Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Reviews

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is user-friendly and easy to use. The affordability and free open source nature are main points. Multiple tools can be installed easily, and the interface is very user-friendly.

I am using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) on Docker. I work on Docker with both Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and Docker. Installation of so many tools is easy and simple for my Red Hat machine.

The features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that I find to be the most valuable and useful are that it is user-friendly. The command is very user-friendly and easy to use, and easy to remember. That is a main point. I install it everywhere on my cloud server because I am using a virtual machine also on my PC.

A specific feature of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is that I can install multiple tools without any interruption. I can configure everything easily, such as network ports. I can configure networking using vim commands and multiple commands. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) provides more alternate commands for my convenience.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is very good. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) provides the updated latest version yearly. However, they could provide more flexibility in areas such as adding more networking features. For security reasons, since security is a main key point for privacy in upcoming years, they could provide more DPDK for fast signaling and add more new protocols.

I have more than four years of experience with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) needs some improvement for stability. I am currently working on the latest version only. The latest version is not familiar to me, and I need to upskill on my side also. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) should provide more free courses for the upcoming or latest version that explain what changed between the latest and previous versions. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is not providing courses on sites or readable materials that explain what commands should be used.

I have communicated with the technical support of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). Previously, I did receive technical support in my previous company, and they provided an update for my servers. I rate the technical support services of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as good, giving it a 9 out of 10.

I used SUSE Linux and CentOS before Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is much better than CentOS and SUSE. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) provides its own cloud, OpenStack.

The knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) provides free courses for everyday work. I am currently using shell scripting, which is very useful for automation and easy to deploy on Docker and CI/CD pipelines for Jenkins. Shell scripting is the main knowledgeable area right now.

The most important security feature in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is that it provides multiple ports in the Linux machine that are connected via the kernel. The kernel is the main core of the network of Linux. No one can bypass this kernel line. The networking security feature is a main point.

I am not familiar with Image Builder for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and have not built any images using Red Hat.

Regarding the pricing of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I am not purchasing any membership right now. I purchased it previously, but I am not currently.

I chose Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) because it is so user-friendly. In every server, I need to use it for security reasons, and it is user-friendly for everyone. The source code is very simple. I can create my own tools and automation scripting.

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

My main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are that previously, I used it on database servers, and right now, we are using them for web servers, JBoss, and JDV servers.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales well with the growing needs of my organization because RBC always needs new servers, whether they can be Linux or Windows servers, but mostly we are using Linux since we don't use JBoss or JDV on Windows.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps me solve pain points because it is very versatile and stable, and we always use it for our new business.

Specifically, I can say that if we have a subscription, we can make installation easily and access repositories easily.

This benefits my organization significantly because Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is really useful, very stable, and very versatile.

In terms of additional features for the next release, I saw it comes with AI integration, but we don't know the architecture yet. We want to see it first, then we can say. AI will be important for us.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for 15 years.

I would assess the stability and reliability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as nine out of ten.

I have experienced downtime, crashes, or performance issues, but it happens only maybe once a year or something. There is not very much downtime.

I'm not sure if we have expanded our usage at all.

I am very satisfied with the technical support experience; it is very nice.

I would evaluate customer service and technical support as nine. I can give a nine because if we have any problem, we can get a response in a short time, but sometimes it is not the relevant solution; that can happen one or two times in a year, which seems normal.

Positive

I have not used another solution to address similar needs prior to adopting Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

Our deployment model is that RBC is using all of them—on-prem, cloud, and hybrid.

I would describe my experience with deploying Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as limited because mostly it is our Linux team working on it. They are the ones deploying it while we mostly are ordering servers and using them.

I have not seen an ROI with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), as I'm not on the finance side and I'm not calculating it.

My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing indicates that if you compare it with other operating systems, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is cheaper than them.

We are not on the selecting side before choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) because if you want to use Linux, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is always our first option. We don't check other options.

What stood out to me about Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is that I remember Oracle released a Linux for their database installation, but I don't see anybody using that, as we are mostly using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

I prefer Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as an operating system.

I'm not sure if Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped to mitigate downtime and lower risk.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has improved since version five, then six, seven, right now eight and nine; it always comes with new features, sometimes new application security enhancements. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is improving, and it has improved.

I would assess the knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as very nice because if we have any problem or error, we can find it easily at the portal.

Nothing is perfect.

My advice to another organization considering Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is that I prefer to use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) always. I recommend Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

I gave this review a rating of 9 out of 10.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The stability and reliability of the platform are top class.

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

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

Neutral

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

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

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

The deployment is generally very easy.

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

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

My experience is primarily on-premises. I work in the financial and banking area, which has about 2,000 VMs.

The benefits are reliability, stability, and good support.

I find Red Hat Enterprise Linux stable. 

The knowledge base offered by Red Hat is good. They also have good support for the business. The web console has been acceptable, but we don't really use those tools.

