Rocky Linux Reviews

My main use case for Rocky Linux is that all the applications used by our company are hosted in Rocky Linux servers, so we will be maintaining, remediating the vulnerabilities which are getting reported on the servers, patching the servers and making them up to date, and helping all the users who log into servers to use their applications without any issues.

A specific example of an application where I'm using Rocky Linux in my company is the POS machines which are used by the customers, where all the POS related applications are hosted in Rocky Linux operating system, so that's where Rocky Linux came into the picture, and from the OS level, we will be giving all the support wherever it is necessary.

The middleware packages such as Apache Tomcat, Java, HTTPD are all running on these Rocky Linux servers, so we ensure all those services are up and running without any issues.

The best features Rocky Linux offers are that it is much easier to use. Since it is open source, whatever issues we face, we can get answers from the community for each and every issue we encounter, so finding a solution for each problem is much easier, and that's the major feature I feel for Rocky Linux.

When comparing Rocky Linux to Red Hat, it is more stable, as whatever issues arise, we can solve them quickly, and since there is an open community, we receive help from everybody who is using this.

Rocky Linux has helped our organization significantly in terms of cost. If we were purchasing a Red Hat subscription, it would cost significantly more, but since Rocky Linux is open source and free, it has helped with cost reduction, allowing us to utilize those funds for other needed things.

When we moved from Red Hat to Rocky Linux, we saved around 70% of the cost which was used for subscriptions. That money is now used for other things such as middleware applications and monitoring applications including DataDog and Dynatrace.

To improve Rocky Linux, providing releases for each package, firmware, and kernel more quickly would be beneficial. Currently, it takes more than one month to release a new package or kernel, so speeding that up would help reduce reported vulnerability remediations.

Documenting the frequently asked questions and related issues in a PDF or Word document would be helpful so that everybody can refer to them, eliminating the need to post a question and wait for a reply, thus reducing time delay.

Currently, there aren't many needed improvements, only the support aspect needs a little improvement. Everything else is going well and smoothly.

I have been using Rocky Linux for more than six years.

Rocky Linux is stable, scalable, and it is very much easier to use.

Regarding customer support, since it is open source, most of the solutions are available on the community page, but even if we raise a support ticket, we receive a resolution or a reply from the team within two business days.

I would rate the customer support a seven.

Positive

Before choosing Rocky Linux, we were considering moving with Red Hat itself, planning to move from RHEL 8 to RHEL 9, but after considering the cost involving Red Hat, we thought about an open source solution, which led us to Rocky Linux.

When it comes to return on investment, a lot of money is saved since we moved from a purchased license to the open source provided by Rocky Linux. Time is also saved since whenever an issue arises, we get resolutions from the community without needing to raise a ticket with the support team.

When we encounter an issue, we look all over the internet, not only depending on the community, so whichever solutions provide us with proper resolution are considered.

My advice to others looking into using Rocky Linux is that it is much easier to use, it's scalable, performance is good, and there is no cost involved in using it.

I rate Rocky Linux nine out of ten.

My main use case for Rocky Linux is for QA and development, such as setting up environments, running automated test suites, validating services, and troubleshooting application behavior in a RHEL compatible environment.

I also use Rocky Linux to validate CI/CD workflows, containerized applications, and deployment-related issues in environments that are close to production.

The best features Rocky Linux offers in my experience are its stability, RHEL compatibility, strong security with SELinux, and reliable package management with DNF. It is also very useful for building QA environments that closely match production.

Compatibility has made the biggest difference, allowing me to reproduce production-like, RHEL environments for QA and catch deployment and configuration issues earlier, reducing environment-specific failures.

For QA, Rocky Linux's strong community support and predictable updates are highlights that make it easier to maintain consistent and reliable test environments over time.

Rocky Linux has impacted my organization positively by helping to create stable, production-like environments for QA and development, thus improving consistency, reducing environment-related issues, and making deployments more predictable. We have seen fewer environment-related issues and less time spent troubleshooting differences between QA and production, which has made testing and deployments more consistent.

Rocky Linux could improve its documentation and onboarding for newer users, especially around troubleshooting SELinux and system configuration.

The documentation and example configurations regarding SELinux and network configuration can sometimes be difficult to troubleshoot, especially for people coming from other Linux distributions. More practical examples and clearer error guidance would help solve these issues faster.

