Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Reviews

Our primary infrastructure operating system is Red Hat Enterprise Linux, predominantly RHEL Eight. While some products utilize RHEL Seven, RHEL Eight point Zero is the standard for most of our operating systems and servers. However, server choices may vary based on specific industry requirements. Our underlying infrastructure relies almost exclusively on Linux distributions.

Our primary Linux installations use Red Hat Enterprise Linux in an on-premises VMware environment, with some instances deployed on AWS.

The built-in security features simplify risk reduction by allowing direct control of the root system's access.

Red Hat's knowledge base is excellent.

While Red Hat Leapp and Insights are helpful tools, they are not part of my daily workflow.

The web console is a good feature.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux enhances uptime and security, boasting faster boot times than other operating systems.

The most valuable feature of Red Hat Enterprise Linux is its security, which is more secure than Windows. 

Integrating certificates from third-party clients into Red Hat Enterprise Linux can be challenging due to the operating system's stringent security policies.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for nine years.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is stable.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is scalable.

The technical support team was professional and quickly resolved our issue.

Positive

We use Oracle for our database, Ubuntu in our testing environment, and Red Hat Enterprise Linux in our production systems due to its increased stability.

The cloud migration from Red Hat Enterprise Linux Seven to Eight was straightforward due to the absence of underlying infrastructure complexities. However, the on-premises migration presented challenges from existing infrastructure dependencies, resulting in numerous errors.

The migration of approximately 200 servers required a team approach to ensure continuous monitoring. Although two people could have completed the migration, a four-person team completed it within two days. 

The migration from Red Hat Enterprise Linux Seven to Eight was done in-house.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux offers a compelling value proposition for corporations due to its robust support infrastructure, which is essential for maintaining enterprise-level systems. However, the pricing model may be less attractive to individuals or small businesses. Compared to cloud-based platforms like AWS or Azure, which offer flexible pay-as-you-go options, RHEL's subscription-based model can become cost-prohibitive for those with limited budgets or smaller-scale projects.

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux nine out of ten.

We utilize Ansible to provision and patch our extensive server infrastructure. Ansible's automation capabilities enable efficient batching and management of security patches across all servers.

We test all the patches for some time before we add them to our production environment.

We utilize Red Hat Enterprise Linux in our private cloud and on-premises environments, but I've observed better performance in the cloud, likely due to the greater availability of resources.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux does require maintenance.

Most of the applications I work with, including our primary enterprise-level application, necessitate the robust capabilities of an enterprise-grade operating system. Therefore, we utilize Red Hat Enterprise Linux to ensure optimal performance and stability for these demanding applications.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is praised for its exceptionally precise documentation, which greatly aids in the learning and implementation process. Troubleshooting is straightforward, and solutions to any arising issues are readily available through a simple Google search.

For provisioning Red Hat Enterprise Linux, tools like Terraform and Ansible are commonly used to automate the process on a base machine. While Terraform handles various provisioning tasks, Red Hat provides its software for patching, although OpenSCAP is also a strong alternative for effective patch management.

Our organization uses Red Hat Insights, leveraging its user-friendly single dashboard to monitor all aspects of our systems. This centralized platform has proven invaluable for maintaining an overview of our infrastructure and ensuring operational efficiency.

We often use the Red Hat Enterprise Linux web console for things like viewing system performance and logs, managing user accounts, and configuring network settings.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is robust, stable, and well-documented compared to the open-source versions of Linux.

I find the most valuable aspect of Red Hat Enterprise Linux to be its ease of customization. The operating system allows for the simple addition of kernels, modules, and other applications, making it highly adaptable to various needs.

Red Hat has several areas ripe for improvement. In the Asia Pacific region, where cost-optimization is highly valued, Red Hat's support and subscription costs are perceived as high and could be reduced. While their security documentation is comprehensive, some solutions lack open-source availability or training resources, unlike platforms such as Ubuntu. Furthermore, the quality of documentation and training sessions, particularly for OpenShift, could be enhanced. Addressing these issues would strengthen Red Hat's offerings and better serve its customers.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for about nine to ten years.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is extremely stable.

