Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Reviews

My main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are for applications, primarily. We provide Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) to other teams because we are from the operations team and have infrastructure responsibilities. We provide Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) VMs for developers and other teams to run their applications on.

Before adopting Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), my company used many Windows VMs. From the time I have been working in the company, we have been a Linux shop with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) VMs, along with a few Windows VMs.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps me solve pain points because Linux in general is easy to work with. The automation is straightforward. Because we have an ecosystem of Red Hat OpenShift, Ansible, and Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), the integration flows naturally.

The features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that I prefer most are the security features, which are very useful. The domain join realm and SELinux are also excellent.

For navigating our security risks with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), we currently use SELinux for security. We do not use Lightspeed at this time. We have FirewallD and other services for security. For identity management, we have our own Kerberos agents that we use for identity purposes.

Satellite helps maintain our environment overall because we have integration with Ansible and the Ansible Automation Platform. When we need to create a new VM, we start with Satellite and have all the bootstrap processes integrated with Ansible. The VM then comes up automatically, and we provide it to customers or whoever wants to use it.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped me mitigate downtime and lower risks.

The capabilities of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that have assisted me with this are mainly the integration aspects, such as Satellite and the Ansible Automation Platform. Everything has helped us reduce downtime for customers and accelerate VM deployment.

The security portions of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) could be improved and made easier to work with. SELinux in general is not intuitive because customers and developers do not know how to work with the VM. This part could be more user-friendly.

In my company's implementation of the Zero Trust model, we have not yet implemented this with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). Because we are from the operations team, there is another team that handles other responsibilities. We do not necessarily handle that aspect.

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

We have occasionally experienced downtime, crashes, or performance issues with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), but not frequently. Overall, it has been reliable.

Scalability-wise, the scaling process for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is smooth. We have scaled many applications and have not encountered any issues. The performance has been solid.

I evaluate the customer service and technical support from Red Hat as very good. I have never had any issues with the technical support. I have created multiple tickets with the Red Hat team and they have been quick and effective at responding and fixing the issues. I would rate the customer service and technical support a nine out of ten.

The advantages of having Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) instead of Windows servers are that the development process is easier. I think Windows is limiting. Linux in general provides more opportunity to try different approaches, work on different projects, and avoid being restricted to certain functionalities that are imposed on clients who use the operating system. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has done an excellent job overall.

I would describe the experience of deploying Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as straightforward. It is not complicated. We use Satellite to deploy the VMs and the process is very straightforward with minimal complexity.

We have used the Ansible Automation Platform through a dedicated automation team who handles all the automation for us.

From a technical point of view, the biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the integration aspect. Working with OpenShift and having VMs on it is very smooth. Even though some features are not intuitive, the integration is seamless.

My company has not considered switching to another solution that does the same thing as Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). We are committed to continuing with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

I would assess the knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as very good. I believe there could be more information available. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in general is excellent, but counterparts such as OpenShift could improve with respect to documentation and the knowledge base.

We performed a major version upgrade of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) using the Leapp upgrade tool manually. Although the process has been automated, we have not used automation to upgrade many VMs. We successfully upgraded forty to fifty VMs from Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) version seven to eight and from eight to nine using the Leapp upgrade.

The advice I would give to other companies is that from the time of deployment until the customer uses the system, having a pipeline ready and integration prepared for every component makes it much easier to deploy and use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). I would rate this product an eight out of ten overall.

My main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) today include developing applications and managing server environments efficiently. I use Red Hat Satellite and Red Hat Lightspeed overall, which streamline our operations significantly.

RHEL helps me solve various pain points, such as ensuring system stability and security across our infrastructure. I particularly appreciate the advanced security features of RHEL the most, as they enhance our overall protection.

RHEL plays a crucial role in my company's implementation of the zero trust model by ensuring secure identity and authentication measures. Using Ansible Automation Platform has been a smooth experience overall, enabling better automation in our workflows.

I use features in RHEL such as identity management and Satellite, which help my company maintain compliance and security. The stability and scalability of the platform are commendable, ensuring our systems can handle growth efficiently.

Regarding improvements, I think RHEL could benefit from better user interface enhancements for future releases.

