Red Hat Satellite has proven to be a worthwhile investment for me. Both its patch management and license management have been outstanding. If you have a large environment, patching systems is much more efficient since it requires very little administrative time. Beyond that, Red Hat makes it possible to target deployments, allowing me to zero in on sending out updates to specific groups as needed.
While the patch management feature has been the most valuable to me so far, I have found that fixing has also become a favorite feature of mine because I have a lot of hardware, software, and packages which can often be difficult to fix. With Red Hat that is no longer an issue for me. The technical support that I have received up until now has also been outstanding. The only thing that I dislike about Red Hat is that I haven’t seen them do an update in quite some time. I also think they could do a better job of managing subscriptions.
One good thing about Ansible is that it is agentless, which is what makes it a convenient solution. I chose not to go with Ansible because Ansible uses a CLI, and I prefer using UIs instead. I also dismissed Ansible because they do not have that many custom modules. While most things can be completed using commands, I don’t want to worry about writing modules if they don’t already provide the ones I need within their library, especially when I need to configure in the cloud. As a matter of fact, even the modules that they actually do have are underdeveloped. And I wasn’t impressed with the performance either.
Conclusion
Red Hat Satellite was the better product for me because I felt that Anisble had too many features that weren’t sufficient enough to meet my needs and that it had limited options overall.
Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform (AAP) and Red Hat Satellite compete in the IT automation and management category. Ansible Automation Platform has the upper hand due to its simplicity, versatility, and strong community support, whereas Red Hat Satellite stands out for its comprehensive lifecycle and patch management. Features: Ansible Automation Platform is notable for its ease of use, agentless architecture using SSH, and a robust set of modules that support cloud and on-premises...
Red Hat Satellite has proven to be a worthwhile investment for me. Both its patch management and license management have been outstanding. If you have a large environment, patching systems is much more efficient since it requires very little administrative time. Beyond that, Red Hat makes it possible to target deployments, allowing me to zero in on sending out updates to specific groups as needed.
While the patch management feature has been the most valuable to me so far, I have found that fixing has also become a favorite feature of mine because I have a lot of hardware, software, and packages which can often be difficult to fix. With Red Hat that is no longer an issue for me. The technical support that I have received up until now has also been outstanding. The only thing that I dislike about Red Hat is that I haven’t seen them do an update in quite some time. I also think they could do a better job of managing subscriptions.
One good thing about Ansible is that it is agentless, which is what makes it a convenient solution. I chose not to go with Ansible because Ansible uses a CLI, and I prefer using UIs instead. I also dismissed Ansible because they do not have that many custom modules. While most things can be completed using commands, I don’t want to worry about writing modules if they don’t already provide the ones I need within their library, especially when I need to configure in the cloud. As a matter of fact, even the modules that they actually do have are underdeveloped. And I wasn’t impressed with the performance either.
Conclusion
Red Hat Satellite was the better product for me because I felt that Anisble had too many features that weren’t sufficient enough to meet my needs and that it had limited options overall.