When Red Hat is involved in virtualization or OpenStack, moving from one virtualization platform to another becomes easier. However, when scalability is needed, it depends on the underlying infrastructure security, which is part of Red Hat import.

Communication quality is very good. I find very helpful people in the support section, and the Red Hat portal is robust for main solutions and support. When I receive support, I often find very interesting solutions.

Positive

I previously used CentOS, Ubuntu, and Debian, among other Linux distributions. However, with the growing popularity of containerization technologies like Kubernetes and Docker, solutions like Red Hat OpenShift are becoming increasingly common, particularly in regions like Bangladesh, India, and the Asia Pacific. That is why we are using Enterprise Linux.

The initial deployment and migration of Red Hat Enterprise Linux are straightforward, particularly for cloud-based solutions. However, on-premises migrations present a slight challenge due to the complexities of CVS solutions and potential application compatibility issues. This can involve numerous parameters that require careful consideration. My lack of experience with Red Hat's migration tools may have also contributed to the perceived difficulty.

Red Hat could gain a competitive advantage in the Asia Pacific region by adjusting its pricing strategy. Lowering the cost of enterprise-level offerings could attract organizations seeking operating systems or Kubernetes solutions, as these tools are essential for many businesses in the region. This adjustment would make Red Hat a more appealing choice compared to competitors with potentially higher pricing.

I have not found another operating system that matches Red Hat Enterprise Linux; it receives a perfect score of ten out of ten.

The Red Hat Enterprise Linux upgrade process is generally smooth. However, patching occasionally causes issues, typically due to application incompatibility or bugs in the updated packages. This necessitates restoring from a backup to maintain functionality. While this is a recurring problem, the infrastructure itself remains stable throughout the process.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux serves various functions, including operating system tasks, satellite management, and OpenShift deployments. Additionally, we utilize Red Hat's Insight and Subscription Manager products.

Our organization utilizes Red Hat Enterprise Linux, both on-premises and in the cloud. While we maintain on-premises systems, certain departments also leverage Red Hat Enterprise Linux in a cloud environment. As the license manager for Red Hat in our organization, I can confirm that we have a substantial number of Enterprise systems operating in the cloud.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux offers key benefits for enterprise management, including features such as patch management, resource isolation, enhanced stability, and improved performance through automation. Unlike its earlier versions, Red Hat now provides these functionalities out-of-the-box, eliminating the need for extensive scripting and streamlining administrative tasks. Red Hat introduced an online patch management system in Red Hat nine, similar to what AIX offered years ago. This system, which likely will be included in Red Hat ten and eleven, allows for online patching without requiring a reboot. This is a significant advantage for enterprise companies who cannot afford downtime, making Red Hat an even more attractive option for them.

Looking beyond a Red Hat-centric view, hybrid cloud computing significantly enhances customer service. Whether through new service offerings, modernized workflows, or improved scalability, automation, and high availability inherent in cloud solutions, the benefits are clear. Furthermore, Red Hat Enterprise Linux provides stability, avoiding the reboots and challenges often associated with Windows environments. Therefore, hybrid cloud adoption is a strong strategy for enterprise companies, offering substantial advantages.

To enhance future development centralization, our development teams are transitioning to Red Hat Enterprise Linux on our development servers.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has robust built-in security features that effectively contribute to risk reduction, business continuity, and compliance maintenance. Red Hat demonstrates a solid commitment to security by providing timely updates and fixes to its customers. While the operating system itself is secure, it's important to note that Red Hat Enterprise Linux provides a foundational image that requires further hardening through the implementation of security controls. Red Hat empowers users with a platform and a range of hardening options, enabling them to tailor security measures to their specific application needs. Furthermore, Red Hat's rapid release of fixes and updates, often within a day or two of a vulnerability discovery, ensures that customers have access to the latest security enhancements.