I have been working in my current field for several years now and have gained valuable experience during this time.

RHEL helps mitigate downtime and lower risks thanks to its robust design.

On a scale of one to ten, I would rate the customer service and technical support as an eight, as they are responsive, but there is always room for improvement.

I would describe the deployment process of RHEL as mostly straightforward, although some challenges may arise.

From my perspective, I have seen a return on investment using RHEL, primarily through improved efficiency and system reliability.

My company is still working on artificial intelligence workloads, as we are in the early stages of exploring this technology. I would not say that RHEL has directly helped those customers yet, as we are still gathering data on effectiveness.

Regarding the knowledge base offered by RHEL, I find it very useful and assess it highly due to its comprehensive information. I do not specifically handle insights on pricing, setup costs, or licensing, as that is managed by another department in my company.

On a scale of one to ten, I would rate RHEL overall as a nine. I advise other companies to thoroughly assess their needs before implementation.

I work with both the cloud version and the on-premises version of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). I have worked with Red Hat Cloud and Red Hat Enterprise on-premises.

For the cloud-based products, the main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) include deploying websites and complex software for customers, such as SaaS software on the cloud, specifically Red Hat Cloud.

When choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in the cloud, security requirements were not a consideration for me because Red Hat provides us with the SLA regarding security compliance. I am more than satisfied to use Red Hat Cloud for security purposes, while I manage some other forms of security, such as my own keys and access in Red Hat Linux systems.

I really appreciate the zero trust networking that Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has, and it also provides the WAF, along with certified images from Red Hat. For my current work on containers, Red Hat provides certified images that minimize vulnerabilities of CVEs, improving security significantly.

Although I do not have much knowledge about virtualization technology, I can say that for the hybrid cloud on OpenShift with the operators provided by Red Hat, the ready-to-use operators take care of underlying security, patching, and updates, so I do not have to handle monitoring or security myself.

Security is highlighted as an advantage across various aspects, such as the zero trust networking feature and the availability of certified images, which are instrumental in minimizing vulnerabilities and enhancing security.

While there are good aspects, I would appreciate improvements in the command-line interface (CLI). Red Hat could do more on the CLI side instead of focusing so much on UI development.

I have been working with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for around five years.

Regarding stability, I have not experienced performance issues, crashes, or downtimes with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL); any problems usually arise from my applications, not from the Linux system.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is definitely scalable.

Whether I have expanded the usage of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) depends on the business requirements, as RHEL comes with a cost that my company can afford because IBM owns Red Hat, so everything scales on RHEL.

Regarding my experience with Red Hat's technical support team, I find that they come very quickly with answers. However, sometimes the first person who responds might be a technical support agent without in-depth knowledge, so for more complex issues, a specialized engineer comes to the rescue, depending on the criticality of the subject, especially if it is production or a staging environment. They answer according to the SLA and support terms.

Positive

Determining whether Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is cost-effective depends entirely on the business. If your business faces compromises leading to significant losses, then investing in Red Hat Enterprise is truly necessary. However, if your business is small or medium-sized, you can manage with the free versions.

Regarding the deployment aspect, my experience has been straightforward because it is all automated with Ansible; all I need to do is provide an IP address, and it takes care of all the variables and boots up automatically.

Regarding the pricing, setup costs, and licensing costs of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I have heard that the licensing cost is significant compared to free alternatives such as CentOS or AlmaLinux, which are managed by Red Hat. I previously used CentOS, which is free, but I had to manage everything, including security, patching, reboots, and storage.

The key differences between Red Hat and other Linux technologies I have used include the advantages of excellent technical support, good documentation, and a large community for problem-solving. A disadvantage is that it is not open source, meaning limited flexibility, and the high cost associated with Red Hat compared to others.

I would advise other organizations considering Red Hat to start using it as their applications grow larger, rather than waiting for their business to become huge, as delays can lead to complications.

Currently, I am working on bare-metal services where I install Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). Using AWS for Red Hat is indeed a good option, as you can get the image directly from AWS with a subscription cost per hour for Red Hat licensing.

