SUSE Linux Enterprise Reviews

We normally use SUSE for application servers.

The ease of use is quite exceptional in SUSE Linux. Whenever you need to set up any application role on that particular distribution, you normally just use the inbuilt package manager or installer called YaST, which is basically the management toolkit for the server. Compared to other distributions, maybe where you need first to go ahead and install the package and probably do a bit of configuration, it's normally easier to do this in SUSE since the package is already installed and all you have to do is just do your configurations for that particular feature you need.

Part of the advantages of using SUSE Linux is that it comes with support. So you do get it for free. However, if you need support, that is when you need to pay a subscription cost. Still, patches, you can get for free.

It's easy to set up.

The solution is stable.

It can scale. 

Support is very responsive. 

The turnaround time needs improvement. Whenever we have a new project or whenever we have a new solution we're deploying, using SUSE is quite easy to configure. This allows us to get up and running within a few minutes. However, the turnaround time of deployment could be faster. 

SUSE is also portable, so you can run it on any virtualized platform, including containers. 

The portability of the solutions is also key and needs improvement. For example, you might have a hardware failure, and you need to run all the backup of the same server and run it on another host. 

Compliance also needs improvement, especially around security due to patching.

My main issue with Linux distributions is majorly around clustering. They should probably just make clustering a bit simpler and also provide more descriptive log files for cluster services.

I've been working with the solution for around a year now. 

I'd rate the stability eight out of ten. There are no bugs or glitches, and it doesn't crash or freeze. 

The scalability is great, and I would rate it eight out it ten. It does support the same or almost the same tooling as Red Hat. For example, OpenShirt and containerization. 

We have about 500 users on the solution right now. We expand on an as-needed basis.

Technical support is actually superb in the sense that whenever you raise a support mechanism, their support is within 30 minutes to two or three hours.

Positive

The solution is very simple to set up. It is not overly complex or difficult. I'd rate it nine out of ten in terms of ease of deployment. 

What we did is we came up with a template of what we wanted our image to look like. For example, simple things such as a date and time setting, the region setting on the OS itself, patching, having the latest patches, and user management. We came up with a template of what we like to call a golden image that was already installed with everything that we usually use on a day-to-day basis on our server. We took that golden image, and we deployed it on every other little application that we needed to install. 

This means that we do not have to repeat similar processes, for example, user management, installing the latest patches, configuration, et cetera - basic OS-level configurations. 

Our strategy is basically to have a golden image with all the settings that we think are necessary and that apply to all of the systems that are running across our environment, and then we use that golden image to continuously deploy new systems when need be.

The full deployment itself takes less than 20 minutes. Normally it's done by one system admin.

There is no maintenance needed per se. Maybe this is patching and a monthly OS checkup. That's it. 

The entire deployment was done in-house. We did not need help from outside integrators or consultants. 

In terms of time and money-saving metrics, I'd rate OI nine out of ten.

In terms of cost, they are cheaper than Red Hat. I'd rate the affordability of pricing six out of ten. 

For SUSE Linux, currently, we normally use the free versions that come with both patching and support for patching. We normally pay for support whenever we need to, so they'll charge us for every hour after the engineer has connected.

We're customers.

We have an on-premises and cloud deployment. 

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten. 

It's a superb choice, especially when you are running anything, let's say web services or operating system-level services. It's easy to set up and quite stable. 

I use SUSE Linux as a vehicle for processes where the company has security baselines.

SUSE Linux's most valuable feature is the documentation - there is a lot of documentation about how to create custom servers.

SUSE Linux could provide more information about cost and the details of how clustering works.

I've been using SUSE Linux Enterprise for a year.

SUSE Linux is stable.

SUSE Linux is scalable because the Cloud offers different sizes of VMs if we need more CPUs.

The initial setup was moderate.

We used a partner team.

SUSE Linux is a great Linux-based solution, of which there are few that support SAP systems and HANA databases. I would rate it eight out of ten.

We implement SAP solutions for our customers using SUSE Linux Enterprise as the operating system. We perform migrations from on-premises to cloud, where customers ask us to migrate their applications and data. When they want to implement SAP HANA they have two choices, which are SUSE Linux Enterprise and Red Hat.

The most valuable feature is that there is an inbuilt HANA firewall.

Integration with Windows Active Directory is user-friendly.

Security and performance are good.

We have had trouble integrating Autodesk with the SUSE manager. It is a problem in the configuration and the documentation does not properly explain how it needs to be managed. 

We have been working with SUSE Linux Enterprise for more than 10 years.

When I experience problems, the first thing that I do is try to solve the issues myself. If I fail then I will contact technical support; however, until now, I have not had a problem that necessitated contacting them.