I have used Rocky Linux for approximately four years, mainly in RHEL compatible environments for development, testing, and server administration.

Rocky Linux is stable and reliable for workloads, especially for QA and development environments.

Scalability in Rocky Linux is very good, and it works well as workloads grow, particularly in virtualized and containerized environments, allowing us to scale resources without introducing major OS-level issues.

Customer support for Rocky Linux is good, and I remember that the team was helpful with various scenarios, questions, and issues. The community is very active with helpful forums.

Rocky Linux has a great community, and it is usually easy to find documentation, forums, and RHEL compatibility solutions while troubleshooting the most common issues, making it straightforward to solve problems.

We previously used CentOS and Ubuntu, but we noticed performance issues, leading us to explore options and find that Rocky Linux has great performance, especially in workloads, which prompted us to switch.

We have seen a positive return from eliminating OS licensing costs and reducing maintenance overhead. We save time through fewer environment-related issues and more consistent QA and deployment processes.

My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing for Rocky Linux is good because there are no licensing fees. The main costs are infrastructure setup, maintenance, and internal support rather than the operating system itself.

Before choosing Rocky Linux, I evaluated options including AlmaLinux, CentOS Stream, and RHEL. In the end, Rocky Linux was a good fit because of its RHEL compatibility, stability, and open-source model.

I would improve the documentation, troubleshooting tools, and integration guidance for modern DevOps, container, and AI workloads. Better migration guides and more real-world examples would also help teams adopt Rocky Linux faster.

The learning curve for Rocky Linux is moderate. If you already have experience with RHEL or CentOS, Rocky Linux feels very familiar, but areas such as SELinux and network configuration can take more time to master.

In my experience, update and patch management in Rocky Linux is straightforward and reliable. DNF makes it easy to manage packages and security updates, allowing us to test patches in QA before promoting them to production-like environments.

I would rate Rocky Linux's performance and resource efficiency under heavy workloads very well. It has been stable and resource-efficient with predictable CPU and memory usage, which is very important for QA and development environments.

It is relatively easy to integrate Rocky Linux with CI/CD tools, Docker, Podman, and Kubernetes, enabling us to build consistent environments for automated testing and deployment with minimal compatibility issues.

Rocky Linux provides a strong foundation for compliance through SELinux, with regular security updates, auditing, and system hardening. Meeting regulatory requirements still depends on how the organization configures and manages the environment.

Compared with CentOS Stream, Rocky Linux feels more predictable for stable enterprise environments because it focuses on RHEL compatibility. Updates are consistent and the community support is strong, even though commercial support options are not as extensive as RHEL.

My advice for those looking into using Rocky Linux is to ensure good infrastructure. Start by testing in a non-production environment and validate your applications, security policies, and automation workflows.

Rocky Linux has been a reliable and cost-effective platform for us, and its RHEL compatibility, stability, and strong community make it a solid choice for QA, development, and private cloud environments. I would rate this product a ten out of ten.

My main use case for Rocky Linux is for the Nutanix environment, where we have a data center and everything is hosted there, including all the services and systems. Rocky Linux is the main OS of the Nutanix, which we use for hosting the servers.

In the Nutanix environment, Rocky Linux makes security hardening easier because we have guidelines to follow for those processes as per their advice.

My organization has seen positive impacts, particularly in security, as it is more secure and scalable. The commands are quite easy to use in the open-source environment, and scaling up or down is simple. Overall, it is more scalable and security-wise, it is good, and after using many commands, I become familiar with them.

The best features Rocky Linux offers, in my experience, are its simplicity, which helps us troubleshoot effectively, along with enhanced security features, security hardening capabilities, and the ability to perform regular patches.

My organization has seen positive impacts, particularly in security, as it is more secure and scalable. The commands are quite easy to use in the open-source environment, and scaling up or down is simple. Overall, it is more scalable and security-wise, it is good, and after using many commands, I become familiar with them.

I am not an expert on Rocky Linux, but I do not have anything to say regarding improvements; I think it is doing better.

I chose a rating of eight out of ten because Rocky Linux must grow more; it is not as comparable to Red Hat, which is why I took off those two points.

I have been using Rocky Linux for a couple of years.

Rocky Linux is stable.

The scalability of Rocky Linux is very good.