Red Hat helps keep applications operational because it provides built-in monitoring tools that offer a good overview of all running services, including built-in agents that come with the Red Hat subscription to identify potential breakouts. Regarding reducing risks, Red Hat also provides secure images that indicate the latest security patches available worldwide.

The knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is excellent; the documentation is fantastic and is supported by a large community that answers questions effectively.

When comparing the business value of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) to other Linux distributions, I find that RHEL is more stringent with its security, requiring users to be careful not to trespass, whereas other Linux systems do not enforce such strict security measures, and users must manage security themselves.

On a scale of one to ten, I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) overall as a product and solution at eight, possibly eight and a half.

My main use case for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is as the operating system for all of our applications. I'm our Ansible SME, so we install on top of that and then use that application to manage the RHEL for the enterprise.

The features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that I most appreciate include the easy package management and the straightforward upgrades. The stability and support are also impressive.

The benefit that my company sees from these features is significant. In my particular applications, it's not allowed to be down for more than five minutes consecutively, so it's helping me meet my requirement.

When considering how Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) can be improved, I would say for the enterprise, having easier hooks for these air-gapped lab environments would be beneficial. The reason why these lab environments are air-gapped is we want to test new things, and we can't have it interact with the rest of our network until it's fully vetted. That's why we have these labs to fully vet those types of things. It's normally a hassle to get RHEL up in those environments until we work out the right treatment.

The improvement would be if there's an easy way to, through that air-gapped environment, entitle the RHEL images.

In terms of assessing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)'s built-in security features, I find that out of the box, we are able to manage golden images and that keeps us in compliance.

It is very easy to manage.

I haven't had experience with customer service and technical support for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) items, but I have on the Ansible side.

The portal is excellent. They integrated OpenShift AI, so sometimes when I'm filling out the ticket, it already has the solution there and I end up not opening the ticket. When I do have to open the ticket, I get a good response. That's on the Ansible side, but I'm sure it's the same on RHEL if I ran into something.

We have considered different solutions, not so much Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) itself. Our company started with mainframe way back and has been long time RHEL customers.

We have looked at different container solutions and things in the Red Hat ecosystem, and Red Hat came ahead in those.

From my point of view, the return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is definitely significant.

If we were not able to meet our regulatory impact, we would not be able to do business. It is table stakes.

The advice I would give to other companies that are considering Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) right now is to do a comparison and get feedback from their engineers.

They will see that this is a much more stable platform with a lot of support. I would rate RHEL a 10 out of 10 because it's how we do business.

My main use case for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is hosting applications.

My company benefits from using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) by having more secure workstations and inviting more beginner users.

The feature of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that I appreciate the most is the new Boot C that's coming out. That's been pretty interesting. 

RHEL helps me solve the pain point of feeling disconnected from the community. I've been feeling more involved and considered. Previously, a lot of documentation was for connected instances, and I work for an air-gapped network. Now I appreciate seeing that the documentation actually has disconnected settings. It's neat to be included in there. 

I appreciate the documentation. The knowledge bases are pretty good. Usually, when I have an issue and find a Red Hat knowledge base, it addresses the issue.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)'s built-in security features are really well designed for simplifying risk reduction and maintaining compliance. I see many new technologies coming out are geared toward security or enhancing security. It's neat that it's continuing to evolve.

My upgrade or migration plans to stay current with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) involve leaning on our unclassified environment before we can upgrade, as I'm in a disconnected network. As soon as we're able to, I'm trying to upgrade as often as we can. It's because I want to utilize all the new tools coming out in 9.6 and now 10. We just got to RHEL 8, and I'm already ready to leap RHEL 8 to get the newest features.

Improving Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) can be tough, however, a significant area is collaboration tools. We have many Windows users that use Outlook and Skype or Teams to collaborate on our network. They want Linux desktops due to the fact that they want to use containers. Their biggest complaint is, 'I need two workstations to do my container work and one to collaborate.' If somehow RHEL can start introducing or collaborating with Teams and Outlook so their users can work with their Windows peers, that would be great. But I don't think that's available yet.

Regarding pricing, setup costs, and licensing, there needs to be more of an education piece to it. For instance, when purchasing 10 or 100 node licenses, they could suggest, 'We also offer this 1,000 node license instead, and it'll save you specific amounts.' Just more education on their offerings would be helpful, because usually, we're coming out with the requirements, and then they just provide it to us. They could inform us about saving by bundling it differently or using alternative approaches.