I don't find Red Hat Enterprise Linux's security features to be good. They have many vulnerabilities that haven't been fixed for many years. They have numerous vulnerabilities that remain unresolved. Just some security details could be fixed. They have many vulnerabilities left over from previous years, with not enough being fixed, and their commitment is only to fix the critical and important ones. For moderate and low severity issues, they don't have the commitment. The security part is weak. Based on all scan reports, they have many vulnerabilities that can't be fixed adequately. 

We will be involved with some Red Hat Enterprise Linux upgrades or migrations to other cloud platforms. It's not straightforward in my opinion; we have to create an image from Red Hat Virtualization Manager and convert the image to a format that can be recognized by other platforms, such as Microsoft Azure. We have to convert the image and then import it to the Azure cloud. It's not easy, as it requires manual work. There's no tool available for this process.

I have three years of experience with Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

The uptime is excellent as it's automated and stable. I would say the uptime is very good.

Overall, their support is good. I would rate their technical support an eight out of ten.

Positive

We didn't use any other Linux systems before. Initially, we used other operating systems such as AIX and Solaris, but Red Hat Enterprise Linux was the first Linux we introduced.

We also have SUSE Linux for one specific product.

When it comes to provisioning and patching, we use the satellite. It's acceptable when patching. I am satisfied with the provisioning and patching process as it's easy to manage. We don't use Insight, and I don't know about it. We don't use the Linux image builder or System Roles; we use our own Ansible Playbook to build a system.

We have all the automation set up for server provisioning and patching. We have the web console, but we don't really use its tools. We use our own Ansible Playbook, which allows us to manage and customize. We have many customizations. All the agents are installed for compliance, IP setup, file system creation - everything is automated.

When we create a VM, it only takes running the playbook and clicking a button. It takes about two minutes of work, and the automation handles the rest. In about two hours, the VM is up and running. If we use their tools, there are many limitations for customization, and we can only build an OS, but for the rest, we still have to run the automation. That's why we don't use those tools.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Positive

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

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

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

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

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

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.

I don't directly use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). I advise our clients to select this kind of technology for their hybrid cloud requirements.

When looking at hybrid cloud, the entire ecosystem is very complex; public cloud, private cloud, everything comes together and becomes very difficult to manage. The best use case I can see when Linux systems are involved is to use one common platform to manage all the infrastructure and the platforms on top of that. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) would be the best choice for that particular use case.

The ability to manage complex environments, especially when it comes to hybrid cloud, helps us significantly, along with the Linux environments which are natively in-built into Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). The reduction in complexity, ease of use, and managing the entire hybrid cloud landscape was easier with this software. Service mesh and Kubernetes support contribute significantly, allowing better handling of complex cloud-native applications efficiently.

We use third-party platforms to manage the risks and put the security guardrails in place, and Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has its own native security guardrails as well, so we use both.

Indirectly, we help other enterprises implement this solution, and I can tell how other enterprises are benefiting. They reduce complexity and achieve faster time to market as they improve efficiency and use these tools to improve their development process. This helps them move faster and release their software as soon as possible.

We are trying to move most of our workloads to public cloud environments; however, not everything will go to the public cloud. We are trying to find a balance between on-premise, private cloud, and public cloud. Currently, the split is 50% on public cloud, 40% on private, and 10% on on-premise.

Since we started recommending and our clients started using it, I can see the cost-to-performance ratio go up by over 50%.

I would suggest focusing more on the cloud-native aspect. Kubernetes and microservices are built in natively; however, it would help to bring the service mesh and service mesh handling. That would be one of the improvement areas.

Most importantly, since we deal with mostly Fortune 500 clients who are global in nature, as the data is siloed from multiple sources and has to be pulled in, it's very important that the data is secure and all the security guardrails are in place.

Since Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 10 was recently launched, there were some bugs that needed to be fixed and performance issues. If those are cleared, then it would be a good fit for everyone.

There has not been much downtime with the system.

The scalability is above average. It has scaled up and created its portfolio in line with market demands.

The customer service was good. 

Positive

We did not use any previous solutions.

Deployment is fairly easy. The support that is required is appropriate for both full-fledged full stack developers and starting developers. The support overall is good.

We implement mostly through service integrators who help to do the groundwork.

Since IBM's acquisition, we thought there might be some changes, yet surprisingly, it was kept aside. IBM was kind enough to let them operate on their own, which is a plus sign. The stability has been good, and we have no complaints.

The pricing was good and did not affect much of the decision-making. It was appropriate, though I would suggest the team improve upon offering higher discounts on bulk purchases.

There are not many options available besides Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

I am a principal catalyst who works with AWS, Azure, Google Cloud, the hyperscalers, public cloud, and private cloud, both on the client side and on-premise.

The ability to manage complex environments, especially regarding hybrid cloud, helps us significantly, along with the Linux environments which are natively in-built into Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

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