We take customer support from Nutanix, and I think Nutanix support users are familiar with Rocky Linux, so I find the customer support to be very good.

Positive

I am not sure what solution we previously used before Rocky Linux, as I am new to the organization. I think they might have used VMware, but those were not on Rocky Linux, and the licensing cost was likely higher, which is why we changed to Rocky Linux in the Nutanix environment.

Rocky Linux is a product of CentOS, and I have experience using CentOS as well. I think CentOS and Rocky Linux are similar to each other, with almost all of the features being similar.

The pricing, setup cost, and licensing for Rocky Linux are favorable because they come bundled with the Nutanix environment, making the costs and licensing cheaper than the VMware environment, which is why we chose the Nutanix environment.

I have seen a return on investment, including money saved and time saved.

The pricing, setup cost, and licensing for Rocky Linux are favorable because they come bundled with the Nutanix environment, making the costs and licensing cheaper than the VMware environment, which is why we chose the Nutanix environment.

Before choosing Rocky Linux, I evaluated options based on cost.

My advice to others looking into using Rocky Linux is to go ahead and use it. I give Rocky Linux a rating of eight out of ten.

We use Rocky Linux as a big data platform, with a Solar, Apache setup having many nodes, in production just eight and two in test. We have an application server with Tomcat and TomEE, and we use it for the application server for this big database, Quadrant, Docker, and we have CUDA installed with Docker, using PySpark, Torsion, TensorFlow, and many other things. We use Rocky Linux for all, and I have installed Ansible and Prometheus to monitor all servers in production.We have a normal three-tier architecture and new things on Docker with PySpark, using it for enrichment and loading a million records of data in our database. We have a Spark node with Apache Spark; it's part of our big data, similar to Hadoop big data.

The best features Rocky Linux offers include clustering and all the packages from Red Hat.

Rocky Linux has impacted my organization very positively because we migrated everything from CentOS and Windows servers to Rocky Linux. Everything is clear, with good packaging, and now it's version 9.6, which is very important for us due to security problems since we are in Europe. Rocky Linux is very good for security and other aspects.

Since migrating to Rocky Linux, I've seen specific outcomes such as improved security because CentOS stopped the project, and security patches aren't being released. We need to maintain a system similar to Red Hat, which is very stable and has many features such as file system, topology, and containers.

Rocky Linux could be improved by having more integration with Kubernetes.

I started using Rocky Linux two years ago because we migrated many servers from the CentOS distribution, and now we have all servers migrated by me in Rocky Linux.

When I started to migrate, we had Ubuntu as another choice to move from CentOS, but Ubuntu is a little different, and the best way is to maintain Rocky Linux. We used Rocky Linux, and now we are very happy with it; it's a very good choice, and I think it's very powerful, making it an excellent option with 17 VMs using VMware and many instances.

I give Rocky Linux a nine out of 10 because ten represents perfection, perhaps similar to a real-time operating system such as those used in airplane computers.

My advice for others looking into using Rocky Linux is to choose it, especially for people coming from CentOS; I suggest Rocky Linux as the best option, not any other distribution.

My company has a business relationship with this vendor as a partner.

My main use case for Rocky Linux is to use it as an enterprise server OS, providing a production-grade server platform equivalent to RHEL, running critical workloads, ERM, CRM, database servers like PostgreSQL and MySQL, and supporting broadcast and media workflows, where it serves as a stable OS for encoding, transcoding, and streaming platforms like Haivision and other OEM encoders, ensuring predictable performance for low-latency live streaming and content packaging workflows.

My use case with Rocky Linux also includes web and application hosting, cloud and virtualization, media and streaming workflows, serving as a stable foundation for live encoders, packagers, and CDN nodes; we use it with platforms such as Titan Live, Near-live, Haivision, and Wowza for OTT delivery, high-performance computing, and security-sensitive workloads.

The best features Rocky Linux offers include being 100% bug compatible compared to RHEL, providing enterprise stability for production workloads, meeting the need for reliability and long-term support, and being managed by the Rocky Enterprise Software Foundation, with its security and compliance features and migration tools making a significant difference for us.

Rocky Linux performs excellently in low-latency live streaming and content packaging workflows, as we use it for optimizing compatibility with the streaming platforms, utilizing an optimized kernel for networking, tuning profiles, IRQ affinity, security, reliability, and hardware and driver support.