I've been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) since 2012, which is 13 years now.

The stability and reliability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) have been pretty good. We haven't had any issues, major crashes, or anything similar.

The scalability of the Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) platform has been able to meet my company needs for servers. The workstations are a little difficult, but overall it meets our requirements.

Regarding customer service and technical support of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I really enjoy it. 

With many other vendors, I have problems with support and back and forth, getting escalated, routed all over the place. Usually, when a case gets assigned to someone from Red Hat, it's handled in a timely fashion, and it's precise. There's no guessing or reading from scripts. It's direct to the point.

I would rate the customer service and technical support of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) an eight and a half to nine. The only reason for not giving a perfect score is that there could be more knowledge base articles or documents. There's not always a Red Hat instance for what I'm looking for, however, when there is one, it's always accurate.

Positive

Before implementing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I used CentOS and Fedora. The main difference between Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and those prior solutions is the support.

I would describe the experience of deploying Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as pretty simple and straightforward. The GUI is really interactive, and it's really easy to build from scratch.

The biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), from a technical point of view, is that it reduces man-hours. 

With Ansible, it definitely reduces man-hours in patching or being able to configure or manage systems across the country with hundreds of systems. The approximate reduction of man-hours that RHEL provides is in the hundreds. I couldn't imagine administering a couple of hundred servers one by one. 

We have to implement quarterly security checks and remediations that come out in bunches of 30 at a time. Having to do that on each box would take forever. I could probably only do four or five a day with our few hundred servers.

We did not consider any other solutions while using RHEL.

I have been involved in migrations or upgrades of RHEL, and I just completed a leap upgrade from RHEL 7 to RHEL 8. We manage our Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems when it comes to provisioning and patching by using templates from VMware to deploy our RHEL boxes, and for patching, we use Red Hat Satellite to provide the patches. We also use Ansible platform to run the plays, to kick off the updates and the reboots.

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

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for applications. Our use case involves its very easy deployment and usability, along with substantial support from the community and open source resources. We are looking forward to using much more OpenShift applications and Red Hat Open as well. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps me solve pain points related to scalability, enabling us to deploy several servers in one.

The AI and automation features such as Ansible and Ansible Tower stand out to me. We build streams in our automation features, using playbooks in Ansible for patching the application servers in a timely manner. We are also using automations for fault detections and fixing configurations, as well as building pipelines to deploy new features such as Windows 2019.

The open source environment has positively impacted our organization due to the package feature with the satellite, allowing us to download open source codes, which has been very flexible, resulting in enormous savings. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has mitigated downtimes and lowered risks in our organization, especially with the latest features.

I would like to see smoother integration with the AI components that would use other Red Hat products such as OpenShift and Ansible in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). I think the support should be more concerned about the new standards of technology. Customer support could be a little bit better, but it is definitely very good overall.

I have been working for 26 years in the application management team.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is definitely stable, and we are very happy about it.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)'s scalability is very well configured and very straightforward.

Although my team is not responsible for patching and maintaining Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems, I hear from my colleagues that they are very satisfied with the features, stating that it is easy to maintain the Linux environment and flexible. I have a Red Hat account and look on the internet for knowledge bases.

Since I am not responsible for managing the Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) hardware in our environment, I cannot give a detailed explanation of how I access the knowledge base. However, I research on the internet and with my account, I try to go into labs and find the appropriate knowledge base.

We used a different solution primarily for automation, which was the main reason for our switch.

We have saved costs, but I cannot provide specific metrics at this time.

Since we are a big bank, the pricing, setup cost, and licensing were through an end-user master agreement, which made us really happy because it was beneficial for both sides.

We had some options, but we were very enthusiastic about Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), so we chose it.

We navigate our security risks using features such as identity management, which we fall in love with more every day because it is really key to organizing security. The most important security feature for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that stands out to me includes the accessible accounts groups.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is part of an open-source community, so I advise others to develop their own solutions within the environment and community while still being supported and free of enhancements. I would rate this product a 9 out of 10.

