SUSE Linux Enterprise Reviews

We use the product in a desktop environment for testing purposes.

SUSE Linux Enterprise has a good management system for DevOps operations and integration with Red Hat.

The platform doesn't support certain APMs. In terms of configuration, it is very good for beginners. However, it could be more compliant. The command line tools need to enhance regarding compatibility similar to Red Hat with different languages like C++, Python, etc. Additionally, it is an expensive product. They could provide a free development license before working in the production environment.

We have been using SUSE Linux Enterprise since 2023.

According to my colleagues working on product maintenance, it has good stability.

We work with small and medium businesses. However, sometimes, I also work with enterprises. We need to consider that support availability, documentation quality, and interface optimization can vary based on geographical locations for scalability.

The technical support services are good.

Positive

The initial setup process is easy with assistance from a consultant or support team. It is very simple to install and requires a maximum of two executives to work on the implementation. We can use a web interface in a development portal to repair the console and manage registered servers.

The product is expensive. We purchase its yearly license.

Before buying the product, I advise others to learn about the organization's requirements regarding use cases. They can opt for SUSE Linux Enterprise if they have an essential budget. If not, they can look for Linux distributions like Red Hat, Arch, Fedora, etc.

I rate it an eight out of ten.

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. 

It is used for integration with the SAP HANA solutions and for SAP products, which is an ERP, and our customers use SAP ERP to run their business. For example, one of our customers is Lepilo Foods, which manufactures cheese and whey protein. They use SAP, and it sits on SUSE Linux Enterprise.

Our clients use HANA Database, which is in-memory computing and makes business transactions faster.

The pacemaker cluster and the SUSE Manager used for patching are the most valuable features.

We previously had trouble integrating Autodesk with the SUSE Manager, but the issue was resolved and improved.

We have been using this solution for more than ten years and are using version 15. It is deployed both on-premises and cloud. We are implementation partners, so we deal with SAP technologies and ERP implementation.

It is a very stable solution. 

It is scalable. It is very easy to maintain, migrate and upgrade. No downtime is required in a lot of cases.

We have not used technical support. Everything has been seamless without any problems. But we know that SUSE support is very good, and if there are any issues, they will be able to help us.

We have experience using Red Hat. To run SAP, we would recommend SUSE Linux Enterprise. Red Hat is also very good, but SUSE Linux Enterprise is a master in the SAP market.

The initial setup was straightforward. Also, if it is deployed on cloud, it's very straightforward. The deployment can take from ten to 30 minutes.

I rate this solution a ten out of ten. SAP HANA and SUSE Linux Enterprise are the best to run the SAP business. Currently, all the features available in the market are integrated into SUSE Linux Enterprise.

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 use SUSE Linux Enterprise to migrate SAP workloads to the cloud.

The price of SUSE Linux Enterprise could improve, it is too expensive.

I have been using SUSE Linux Enterprise for a long time.

SUSE Linux Enterprise is stable.

I have found SUSE Linux Enterprise to be scalable.

We have approximately 700 to 800 users using this solution.

The initial setup of SUSE Linux Enterprise is simple.

The time of the implementation depends on the project, such as the length of time and how many VMs you have. For example, if I need to have 100 VMs I will need three people. 

The price of SUSE Linux Enterprise could be cheaper. Other solutions, such as 
Red Hat.

I would recommend this solution to others. We have to provide solutions that work for our clients.

 rate SUSE Linux Enterprise an eight out of ten.

I like the fact that SUSE has a secure operating system. SUSE is one of the more mature versions of Linux and one of the best out there - it's very easy to install and upgrade. One of its advantages is that it doesn't consume as much memory as other operating systems and you can trim it down. If you're trying to fortify the operating system it's very easy. If you were using Windows you'd have to do all kinds of things and it would take a lot longer, it's easier with Linux. 

I think the solution needs to move away from offering so many community or feature software. They need to develop something similar to Marketplace in AWS. SUSE has a tool that allows you to patch and update and install free software to separate channels. It provides a channel to patch the operating system and add new features and another channel to deal with installing free software. When you use the tool you're dealing with everything and for security reasons I think they need to separate the free software because it's a risk, especially nowadays when we're doing a lot of fortification or strengthening the operating system. We need to have the ability to not have to deal with all the free software because it sometimes has security holes. They really should just focus on the operating system updates and give the administrator the ability to put a block on all the free software. In other words, I just want the operating system updates. 

I've been using this solution for about seven years. 

I haven't had contact with technical support. I downloaded the free version of SUSE and never purchased SUSE products. It's old, but you can use it. It's unlike the IBM Linux version, there's no free IBM Linux out there for now.

The initial setup is straightforward. One of the things I like about Linux is that it's a lot easier to update than, for instance, Windows. I have experience with Windows, but the last eight years I have been using primarily Linux and only use Windows when I need to clean because sometimes you try to watch videos on Linux and they don't work or require you to install an additional decoder. As far as patching goes, Linux is a lot easier to patch than Windows and a lot easier to protect than Windows, I think.

I haven't kept up on licensing costs, I haven't been selling or supporting products on a day to day basis. 

In terms of other similar solutions, I know that Red Hat Linux is more complex than the standard Linux distribution but it's better because it has so many extensions and so many different products within the Red Hat family. It's a lot more mature than SUSE. Now that IBM has bought Red Hat it's going to become even better. It can become a serious competitor in the cloud, although they need to standardize the naming conventions and there isn't a convention as with Amazon where it's very easy to understand the cloud features and products, and they have a well-organized system. IBM doesn't have that.

I've had this version of SUSE for a while and just patch it and carry out the software updates because I want to keep my environment stable. When I was installing my multiple systems, I selected the best update of the lot and SUSE was one of them. I selected several different Linux distributions. I have the SUSE Linux, Fedora, Scientific Linux and I have Mango Linux. I wanted to develop a feature on my laptop that would allow me to run multiple operating systems concurrently and have multiple keyboards on the laptop, rather than having to switch between them. It's a work in progress. 

I rate this product a nine out of 10.  

We use SUSE Linux on some of the servers that are in our data center.

The main feature is that Linux is flexible to work with for most web-based applications. 

I would like to see better functionality for interacting with cloud-based systems.

We have been using SUSE Linux for more than 10 years in this organization.

This is a very stable product and we plan to continue using it in the future.

SUSE Linux is very scalable. Much of our organization of approximately 1,000 employees use these systems for different functions.

Once in a while, we contact technical support, although the systems are so stable that this rarely happens. We the certified people that we have, it's straightforward.

We have also used Windows Server for the same purpose. We found that on Linux, it is easier to use compared to deploying on Windows Server for some of those web-based applications. We do not need to have much interaction with it.

The initial setup is straightforward and because we are using VMware, and we already have a set of templates, the installation takes maybe 30 minutes at most. 

We take care of the deployment ourselves. We have certified SUSE Linux personnel that are in charge of those systems.

Our data center team is close to 10 people and they handle maintenance. This team is not only in charge of SUSE Linux, but all of the other systems that are there. For example, you would find somebody who is both Red Hat certified and SUSE Linux certified and this person would administer those servers.

When we first implemented this product, we had licenses for support. Although because of the stability of the systems, we did not use it much so we scaled down on support. 

We did not switch from another product, as such. We have been using SUSE Linux for some time. We do have a mixture of different Linux servers that we use and we continue with this product because it's stable.

We have a variety of versions, and the one being used depends on the application, or what the developer prescribes. We have the latest version, as well as version 11 and version 12.

Overall, this is a good product and I can recommend it. 

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

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.