Rocky Linux has positively impacted our organization; it works reliably and enhances our low-latency streaming workflows for our affiliates, performing well without noticeable glitches in our workflow. Since we started using Rocky Linux, we have drastically reduced low latency, especially across the public network, and we haven't seen much downtime, significantly decreasing downtime for the servers accommodating low live streaming workflows.

Rocky Linux could be improved with API-based tools that would help our streaming environment be monitored using DataMiner. Having REST API or SNMP-based protocols would be beneficial, as we want to integrate Rocky Linux for monitoring with our DataMiner platform.

I have been using Rocky Linux for three years.

We haven't tried to scale Rocky Linux since we recently started using this solution, but in the future, we definitely plan to scale as per our needs.

Rocky Linux is up to the mark; the solutions are really customer-focused and revenue-oriented, and the support level is extraordinary, providing on-time assistance, making it commendable.

Positive

The migration tools have been incredibly helpful; we use migrate2rocky.sh, a primary tool developed by the Rocky Foundation, which automates the conversion process of a compatible system to Rocky Linux, and applies it for log correlation and diagnosis of issues we encounter in our live streaming workflows.

Rocky Linux has a long-term life cycle for 10 years, being minimal and customizable, with performance tuning tools and an enterprise hardware ecosystem that stand out for our team.

My advice for others looking into using Rocky Linux is that if any organization is in search of a robust, stable, scalable solution in the broadcast media tech sector, they should definitely assess it, as they will likely achieve the desired results.

Currently, we are just a broadcaster and not a partner or reseller for Rocky products; however, in the future, we will explore a partnership for a B2B relationship.

We are currently satisfied with Rocky Linux, but if we encounter issues in the future, we will definitely highlight them.

I rate Rocky Linux 9 out of 10.

As a Cloud Ops Engineer, we are setting up the server on the EC2 machine with Rocky Linux, while also doing some setup related to the frameworks for Ruby. We are installing their dependencies related to the Ruby on Rails application and other security-level software such as Rapid7, CrowdStrike, and many more.

On Rocky Linux, we have deployed a Ruby on Rails application, and we have set up other applications as well.

We are not doing this stuff manually, as we have set up an Ansible automation script to set up all this stuff on Rocky Linux, and for the installation and server setup, we are using Terraform. Using Terraform, we are spinning up the instance on AWS EC2.

Rocky Linux provides us with extended maintenance, security patches, and support lifecycle aligned with RHEL, making it highly reliable for critical systems. For production deployment, Rocky Linux is a great choice because it offers full RHEL compatibility without licensing costs, along with strong community support.

If we are planning to migrate from CentOS, it was very smooth and straightforward, and we can follow their official document to migrate from CentOS to Rocky Linux. Rocky Linux 8 is supported until 2029, and Rocky Linux 9 is supported until 2032, which is a significant benefit.

Previously it was CentOS, which is already EOL, and now we have the latest packages and an up-to-date operating system, so we get the most benefit at the security level. Also, performance-wise, we are seeing improvement in the application and day-to-day operations.

I have no suggestions regarding how Rocky Linux can be improved. I haven't identified any areas that need improvement yet.

I have been using Rocky Linux for over a year.

Rocky Linux is stable in my experience.

Rocky Linux's scalability is very easy. Even if the server is not responding and we want to attach the volume on another instance or a temporary instance, it is very easy and straightforward with no hiccups.

I have not reached out to customer support for Rocky Linux. This has not yet been discussed with my security team, as this is recent, and the security team started checking on this.

We switched to Rocky Linux because our previous OS was EOL, and we had to switch to the new OS, so we chose Rocky Linux.

Regarding return on investment, we have chosen the same exact resource that we were using earlier, so there is no immediate return on investment. That needs to be identified if we can cut down our resources with a smaller instance, but that has not yet been figured out.

I notice money saved as a return on investment.

I didn't evaluate other options before choosing Rocky Linux.

I rate Rocky Linux a nine out of ten.

If you are using any other RHEL-based OS, Rocky Linux is very similar to other RHEL operating systems.

I see some performance-related issues, but we are still checking on that, and we don't know if it is related to the OS or the resource; that is something still to be checked from our end.