In my particular case, we have some development and testing environments that we run on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), and we currently produce specific software for financial entities that is developed and certified for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), with clients running it in production and us delivering support to those clients.

Stability and performance are what I appreciate the most about it. 

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) makes it easier to manage hybrid environments because it is widely compatible with all kinds of platforms and protocols, allowing integration with various systems. It is very convenient for me since I have both on-premises installations and cloud installations. A few years ago, we transitioned several machines from baremetal systems to the cloud, and the process was very smooth. One of the advantages of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is that it operates consistently across different platforms, meaning you don’t have to change your processes or tools when working with various environments. This reliability is particularly beneficial for my operations.

One improvement could be more radical removal or disabling of obsolete, non-secure features, specifically regarding hardening the system. While I'm not sure if this is different on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 10, my team has installed the first one today.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for 10 years now, and I have been working with Red Hat as an older brand for about 25 years.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is very stable, and I don't recall the last time we had an issue that was not caused by a user.

The scalability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is very good because it allows changes to be introduced on the fly without having to reboot machines, and it is very stable. We have reached a maturity level in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that is very efficient, giving us a lot of confidence in the product.

I haven't contacted technical support or customer support regarding Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in the last few years.

Neutral

While not exactly comparable, we also work with AIX from IBM as another platform, which is currently provided by the same group because IBM owns Red Hat. I have worked in previous years with other Linux distributions, such as Debian, Ubuntu, and Slackware, although I haven't worked with them for a while.

I have a very strong empathy for open-source systems, and Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) runs on an open-source kernel, which I appreciate because it allows for innovation and development of the system itself based on collaboration from different inputs. AIX is more closed with its own benefits, and Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) runs on more platforms, while AIX is IBM-based.

Deploying Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is easy. It isn't a complex process right now, and there is a lot of documentation and information available to support them during that process.

The patching process is currently stable and very efficient, with frequent and scheduled releases that allow us to plan how we roll them out on our side. We have a scheduled patching process every month, even if there isn't anything to do. There are usually updates available, and we also have monitoring features that ensure the system is healthy and working properly, so we don't require live monitoring by a user, just some occasional cleanup in terms of logs and environment since it's mainly a development and test setup.

When you have your own systems on-premises, defining a lifecycle means needing to replace hardware, storage, and acquire equipment beforehand, whereas in the cloud, you don't have to do that because you pay as you use. This makes it easier to acquire new VMs on the cloud and install new images, moving from old machines to new ones without needing to get rid of old physical machines, thus making the cloud more flexible in the lifecycle perspective.

The business value of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) compared to other Linux distributions lies in the full set of systems and services it offers. While I haven't used the service support in recent years due to having a mature team that can solve problems, the support from Red Hat gives us great confidence in the software's quality, patching, and continuous development.

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a 9 out of 10.

My main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are on the infrastructure side, including patching, building, engineering, administration, and a little bit of everything.

The feature I appreciate the most about Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is its installation, which includes numerous capabilities. The installation process, especially when automating tasks, provides great satisfaction when it works. These features benefit my company because they enable tasks to be completed quickly.

I cannot identify specific improvements needed for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) at this time. We are currently using version 9.6, and it is performing satisfactorily. I would need to work with it daily to provide specific feedback. However, the documentation could be more user-friendly and comprehensive. Instead of simply stating procedures, it should provide more detailed explanations through multiple layers of implementation. The documentation could be simplified for beginners who are unfamiliar with the system. In our organization, we write our own documentation to address these needs.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) along with CentOS throughout this period.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps me address vulnerabilities, particularly high CVEs with scores of 10 and nine. The build-out capabilities are beneficial, and Ansible integration works effectively with RHEL.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales very effectively to meet my company's needs.

The customer service and technical support are good, though they have declined in quality compared to previous standards. Currently, support often responds by sending PDF documentation, and scheduling direct calls can be challenging.

Security requirements were a key consideration in choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) due to its ease of use, robust security features, and comprehensive experience and support. Support availability was particularly important among these factors.

From my perspective, the biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has been its excellent performance and issue resolution capabilities.

I am not considering alternative solutions to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) at this time due to our current three-year contract commitment.