I'm from a Red Hat background and I also have experience working on SUSE. In my previous deployment, I found that SUSE was working slightly better than Red Hat. The main reason is that when we hand over the system to the team and we do a system readiness, everything is automated. Compare this with Red Hat, where there are some manual things that we need to do using the command line and from the sysctl settings as well.

One of the things that we need to explain to customers is why we recommend using SUSE Linux Enterprise over Red Hat, which they may already have installed.

A nice feature that Red Hat Spacewalk has is that it will automatically perform a vulnerability check on the Red Hat servers, which is something that SUSE is missing.

The length of time for deployment depends on the environment. For a VM installation, it will not take more than 20 minutes. Deploying within a data center is longer, but will still not take more than one hour.

Being part of the infrastructure team in the company, we are responsible for these types of deployments, as well as cloud-based storage solutions. We have a complete team.

For SAP deployment, SUSE offers better value for the company when compared to Red Hat.

After working with both SUSE and Red Hat, I would absolutely recommend people implement SUSE Linux Enterprise. The features that it provides in terms of security, managing the storage, and encryption/decryption, all contribute to why I recommend it.

In summary, this is a good product and it has the features that everyone needs.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

It's like an operating system, and then on top of this operating system, I install the Mitel application.

The most valuable feature of the solution is the installation part. The process is carried out through a download from Mitel's support site. It more or less preconfigures the system.

Mitel offers a specific version of SUSE Linux Enterprise, and whenever they make improvements to the operating system to better align with their application, I download it for distribution. Then, I work with what I have. But, anyways, it's okay to learn more since it helps me with my laboratory work.

I don't like the frequency of updates, especially if they're only from the vendor. However, in today's world, numerous threats need to be addressed. So, I believe that security upgrades should be implemented quickly, including the deployment process. If the software is stable and I know that there are new features to be added or configuration changes needed to be made, I'd rather not have to make changes too often.

I have been working with SUSE Linux Enterprise Server for around four to five years now. I work as an integrator for voice systems. The version I am utilizing is tailored for voice systems and can also be utilized as a platform.

It is a stable solution since it is great to configure. We don't face any issues related to the operating system or application. There are some difficulties sometimes because we need to interconnect different types of devices from different vendors.

The scalability of the solution depends on the customers, who are the ones paying for it. In Romania, it is not easy for customers to choose cloud services because they question where my equipment is, and they also want to know whether it is safe to enter certain information. The customers also wish to know who knows how to operate the device and which security configuration should be deployed since there are concerns about the safety of their data. Despite our efforts to provide clarification, explaining these issues to customers is difficult.

In my company, I don't use it because my company is very small. But I work as an integrator with my customers.

I had a very fine experience with the tech support team, and I found almost all the valuable information on the Mitel site.

I work with VMware and Hyper-V from Microsoft in my laboratory for testing purposes. I don't work with other teams or companies. Recently, I installed VMware ESXi.

I have used Microsoft Exchange, Microsoft System Center - Operations Manager, Microsoft Project, Team Foundation Server, IIS, and Windows Server, but not on an operational team. So, I know about these tools, but I don't work with them on a day-to-day basis. My experience is in voice devices like Mitel. I have experience with all the imported applications. However, I am currently working on configuring virtualization and virtual machines for a customer, a task that requires the use of these tools.

The setup process isn't too difficult and is the same for all operating systems, especially with Linux, regardless of the distribution. However, if I need to perform specific tasks, such as adding external devices like a network adapter, then finding the correct driver can be challenging. It's tough to answer how long the deployment process takes since it depends on the type of device being used. If all the required drivers are available in the distribution or for all interfaces, then the installation is quick and easy.

In the deployment process, the first step is to install VirtualPBX and the necessary applications for voice configuration, such as conference and phone. After that, it's important to connect the device and establish a virtual connection. However, I needed to consult with the developer and IT department to determine the type of network redundancy or software redundancy required. Then, I try to understand and learn the configurations of VMware or Hyper-V.

Most of the time, integration becomes easy when you put all the information on the table and collaborate with other teams and departments, such as the IT department. From their end, they provide a guide on the exchange along with the provider. If everything is taken into account, then it becomes easier.

Although I can install the system on my own, when I visit the customer's site, I often require additional support from their IT department. This is because I cannot make some modifications to their equipment, such as switches and phones.

The license comes directly from Mitel since it is personalized distribution, and everything depends on that particular distribution. Regarding pricing, everybody would want it to be cheaper. It's not just one person who is working on the solution. So, there are a lot of people who work for that particular software to maintain its high level of valuation, and they should be paid for their work.

I would recommend people to use this solution. I rate this solution an eight out of ten.