I would recommend doing a POC on your existing application or use case with Rocky Linux. If it works smoothly, then observe it for a few periods, and if it works properly for your application and whatever your use case is, proceed with implementation. Each application and use case works totally differently, so if it works for some applications properly, it's not a given that it will work for every application. First do a POC, and if it works properly, then you can proceed with implementation.

Hybrid Cloud

Amazon Web Services (AWS)

I am responsible for virtualization and networking, and other services related to the systems including Linux and Windows, but the security part is actually the responsibility of the French team in our headquarter.

Currently, I am dealing with Linux systems. We were on Red Hat Enterprise Linux and because of the license system, we have changed to use Rocky Linux and AlmaLinux.

Rocky Linux is suitable for our needs. We haven't specialized applications, just managing our network. Here we construct a model of infrastructure independent which must respond to the needs of our client, and we make tests. These are tests for VBS and some electronics that are made and developed here. It's an experimental infrastructure with many dynamic changes and many needs from our project manager. With our team, we can provide support as needed. We have a very good team with high skills in Linux and development, and it works correctly with no enterprise cost or enterprise license. At the same time, we have to conform to ISO 27001. We try to have the latest patch management, and we try to use some open source centralized platforms to manage or supervise what we have.

We are using Rocky Linux on servers including Cisco UCS M5, M4, and we have some Dells 750, 740, with high-performance computing tasks. We have stronger servers.

Rocky Linux is quite good for us and for the nature of our business. By using Foreman, Katello, for example, the management system and repository for patch management is very quiet and very good for our business because we don't need more.

Until now, we haven't had any problems with integration of Rocky Linux with other products in my system.

We haven't needed technical support for Rocky Linux, but I think because of the complexity and the number of VMs that we have, we can consider going for a support contract. It's not a bad idea because, while we haven't encountered very difficult problems, with the complexity of the network infrastructure, we need to be supported by the editor.

If I find something which is strong with virtualization with Rocky Linux, it's an alternative that I can study and spend time learning about, trying it, making tests, validating, and perhaps ultimately migrating.

We haven't implemented Rocky Linux container management yet, but we have an idea to find an alternative solution to VMware because of the license model. To migrate to a solution, we need to improve our skills for the first step, and for the second step, we must be able to support the developer teams. What I'm sure about is that we are looking for a solution for virtualization in order to migrate our VMware platform.

One year ago, we switched to version 9.4, Alma and Rocky Linux, and now we are on 9.5.

I cannot answer how Rocky Linux frequent updates have aided our organization in staying secure because it's not under my responsibility, but what I am sure about is that in the next three years, we will continue to use Linux.

I cannot judge if Rocky Linux is complex to use for the first time or if it is intuitive because we use very simple applications such as DHCP, DNS, ICS. I don't remember encountering any difficulties because the infrastructure is for tests and is not an enterprise infrastructure. We haven't deployed LDAP or Active Directory. We don't have this kind of complexity or mail servers. For storage, we are using the Dell EMC storage device hardware, Unity. We don't have the complexity to communicate with Rocky Linux or other systems with our storage network. Perhaps in the future, we might meet some difficulties, which is why I said it might be a good idea to have support for Rocky Linux.

The initial setup of Rocky Linux is easy. It's well done. For my team, we haven't found any problems in the first initial setup. We work with an image with which we can reconstruct what we need of the virtual component.

We were a customer of Red Hat for Linux distribution. We studied Rocky Linux and learned from documentation and information on the internet. It's the successor of CentOS, which we used for five to seven years. When CentOS reached end of support, we tried to migrate. We got two alternatives, AlmaLinux and Rocky Linux. It seems that Rocky Linux is more similar to CentOS than AlmaLinux. AlmaLinux is based on binary, and we identified some latency when using our application. Two or three servers are working on AlmaLinux currently, and all the rest was migrated to Rocky Linux.

The initial setup of Rocky Linux is easy. It's well done. For my team, we haven't found any problems in the first initial setup. We work with an image with which we can reconstruct what we need of the virtual component.

I would rate Rocky Linux seven or eight as a minimum.

We switched to Rocky Linux because of the license price, and in our business, we don't need to have a higher cost as that is not a good idea.

We studied Rocky Linux through documentation and information on the internet. It's the successor of CentOS, which we used for five to seven years. When CentOS reached end of support, we tried to migrate. We got two alternatives, AlmaLinux and Rocky Linux. Rocky Linux is more similar to CentOS than AlmaLinux. AlmaLinux is based on binary, and we identified some latency when using our application. Two or three servers are working on AlmaLinux currently, and all the rest was migrated to Rocky Linux.