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a 9 out of 10 and advise other companies considering RHEL to proceed with implementation. They should complete their customer assessment and work with Red Hat representatives. The solution is highly recommended, despite minor support-related concerns.

I was working on Azure cloud migrations using Azure Discovery tool and AWS Endeavor tool. 

I worked with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Azure discovery migration tool. I have worked on-premises for 16 years and on the cloud for four years.

I like that there is no downtime during operations. We work to mitigate downtime, but it typically ranges from two to three hours for upgrades and up to four hours for migration work.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) now uses satellite servers, though we are not getting many materials or awareness about that aspect. Containers have also been implemented in Red Hat Enterprise Linux, but we need more materials and documentation for these features, based on my work experience. 

I have used Red Hat Enterprise Linux in hybrid environments including physical, virtual, and cloud deployments.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is now integrated with RAN engineering, supporting telecom applications. Features such as Ansible and container applications come built-in since RHEL 8.

I find information through seminar websites and seminar links. With satellite servers, I receive links through which I share and gain knowledge, including online resources, PDF materials, and Udemy courses.

For telecom products and technical platforms that support RAN engineering, we expect more features to be added to satellite, as it is currently quite complicated.

I have been working with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for 16 to 17 years. The upgrades and materials have been consistently good.

Initial container deployment is difficult because the application matters more than the Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) server.

I would rate the scalability at eight out of ten.

Technical support from Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has been very good.

Positive

The implementation took approximately six months because it was a RAN application.

Using the framework, I can upgrade directly from 7.9 to 8.1. I have completed upgrades for approximately 2,000 servers using Leap.

I perform server migrations, including physical to physical and physical to virtual transfers. I work on application upgrades and Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) server upgrades. 

I rate this product 8 out of 10. I expect more Ansible features and container features in future releases.

My main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are patching and automation.

The features of RHEL that I like the most are Satellite and Ansible, as those are the only ones I really work with so far.

They benefit our company by providing solutions that are quicker and save money overall, which reduces time spent overall and saves us resources.

I use Satellite for patch management of our Linux devices, including our Red Hat devices, which helps my company navigate security risks.

I think RHEL could be made faster.

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

I have not experienced any downtime, crashes, or performance issues with RHEL, as everything runs smoothly, and we do not have many tickets regarding our RHEL products or RHEL VMs.

RHEL scales well with the growing needs of our company, as anything we add automatically gets pulled into Satellite.

I would rate the customer service and technical support a 10, because I have not used it much, but my coworkers who have opened tickets have not reported anything negative about their experience.

Before adopting RHEL, we mainly built the operating systems ourselves with a mixture of different Linux operating systems. For patching, we were using Ivanti before that.

The biggest difference between Ivanti and RHEL is that both have automation, but it is more seamless with Satellite, as it is owned by Red Hat and already integrated. We do not have to build out as many tasks and workflows inside Satellite, as it picks everything up and sends it out automatically.

From a technical point of view, the biggest return on investment when using RHEL is the time spent in work man-hours, as it has reduced our patching time by a very large amount in the Linux environment.

I would estimate that the patching time has been lowered by about 50 percent.

I have not considered switching to another platform that is not RHEL, as I am not part of those discussions.

We are using RHEL in the cloud.

RHEL supports our cloud environment mainly for patching right now, as we have not started using it for migrations yet, but we will probably start doing that eventually.

I have not done any AI workloads through RHEL.

RHEL does not play a role in our company's implementation of Zero Trust; it would be more for workloads and data running on our Linux VMs, as we do not use it for identity or access at this time.

I have used Ansible Automation Platform somewhat and am learning it. My experience with it is good; I do not use it that much, but other people on my team are using it a little more, and we have not used it in production yet, although it is definitely something we will be doing soon.

We do not use RHEL for auditing, as far as I know; my boss sends me a list of things to fix, and I fix them.

RHEL has definitely helped to mitigate downtime and lower risks at my company, especially with patching, as we do not have to manually patch or reboot our VMs as much while managing the patching process.

The knowledge base that RHEL offers is pretty good; I use it personally the most for the training platform while trying to learn all the different systems they have, and I use that a lot.

I would rate this review a 10 overall.