My colleagues and I have been using the product for several years now. Overall, I have been very satisfied with it and the way it has integrated into many of the solutions that we have placed in service. SLES is a mature, solid Linux offering. I recommend that companies, which have not reviewed its potential, take a second look.

My experience with SLES extends for at least eight years.

The organization was using an Oracle database and application server, and the Orarun package made deploying those products so easy. It even allowed us to move most of the Oracle software configuration effort away from us to DBAs and application support personnel. 

I do not know if YaST or Orarun made the most impact in our organization. Both made life a lot easier. YaST just made administration a breeze.

The best experience would have to be the upgrade process. It has progressed to be very easy and seamless. 

The most valuable aspect of the product was the support for the Oracle product stack. The Orarun package was such a tremendous help in our shop.

When working in a Department of Defense environment, Security Technical Implementation Guides (STIGs) have to be followed. SLES is not really addressed directly here. It did make following security policy difficult. Red Hat is more friendly in this respect.

I do not recall any stability issues up until Hyper-V was added to the mix. I am not really sure it should be counted because we were not privy to the underlying configuration, and there were other VMs experiencing similar behavior.

With respect to scalability, there have never been any issues. The product was always able to perform the way we needed it to. The SDK and HA software extensions really helped to make many of our solutions possible.

Unfortunately, I have not been overly impressed with their technical support, except on one occasion. I was completely blown out of the water by the outcome of ticket I opened on setting up an IMAP server. The support rep assisted me and drafted a document that would be published for others to benefit from.

My organization moved from Solaris and HP-UX to SLES. These vendors' OEM hardware became too expensive and we were looking for an alternative. 

SLES proved to be a very extendable product, supporting most, if not all of our infrastructure. The major reason I chose to use the product was the extensive enterprise peripheral support. Out-of-the-box SLES supported all of our HBAs and hardware specific components. This was really what sold me.

It also was very easy to setup, and offered an easy to use advanced setup option as well. This helped to create special configurations for different use cases.

As far as licensing goes, there is nothing unusual here. The price and model have worked fine for my organization

Any company looking to standardize on a Linux platform should seriously review this product. It has served me well for many years.

I have been using SUSE and OpenSUSE since 1999 in various capacities.

There are several items which make this distribution a good product, however I think YaST is probably what I like most about it. YaST simplifies the server management of SUSE allowing for a centralized utility to control most of the server functions.

All distributions of Linux could use some improvement. 

The only stability issues that I can recall encountering with SUSE would be with KDE. However, that is limited to just the desktop environment as I have not had stability issues with most server functions.

Not that I can recall.

I have never actually used the technical support. If I had an issue, then I would search the forums to find others that may have encountered similar issues.

I have used various different distributions of Linux. Currently, I am supporting Ubuntu and CentOS server deployments.

The initial setup for most modern Linux distributions is normally straightforward. Most of the common distributions use an ncurses or GUI install. 

I would advise others to download the free or strictly open source versions, then test them in their environment before committing to a purchase. This will allow for testing suitability for applications that they want to run. 

I have evaluated several different versions of Linux distributions over the years. It depends upon the planned use as to which platform will work best. I have tested RedHat, Debian, Ubuntu, SUSE, Linux Mint, SparkyLinux, SliTaz, Gentoo Linux, and several others.

Verify this product will do want you need it to do. As with all server class distributions, it can be setup with or without the GUI.

The features are pretty good. 

It is fairly stable. 

Technical support has been okay.

From a functionality perspective, the suite is quite rich. We like that.

Compared with the competition, of late actually, the solution has increased its pricing tremendously. They need to work on making it more competitive.

We've recently witnessed some glitches within the product.

I've used the solution for seven years. 

While the product started out as a very stable product, as of late there are some glitches that are happening. We really don't know the root cause of it yet, however. It's just noticeably not as stable anymore. 

We've dealt with technical support in the past and they've been okay. We have no complaints. 

The pricing was recently raised. They are not as competitive as they were before. 

I'm a reseller. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. We're mostly happy with the product. If they fixed the pricing and the performance, I would rate it higher. 

SUSE Linux Enterprise is an operating system for server workstations, desktop computers, and other platforms.

They should improve their educational portal. There should be a dedicated lab to learn about features similar to Red Hat's portal.

We have been using SUSE Linux Enterprise for seven months.

It is a stable platform.

The product's scalability is better than DevSecOps. We have enterprise and medium customers using it.

There are limitations in terms of getting administrative rights or comprehensive data support.

Neutral

The installation and registration process was complicated because of security settings. We didn't receive support services to tackle the difficulties. It requires four to five executives for maintenance.

I rate SUSE Linux Enterprise an eight out of ten.