality of their service are very good.

I believe they need to improve in terms of compatibility between services. I know that it's difficult to follow the different versions and maintain compatibility. For example, in OpenShift, they have several internal tools that are not completely compatible with the product, and that's an area they need to work on. Supporting different versions and ensuring compatibility between these versions is necessary for us to continue putting effort into this.

We started on-prem about 15 years ago, and we have been working with Red Hat Enterprise Linux on the cloud for five years.

The quality of their services is high because they have people internally working on improving features every day.

Red Hat is a good partner. I would rate their support an eight out of ten.

Positive

Two of our clients switched to Red Hat because they have support from the organization. The management of their products, in terms of documentation and processes for installation and configuration, is well-documented. It's not like other open-source products in the market that lack the full support of an organization. This is the main reason they pay for licenses or subscriptions; there's an organization behind the products supporting them.

Upgrades or migrations are pretty straightforward and not complex, according to our experience.

We require a small team of between three and five people for upgrades or migrations. For such projects, we mainly have developers and cloud engineers. For the data itself, we also have data engineers.

Pricing is sometimes an issue for our clients because it's not a cheap solution. The different licenses have a high cost, and perhaps they could improve by offering different kinds of discounts or lowering the price to make this solution more appealing compared to other cloud providers.

Moving workloads between centers depends on the knowledge of the data and the frequency of synchronization. It depends on different factors, but normally, it is a matter of knowledge about the data structure and the different mechanisms and techniques for moving this data. It's not only a matter of tools; it's related to understanding how the data is structured and how often it changes.

We don't manage Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for provisioning and patching because we work with the cloud directly. These services are managed by AWS.

We move workloads between on-prem and the cloud using Red Hat Enterprise Linux. For this, we are using other tools, such as Divisio, which is also supported by Red Hat. We have Apache NiFi and Kafka for messaging delivery and integration between the services.

If you have a multi-cloud strategy, Red Hat is a better fit. However, if you only use one cloud service like Amazon or Google, I'm not sure if Red Hat provides great benefits compared to the cloud provider. Our clients have had only one cloud provider.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

I typically use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in my federal government contracts. Federal government customers are the only ones that use Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

Most government agencies use Red Hat Enterprise Linux because they have a requirement for commercial support. That is the only reason why Red Hat Enterprise Linux gets used over any other Linux distribution.

The only reason our clients use Red Hat Enterprise Linux is because Red Hat offers commercial support. 

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is a solid product. They have decent support, although not the best. They have a good knowledge base and a well-developed ecosystem.

Recently, Red Hat did a strange thing where they took over the CentOS project and changed several things in their pipeline. I don't believe that I, or the vast majority of Linux systems engineers out there, are fans of their development process for the operating system.

The way that Red Hat used to work was that they had a free version. It was the community version called CentOS. Everything that Red Hat developed, they backported to the CentOS community. About four or five years ago, they took over the CentOS community and they killed off CentOS. They were pushing the Red Hat Enterprise Linux stream variant, which was supposed to be the replacement. I wish they would just go back to the way it was before. I do not like the new development process and the new hierarchy. The vast majority of people in the Red Hat open-source community also do not care for it much.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux since its inception. I started using Red Hat Linux in 1999, but I do not remember what year it became Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

They are typically slow to respond. I feel their first-line support is lacking in knowledge.

Their knowledge base is pretty decent. It is pretty standard. Linux is such a mature product now that the knowledge bases for all the major distributions, even the open-source free ones, are so vast. I do not know if any Linux distribution offers any real advantage over others when it comes to the knowledge base.

Neutral

I have worked with all operating systems. I have been doing this for 30 years. In the military, I was a Windows and Linux systems administrator. I was using Solaris Unix back then. I have been using Windows for about 30 years, and then I have used all Linux distributions such as Ubuntu, Debian, Red Hat, Mandrake, Yellow Dog, etc. If there is a Linux distribution out there, I have probably used it in a project somewhere.

The only reason that I, or anybody else, uses Red Hat Enterprise Linux is because it offers commercial support. That is it.

The Red Hat package management system is inferior to most other package management systems in the Linux world, mostly to the Debian-based ones that used the App system versus the Red Hat RPM package management systems. Red Hat is also not as unified or as streamlined as other distributions.

The setup is pretty simple and very straightforward. I would rate it a seven out of ten for the ease of setup. Its upgrades are moderately straightforward.