The portability of applications and containers built on Red Hat Enterprise Linux fosters organizational agility by enabling a continuous cycle of learning, trying, adapting, and iterating. Containers offer a streamlined approach to development, allowing for rapid deployment and effortless updates. If a containerized application doesn't work, it can be quickly destroyed and recreated with updated components, significantly reducing deployment time compared to traditional methods. This rapid iteration aligns perfectly with agile principles, enabling organizations to respond swiftly to changing needs and requirements.

Red Hat Satellite provides patching information and compliance percentages for our systems, but in a multi-departmental enterprise environment, Red Hat Insights offers a more comprehensive view. Insights synchronizes data from Satellite and provides a centralized platform to monitor compliance across different application sectors. This addresses the limitation of Satellite, which may not be accessible to all stakeholders. Insights' API-based functionality allows integration with ServiceNow, creating a single pane of glass view of compliance for various teams. Furthermore, the Insights client provides granular visibility into vulnerabilities, further enhancing transparency and management capabilities. This integration streamlines compliance monitoring and improves overall efficiency.

Red Hat Insights provides vulnerability alerts and guidance. While it doesn't necessarily affect uptime, the severity of the vulnerability determines the response. High-severity vulnerabilities require immediate evaluation to assess their impact. Multiple security layers within the environment may mitigate immediate risks. However, vulnerabilities should be addressed promptly. Insights enhance transparency and provide detailed information for timely action.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux offers many features I appreciate, especially the increasing maturity of the operating system and its automation platform. The automation platform, in particular, has significantly evolved over the past three years. Satellite, now known as Insight, is another excellent product, providing easy and convenient patch management for both managed and unmanaged systems. Its reporting on users, vulnerabilities, and other key information is also quite valuable. Having used Red Hat since version three and now working with versions eight and nine, I'm consistently impressed by its progress. The preview of Red Hat ten looks amazing, and I plan to implement it soon after its release.

The area of improvement is patch management, specifically isolating kernel and operating system patching to prevent downtime for enterprise applications.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for 20 years.

Red Hat Enterprises Linux is stable, and improvements are constantly made.

We are not extensively using the scalability features, but the documentation and technology are growing.

I am generally happy with Red Hat's customer service and technical support. There are challenges with different time zones, but overall, the service is satisfactory.

Positive

Red Hat Enterprise Linux offers a straightforward pricing and licensing model. The subscription manager provides clear visibility into license usage and facilitates tracking usage growth over time. Although the tool is still under development, Red Hat is actively collaborating with customers to improve its features and functionality. The subscription manager enhances transparency by enabling accurate tracking of license consumption and ensuring alignment with customer needs. Red Hat Insights, working with the satellite, further strengthens transparency by automatically calculating and reporting license usage. This comprehensive approach simplifies customer license management and promotes clarity in supplier relationships.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is a solid operating system, earning an 8 out of 10 rating. While no OS is perfect, and there's always room for improvement, Red Hat effectively meets the evolving demands of the business market.

While numerous open-source operating systems are available for development, enterprise-class companies require the stability and support of enterprise-level solutions. Red Hat Enterprise Linux bridges this gap by offering a forum for feedback and collaboration, allowing users to directly influence feature improvements and updates. Red Hat Enterprise Linux effectively combines the flexibility of open source with the robust support and reliability required by enterprise-class customers, unlike many other open-source operating systems that lack this level of responsiveness.

Our focus is on the enterprise support and open mindset Red Hat provides, looking to customer benefits and services.

We use it for SAP applications. We use it for web hosting, and then we use it for clustering.