I cannot understand the meaning of the question regarding whether we purchased Rocky Linux and AlmaLinux on the AWS Marketplace or somewhere else. I am not sure if we bought our current products on AWS Marketplace.

The problem with all products now is the manner of licensing. Even international or worldwide enterprises have difficulties with the cost of the new model of license in Cisco, Red Hat, and VMware. After the Broadcom acquisition of VMware, every time we ask for a budget, we have difficulties getting what we need. It's becoming difficult for enterprises. Even though I'm working for Sagemcom, a worldwide enterprise, they don't want to spend money on this kind of license if it is not needed.

Rocky Linux is popular in my region as it's a successor of CentOS. CentOS was very popular, so everybody that used CentOS and lost the support will look for a solution to substitute it. The nearest alternative to CentOS is Rocky Linux.

I would rate Rocky Linux a 7 out of 10.

Our main use case for Rocky Linux is to host servers and developer environments for leading telecom vendors.

The best features Rocky Linux offers, in my experience, include long-term support, stability, and one-to-one binary compatibility with Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

Rocky Linux has been a major driver for our cloud migration strategy and has proven to be one of the most cost-effective solutions for us, allowing us to save huge revenue while maintaining fantastic consistency with updates.

From a feature or experience perspective, it has been fantastic, but the only drawback we have seen is that even though there are timely deliveries of security patches and vulnerability fixes, the Rocky Linux Security Advisor or RLSA updates via the DNF utilities are broken or delayed. When we use the DNF functionality to search the affected RLSA or RLSA with CVE IDs, it's not working as expected, and the mirrors or the XML files need to be updated similar to Red Hat, which would help us keep our environment more secure and make maintenance easier. Otherwise, we have to do extensive research to identify the affected packages or RPMs with specific RLSA numbers.

I would like to see improvements in the security areas and updates of RLSA details as soon as the RLSA numbers are updated in the XML file. Security has been a major driver for IT organizations across the world and must be addressed at a faster pace. The unavailability of RLSA in the DNF search has been a major drawback that I would like to see improved in the future.

I have been using Rocky Linux for three years for our day-to-day use cases.

We have seen a stable Rocky Linux environment as of now.

Our solution does not currently involve architecture with scalability.

Customer support for Rocky Linux is excellent, and the documentation is also very good.

Positive

We were using CentOS previously, and as the lifecycle of CentOS was changed by Red Hat, we looked for an alternative, and Rocky Linux suited us best.

It has been a wonderful experience associating with Rocky Linux, and we would continue to use it full-fledged. I don't see that we have to choose any alternative OS in the near future.

ROI has been good as we have significant open source community involvement. In fact, we have increased our footprints, allowing us to onboard more resources or employees, which is a positive sign.

My experience with pricing, setup costs, and licensing for Rocky Linux is good and streamlined, with no hiccups.

Before choosing Rocky Linux, we evaluated other options including Ubuntu, Oracle Linux, and a few other flavors, but since Rocky Linux has one-to-one binary compatibility with Red Hat, it was the best fit.

Rocky Linux has been a ready-to-use solution for us, so we don't need to have vendor dependency or vendor lock for any support or help. The community has been a great help in resolving all issues, and while from a monetary point of view, it has resulted in significant savings, we cannot provide the exact numbers as some of this is company confidential.

There is not much need for further improvements at this juncture.

If you want to get a premium product with the best in-house community support, Rocky Linux would be the one solution.

On a scale of 1-10, I rate Rocky Linux a 9 out of 10.

My main use case for Rocky Linux is web hosting.

I have used Rocky Linux to host Drupal websites for my employer.

I don't have anything else to add about my use case or how I use Rocky Linux.

The best feature Rocky Linux offers is compatibility with Red Hat. This compatibility helps me because packages that aren't specifically available to the Rocky Linux repositories are able to be installed as long as the correct binary for the correct corresponding version of Red Hat and Rocky is selected.

Rocky Linux has positively impacted my organization by allowing us to migrate away from CentOS 7 as a result of the end-of-life for that operating system and then the end of CentOS 8, so we were able to move away from it without losing data and without having to rebuild VMs from scratch. The migration process went smoothly, with the main thing that stood out being the exchanging of repository links and the use of purpose-built scripts by our infrastructure and hosting team that took care of the heavy lifting.