The management depends on where those systems live. On-prem ones are managed differently than the cloud ones. Cloud-to-cloud ones are managed differently. Red Hat is slightly more work-intensive than other Linux distributions. I feel that Debian-based distributions, such as Ubuntu, Devuan, and AntiX, are easier to manage than the Red Hat-based distributions, and obviously, Red Hat Enterprise Linux is the flagship for all those distributions.

It is used just to meet requirements. Being government agencies, they do what they have to do to meet requirements. It helps them meet the requirements of having commercial support, and that is about the extent of it.

I am not a big fan of Red Hat Enterprise Linux. I use it because government customers have a requirement to use it, but outside of that, I would never voluntarily use it. In fact, I recommend against using it. 

We do not use features that are proprietary to Red Hat Enterprise Linux. We do our best to avoid proprietary tools. We stick to open-source tools. Typically, we use things like Ansible to achieve those goals.

I am a consultant, so I have worked with both on-premises and cloud deployments. I have used it in both Azure and AWS. It is client-defined. Our workloads are not hybrid workloads. They are usually dedicated. If we put a workload in the cloud, it is all in the cloud. If we put a workload on-prem, it is all on-prem. I do not know if Red Hat necessarily provides any special features to support hybrid workloads, and if it does, we certainly do not use them. We try to stay away from Red Hat-integrated tools and utilize industry-standard tools. We use Terraform and Ansible. Ansible is now owned by Red Hat, so it is technically a Red Hat tool, but it is also an open-source project.

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux an eight out of ten. It is good for commercial usage, but I would never use Red Hat Enterprise Linux in a startup environment.

My primary use case for Red Hat Enterprise Linux is for cloud-related tasks, such as working on AWS. Specifically, I create virtual servers on Amazon EC2 instances. My department has 50 people using the solution.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has increased our productivity by making monitoring more manageable and allowing us to be more proactive. We get more information we need from the virtual machines using the command line. It's also a highly secured system with built-in protections. We've also saved time because command-line operations are more efficient. Time is money, so we also save money by decreasing our time on these tasks. 

When I started working with Red Hat Enterprise Linux in March 2021, I did not immediately realize its benefits. It took me several months to understand the full power of Red Hat Enterprise Linux and the problems it solves. After three to six months, I recognized the full power of Red Hat Enterprise Linux. 

The most valuable feature of Red Hat Enterprise Linux is its command-line capabilities, which allow you to execute large operations quickly. For example, let's say you want to create a hundred files or directories. In Windows, you need to create each one by hand, which is difficult and time-consuming. Linux has multiple commands to create files in a few seconds. It also has the "top" command that gives you all the processes running and their utilization of resources like CPU, RAM, etc. That isn't possible with a management console or GUI.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has good security features, so it's harder to breach than Windows. There's also a large Red Hat Enterprise Linux user community, so when I get stuck, I can go to Stack Overflow or other user forums and get help. I typically get a solution within a few hours when I post a question. 

I don't handle patching and provisioning because I don't have much experience, but I've heard from senior engineers that it's easy on Red Hat Enterprise Linux. 

Red Hat Enterprise Linux could make some back-end improvements. On the front end, Red Hat Enterprise Linux could make the interface more colorful and improve the user experience. A better-looking interface would attract more customers.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux since March 2021.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is stable, providing a reliable platform for our operations.

I would rate the scalability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux as nine out of ten, indicating it scales well with our needs.

I rate Red Hat support eight out of 10. The technical support is excellent. They are readily available to assist with any technical issues that arise. Their documentation is clear and built into the GUI, so you can easily access information if you're curious about a topic. Red Hat has a large, well-informed user community.

Positive

Previously, I used only Windows, but now I use Windows, Linux, and AWS environments. I transitioned to Red Hat Enterprise Linux as it enhances productivity, reducing the time-consuming aspects of software development and project management.

Setting up Red Hat Enterprise Linux wasn't complex, but also not overly simple. It was about average. It took about half an hour to deploy the solution at one location. After deployment, we need to install updates, but that process has gone pretty smoothly.

We have a team of more than twelve individuals working with Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has saved us time and increased productivity. We've also saved money by not purchasing other operating systems, such as Windows or Mac. 

Most Indians will find Red Hat Enterprise Linux a little costly. It's slightly above average. Its pricing has room for improvement because it's more expensive in the local market due to purchasing power parity in India. 

I highly recommend Red Hat Enterprise Linux to others due to its productivity benefits and efficient command-line operations. It offers key advantages in terms of time-saving, security, and community support.

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.