We were previously using Windows Servers, but we had challenges with the compatibility with SAP applications, the support, and the frequency of patches. We had compatibility challenges when we wanted to go for an upgrade. We use the SAP HANA database for SAP applications, and the migration process from Windows to Linux was easy. We also got better support. While troubleshooting issues and doing RCA on unplanned events, the support we received from Red Hat was good.

Because of the reduction in compatibility issues, the number of downtimes was reduced. The escalations were reduced from the application side. The frequency of the patching was reduced, so such planned activities were reduced. With Windows, we were forced to go for patching even if the application was not ready for patching. Red Hat Enterprise Linux is a good platform for SAP applications and the database in our organization. We prefer Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

Patch management with the Red Hat Satellite server is also good. When it comes to automation, the automation tool for regular tasks on Windows was very backward compared to the Red Hat automation tool that we are now using. Red Hat Ansible is far ahead. We could automate many more tasks on-premises using the Red Hat platform as compared to the Windows platform.

Red Hat Insights helps us understand vulnerabilities and avoid any downtime and risks. If needed, we can easily reach out to the Red Hat support team for any help related to patching or changes.

The knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux is very good. It is easy to understand. It is not too technical to understand. New users and application support teams can easily understand the information given in their knowledge base.

Initially, we used to do installation and patching manually, but we later implemented the Red Hat Satellite server, which was suggested by their team. We started using the Red Hat Satellite server. It has made deployment, patch management, and lifecycle management very easy.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has affected our system's uptime. Earlier, the downtime was around six to eight hours, whereas now, it has come down to one hour. We also need less manpower for upgrades.

The file system is very good. We also have flexibility. We can scale the file system and add the mounts on the go without any downtime.

On Windows, for security, we need to have many applications and supporting tools installed externally whereas we get them with Red Hat Enterprise Linux without any issues. Application management is also easy compared to Windows.

Build management is also easier than Windows. When we had to deploy an application on Windows, the process was difficult compared to the Red Hat build process.

If someone wants to build automation, we can give them access to Red Hat Ansible Tower, which was not possible with Windows.

There can be a faster resolution. When we have production issues, they take around 30 to 60 minutes to come up with a solution. It would be quite helpful if their response is faster. They are also not reachable over the phone, so we need to wait for their callback for the ticket. If they are reachable over the phone, that will be quite good. Our account manager is reachable over the phone but only during certain times. Fast help would be quite helpful in the case of any urgent issues.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for the last nine years.

For reliability, I would rate it a ten out of ten. The downtime that we have is not because of the OS. That is generally because of the dependencies such as the network or VMware infrastructure.

I would rate it an eight out of ten for scalability.

We have around 4,000 users, but the Red Hat boxes that we use are around 2,000. 

In the case of any unplanned events, system crash, or something else, we get proper answers from their team. They help us with RCA, which is helpful in avoiding any such events in the future. We can also approach them when we want to implement something. When we were moving from version 7 to version 8, their support helped us. We could move a bulk of machines with a small downtime. The application team was quite happy because the downtime was for a very short duration.

Their support for urgent or production issues can be faster. I have had all kinds of experiences with their support. I have worked with their support for the last four or five years. We have had scenarios where we had to close a ticket with no resolution. We have also had an awesome and quick response from them. They have also helped us build up a process, which was quite tedious. Overall, I would rate them an eight out of ten.

Positive

We were previously using Windows Servers. We had challenges related to compatibility, support, and patch frequency. We were not very comfortable with Microsoft's support. Whenever we had any issues, they only asked us to reboot or wait for the patch. They kept giving us some patches. We were not comfortable with that because the applications were not ready for those patches, but they forced us to keep updating them with the patches. Red Hat support is better than Microsoft support. They do not just ask to reboot to solve an issue. They help us with a proper RCA.

We have hypervisors in the on-prem environment. We use VMware on that. We are using Red Hat Enterprise Linux on bare metal and hypervisors. It is quite comfortable. We do not see any issue with either of them. Initially, we had some issues implementing the cluster on VMware, but Red Hat along with the VMware team helped us overcome the issues.