I don't have specific suggestions on how Rocky Linux can be improved.

I don't want to add more about the needed improvements, even minor things or little annoyances.

I have been using Rocky Linux for a couple of years.

In my experience, Rocky Linux is stable.

Rocky Linux's scalability is good; it has handled growth or changing needs well considering that it was able to scale up our high availability environments for our web hosting services.

I haven't needed to reach out for help regarding customer support for Rocky Linux.

Positive

I previously used CentOS, and the reason for the change to Rocky Linux was because of the end-of-life of CentOS 7 and 8 since those distributions were being discontinued and we needed a platform to move to that wasn't going to cost us an arm and a leg for licensing.

I have seen a return on investment since there was definitely money saved at the time due to the lack of need for licensing since Rocky is available openly.

My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing has been that there was no cost associated with licensing for Rocky at the time because it was available openly and freely.

Before choosing Rocky Linux, we evaluated one other option, which was AlmaLinux, and we chose to go with Rocky instead.

My advice for others looking into using Rocky Linux is to be sure to look at tutorials on how to get started if they are new users to the Red Hat RPMs or if they are unfamiliar with Linux as a whole.

I think it's been a great operating system to use both professionally and personally, and I've been able to adapt Rocky Linux into my WSL environment on my personal computer running Windows 11 and WSL Rocky.

I found out about the interview through LinkedIn.

On a scale of 1-10, I rate Rocky Linux a 10.

My main use case for Rocky Linux is the user-friendly commands and being able to work much easier on the RHEL supported flavor as compared to other flavors whereby you have to ask for escalation when you want to install something or change file permissions or anything of that sort.

A specific example of how Rocky Linux has made things easier for me is that it has streamlined processes by not requiring privilege escalation all the time. Once I'm logged in as root, I don't have to escalate using sudo, which makes things much easier, especially since it's not a security risk when proper restrictions are set up in the perimeter with SSH and firewall rules and jump host, making it much smoother.

The best features Rocky Linux offers include not having to escalate privileges all the time, and it is binary compatible with RHEL systems, which means long-term support, making it much more predictable when it comes to updates. It also has a strong focus on enterprise workloads.

Binary compatibility and long-term support features have made things simpler because you can easily integrate the two systems with your Red Hat kernel. The long-term predictable updates make it a clear choice because I know that whatever I'm implementing now is guaranteed to receive updates in the long term.

Rocky Linux has positively impacted my organization by making things simpler, especially with not having to escalate privileges all the time using sudo as compared to Ubuntu flavors.

I've experienced less downtime in terms of having to focus on updates, which improves the security posture. Rocky Linux is compatible with automation tools, including Ansible, whereby we can deploy the infrastructure using code. It easily integrates with other containers and automation tools, making it easier to push updates, particularly security updates, and upgrade packages.

At the moment, I don't see much improvement that can be made to Rocky Linux. We work in IT and security is the main factor that we focus on, so perhaps more security control rules could be implemented. However, so far, I don't see much room for improvement.

I have been using Rocky Linux for three to four years.

Rocky Linux is stable.

In terms of scalability, you need to have automation tools.

The customer support for Rocky Linux is good, as it offers long-term support.

Neutral

I haven't necessarily switched. I used Ubuntu before, and we still use Ubuntu even in this current company along with Rocky Linux.

It is not difficult to deploy Rocky Linux in my organization which is set up on a private cloud.

I never worked on the implementation or pricing part, but I know that Rocky Linux is free, and I can download it and deploy it in whatever environment I have, whether it be H3C, VMware, or Hyper-V. I am not involved in costs.

Regarding return on investment in terms of time saved with automation, I wouldn't know about money saved as I am not in the finance department.

I never worked on the pricing part, but I know that Rocky Linux is free, and I can download it and deploy it in whatever environment I have, whether it be H3C, VMware, or Hyper-V. I am not involved in costs.

Before choosing Rocky Linux, I didn't evaluate other options.

My advice to others looking into using Rocky Linux is they should go for it. There isn't much difference compared to other flavors, and it is much closer to RHEL systems, so whatever commands you would use in your Red Hat, you would use in Rocky Linux. I rate Rocky Linux 8 out of 10.