Its deployment was quite straightforward. There was no confusion. It took us some time initially but that got reduced with the help of Red Hat Satellite and Ansible Tower. Initially, it took 30 to 40 minutes for deployment. With the help of Red Hat Satellite and Ansible Tower, it came down to 15 to 20 minutes. We also needed less manpower because the process was quite straightforward. Previously, we had a team of four, but the number was reduced afterward. 

Upgrades are generally quite straightforward because we have spent some time with Red Hat support and built a process for easy upgrades.

We had some challenges with the upgrade from Red Hat Enterprise Linux version 7 to version 8 because of certain dependencies, but the Red Hat support helped us build a process and automate it. It took some time, but it got easy.

We have not used Red Hat Enterprise Linux Image Builder. It did not match our requirements. We built our own images. After moving to the Red Hat Satellite server, image building was quite easy.

It is not fairly priced. If they can reduce the price, it would be nice. 

I understand that they do not have any big competition as of now. SUSE Linux is there, but Red Hat Enterprise Linux has overcome all the drawbacks that it had earlier. Initially, SUSE Linux was a quite comfortable platform for SAP applications, but Red Hat has improved in terms of development. Its kernel suits SAP applications very well. If they can also improve the pricing, it would be even better. They generally do not reduce the price, but they give add-ons. We can get licenses for the Satellite server, Ansible, etc.

I would recommend Red Hat Enterprise Linux because of its support and reliability. In my career, I have worked with various Linux flavors such as Red Hat Enterprise Linux, CentOS, or Ubuntu Linux. Overall, the Linux platform is very reliable for most applications. With Red Hat Enterprise Linux, we get support when we need it.

We do not use the web console much on the support side, but the application team does use it once in a while. They find it comfortable because, for application deployment, they require a GUI. We provide them with the console, and they complete their task. We do not use it ourselves. We are quite comfortable with the command line interface.

Overall, I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux an eight out of ten.

My main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) at this company include the development environment, where the dev environment is all in Linux. It's a server where you connect to via PuTTY, and it's currently running on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 7.

My favorite feature of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is that it's a Linux server with Linux commands. These features have benefited my company by making it feel lightweight. If you know Linux commands, you can connect to it and still be able to navigate within that Linux environment. The benefit is that if you onboard a new developer and they know Linux commands, they could just jump on it immediately.

From a user standpoint, every time they do an upgrade or they bring down the Linux server, I have to re-clone all my repositories. Perhaps they could just migrate them over so I don't have to do all that cloning again, because I have three different repos that I have to clone. This has happened twice. I am uncertain how Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) can be improved beyond this.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) at my company for two and a half years, ever since I started.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped mitigate downtime and lower risk for what we use it for because we use it to host a Docker container and for the development environment. From my standpoint, it has been beneficial because we're using it as a development environment to test out new features, which helps mitigate unwanted bugs.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales with the growing needs of my company because there have not been any issues with deploying different servers.

I have worked with Goldman Sachs and Bank of America, and they all use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for their Linux servers. I haven't heard of any other solutions being used, though I haven't worked on the DevOps side to set up these systems. In all the environments I've used that are Linux-based, it has been Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 6 or Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 7.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps solve pain points by being very easy to connect to, and it has an easy setup, though I didn't set it up as the DevOps people handled that.

I don't manage the Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems when it comes to provisioning and patching; there's a DevOps team that handles that. When there is an upgrade, they handle all that after work hours. They bring everything down and then bring up the new servers.

My advice to a company that's thinking of getting Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is, as a user, go for it. I don't know any other product besides Linux and Ubuntu, but I think Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is good. 

On a scale of 1-10, I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a 9 out of 10.

As an end user and a trained engineer working on field development, I am required to use a Linux-based system for all aspects of our work. This includes everything from logical design to design verification, and physical design, all the way to integrating data into the silicon database at the foundry. Since all of this occurs in a Linux environment, I must ensure we have the right platform in place. The performance we achieve with the tools we use can vary significantly across different platforms. Additionally, the support provided by these platforms is crucial. In the field of silicon design, we rely heavily on electronic design automation (EDA) tools, which are continuously being enhanced. As this area evolves, it’s essential for our operating systems to keep pace with the migration of the latest tool versions. If I become stuck with an outdated version of the OS, it can adversely affect my productivity and the quality of my designs. Therefore, I need to be reasonably familiar with various operating system providers and understand the pros and cons of each. This includes comparisons between Red Hat, SUSE, and Ubuntu, which is essential for meeting my requirements.

Since it is widely used, I believe the knowledge base is fairly good. In my own organization, which has three vertical companies, two others were already using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for production. They were asking me to go with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) unless I had a compelling reason to go to SUSE or Ubuntu. This indicates that the IT team within my company preferred Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for support and documentation purposes. The company has been around for more than a decade, so familiarity might be one reason, or resistance to change may have been another reason to stick with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). In my role as the design manager, I have not heard anything negative about Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

My decision to go with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) was influenced by three main factors:

1. The IT team’s familiarity with Red Hat due to its previous deployment in other units.

2. Competitive pricing, which was 25 to 30 percent lower than other options.

3. The perception that Red Hat offered long-term service pack support for an additional fee; something that other providers like SUSE may not have offered.

Ultimately, the first two reasons were strong enough for me to lean towards Red Hat.

To some extent, I am speculating, but at the end of the day, the main thing we care about is how the resources are getting scheduled and utilized. Without an external load-sharing application, the number of cores in our servers and the memory should all be utilized effectively. If they can do very good dynamic resource allocation, maximizing the number of cores and the memory without external applications, that would be beneficial

Additionally, this is not just for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), but for any OS - I would really love to make sure that their security features are robust and getting updated regularly. I believe at a given point of time, they may be very good, but hackers are also improving their techniques. I would definitely expect Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) or any OS provider to constantly monitor, understand if there are any new vulnerabilities in their OS, and provide patches or fixes so that we are always guarded from any security threat because what we are developing consists of very important IPs that have to be protected from malware attacks.

The most important thing is that it has to be stable. If it is not stable and we have to reboot it because of something, that would be problematic. The kind of tools it provides natively is important. For example, if I am doing development, I want to have a checkout process. If they have well-developed documentation and the ability to work with the code itself, along with good support for developing, then the performance of the OS would improve. If I see that one of my runs for any workload is taking five days, I immediately question why it is not completing within a day. If the load sharing is not happening correctly, there might be switches or features that the OS provides that can help use more memory or similar resources. Being developer-friendly would be beneficial. One thing managers hate is nasty surprises, so even if something is not working in the OS, it should provide some ability for IT to observe potential issues three or four weeks in advance.

I have only been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for a short duration of time, about six to eight months because the migration happened very recently.

I am working for a startup company. We used to use open source SUSE because that was kind of easy to use and we did not have to spend many dollars. When we reached the point where we had to go to production, we needed to ensure we were using something more reliable because open source is open source. When I go to a newer version or a production version of the OS, some of the designs we are developing will be around because our startup is focusing on accelerators for the cloud. Some of these can be around for seven years, 10 years, and beyond. Hypothetically, even after 10 years, somebody who is using our silicon can find a bug, and we are obligated to fix it through software or other means. If we do not have the OS support at that point in time, because 10 years is a long time, it becomes problematic. When we go towards production, the kind of analysis that I do involves determining how many years this OS is supported and whether they will support it for an extended period, provided I pay them extension money. I am an end user, and I try to look at the facets of the OS based on my current business needs.

When we were using Ubuntu, I initially found it sufficient for my EDA tools under the evaluation licenses I had. However, as I progressed into silicon design and needed to purchase production licenses, I realized that the older version of Ubuntu wasn’t adequate. The question arose: if we were to upgrade to a paid version of the operating system, which one should we choose? I conducted some research comparing Ubuntu and Red Hat, and ultimately decided to go with Red Hat. Once I made that decision, I simply needed to explain my reasoning to my IT team, stating that I wanted to upgrade the twenty or so servers I was using to Red Hat 9.1, or whatever the current version was at that time. They took over from there.

We experienced some initial challenges when we moved to Red Hat, mainly due to the tools' versions. At first, we struggled to navigate these issues, but once I contacted support, they were able to resolve them quickly.

The maintenance is handled by the IT team.

Most of the studies that I did were between Ubuntu and Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). I did not check extensively on SUSE Enterprise.

I was inclined to choose Red Hat for a couple of reasons. First, the IT team’s familiarity with Red Hat was crucial since it had already been deployed in other areas of the organization. This existing knowledge made the transition smoother.

Additionally, I did not inquire about pricing immediately because, ultimately, my business unit would be responsible for the costs. I recall that the price for Red Hat Enterprise Linux was less than one lakh rupees per license per year. The annual cost might be around 1.2 lakh or slightly more, but it was certainly under that threshold. Furthermore, I believe that if we were to negotiate for a larger number of licenses, we might have received a better rate. Regarding the initial pricing I received, I remember it being about twenty-five percent lower per license per year compared to other options. 

For my use case with EDA tools, Synopsys EDA tools' local AE team said that support in India is better for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). Additionally, Ubuntu and SUSE support for 10 years, whereas Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) supports for 10 years plus an extended two to four year period for a cost. Since our chips will be in the cloud market for at least a decade or more, this long-term support influenced my decision.

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) an eight out of ten.

My main use case for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is server management and cloud operations.

I use RHEL for server management and cloud operations to perform multiple tasks, such as user access management, user management, patch management, and troubleshooting.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) offers multiple features that are really accessible and stable, providing security and compliance, hybrid cloud compatibility, enterprise-grade container support, task automation through cron jobs, and an overall good platform.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has positively impacted my organization through automation, as my recent task saved a lot of time by reducing the work from months to a day using scripts developed in RHEL, thus boosting our productivity and cutting costs while empowering a skilled workforce, enabling scalable and secure infrastructure, and fueling innovation and digital transformation.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) could be improved with a modernized knowledge base and documentation, better performance under high load, and possibly a reduction in the cost of the professional subscription. Apart from that, I don't see much need for improvement.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for more than five years.

In my experience, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is perfect in terms of stability.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) handles increases in users, applications, or data smoothly, which is why we use it for all our projects, as it provides us with confidence. We also use Amazon Linux, but primarily it is RHEL.

I have reached out to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) customer support multiple times, and I've found the experience amazing, as issues get resolved in a lesser time compared to Amazon AWS.

I have majorly worked on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) only and did not use a different solution before switching.

We have seen a return on investment with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), having saved a lot of money and time due to the automation and scripting we perform, resulting in savings on man-hours as well.

I have mentioned earlier that the pricing, setup cost, and licensing for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) could be reduced a bit, indicating a scope for improvement there.

Before choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I evaluated other options like SUSE and AIX, but I don't think any of them are better than RHEL.

We do a lot of automation using Bash scripts. In a recent task, I had about 2,500 to 3,000 EBS volumes that I needed to change from GP2 to GP3 and calculate their throughput and IOPS, which would have been impossible manually due to time constraints, but we accomplished it with a Bash script thanks to RHEL. It's really very useful.

My advice for others looking into using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is that everyone working on Linux should at least give it a try because it's a great platform.

On a scale of one to ten, I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) an 8.5 out of 10.

The main use cases with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for me are hosting Oracle databases, Oracle server database, and MariaDB. When we need to install Oracle, we put it on Linux, and it usually was Santos in the past. Then we moved to Oracle Enterprise Linux or Red Hat, and when Oracle released the Linux distro, we moved to Oracle because the devices are really open source.

Some of the best features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) include stability; it doesn't break. Stability, along with management tools and users for management tools that they add to the Linux distro, are important. The main reason is stability. In the server area, we don't want change. That's why we're trying to move back to Debian, because Debian is stable—old, but stable. 

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) does help save time because the setup and general installation experience is very optimized and well-established. I made tests installing and setting up radioactive environments for virtual machines, and it was a very good experience, fast.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is for on-premises only; we try to avoid the clouds as much as we can. In Brazil, we are seeing an interesting movement with small cloud providers because Amazon, Google, and Microsoft are too expensive. I am noticing the rise of many small companies that build small data centers and offer cloud services to small companies. They prosper with a better price and a simpler solution—not a fancy data center with sophisticated security. Just a small space with a decent Internet connection and a stable energy source, and they are good to go. People are prospering with this model of small cloud providers.

The main difference between Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and some of the others that I'm evaluating now is that Red Hat tries to use more recent packages. The problem with Debian and some of the stable distributions is that they are too conservative, and they keep the version progress very slow. I sometimes develop and create things that need more recent packages and libraries, and with Debian, I usually struggle with that. Red Hat usually provides the new ones—stable, but new. That's one of the best features of using Red Hat. Ubuntu also upgrades some important libraries from Debian.

I have used Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for more than fifteen years, because we have some infrastructure on it.

I assess the knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as excellent; they have a great technology base on their website, but it requires a subscription. You might think you get free access, but I really don't prefer it. I usually find other sources. I know they have a very good knowledge base with excellent documentation, but I usually don't get access to it. I have not reached out to their support, so I do not have any personal experience with Red Hat support. The support that we really use from time to time is Oracle. My clients use the Oracle database, and they all pay for support. We use it because my partner, who is an Oracle database administrator, frequently deals with problems with Oracle and uses their support, and it works very effectively.

Positive

My thoughts on the deployment with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are that it's easy, there are no problems at all. It's very easy, including in the cloud; they offer many partners, and it's really easy to move your loads to the cloud with Red Hat. I believe it's easier than with Microsoft. However, my clients usually do not get involved with this; most of them are Microsoft-based.

The ROI with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is useful if the company requires accountability or a formal contract, because they usually need someone involved in some kind of accountability process when lawyers get involved. Only in that situation does it make sense to pay that price. Usually, companies that are required by law to have licensed products, such as banks and insurance companies, have obligations by law. This is especially true in Brazil, where the insurance market is very regulated. It makes sense for these companies to have a license contract, particularly in the case of security leaks and similar issues.

My experience with the pricing or licensing for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) indicates that our clients never chose to purchase a license. I watched the prices a few months ago while considering buying one for myself, and they were expensive; it's not a reasonable price, especially for small companies. The business value of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is compatible and on the same level as other Linux distributions I have used. They all charge the same for their products. I usually don't see much difference. When I compare the price of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) to that of Windows, they are basically the same price, just a little cheaper, a small fraction. All of these big corporations try to squeeze the clients as much as they can. The only exception is Broadcom, which seems to try to charge an absurd amount for their products.

My clients all have their own firewall solutions and network security solutions that they purchase. We usually don't deal with that. We just keep the built-in firewall running, and that's all. That's the main feature that we use on Red Hat and other distros, the built-in firewall. 

Security Enhanced Linux (SELinux) is something we do not engage with. Last week, I tried to install a new version of Oracle Enterprise Linux from Red Hat on an old HP server, Gen 5, but it did not work; I needed to go back to Ubuntu. Ubuntu, even in the new version, uses a kernel that works on old hardware, so we have to deal with this situation. If you have old hardware and need to repurpose an old server, you can't use these new distros. Even Oracle does not work with very old equipment, more than ten years old. 

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