Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Reviews

I use Red Hat Enterprise Linux for my infrastructure and OpenShift primarily for its Kubernetes capabilities.

I wanted to build infrastructure based on Red Hat for commercial distribution for data centers.

The built-in security features significantly simplify risk management and compliance maintenance for on-premises deployments. The well-documented and regularly updated features make it easy to find solutions to any issues we might encounter.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux boasts a top-notch knowledge base. Compared to other distributions, it offers comprehensive information for each iteration of the operating system. This information is categorized by Red Hat Enterprise versions – seven, eight, nine, and so on. Likewise, the documentation and knowledge base are further organized by platform versions, like 13 and 14. This clear organization makes it easy to navigate and find the information needed for troubleshooting or understanding specific features. Given the ease of use and depth of content, Red Hat's documentation gets an A+.

The uptime has been reliable, minimizing infrastructure impact.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux's security advisories typically notify system administrators of potential vulnerabilities, allowing them to prepare for patching easily.

The most valuable feature is the OpenShift platform.

The high cost of Red Hat Enterprise Linux has room for improvement. The high cost in terms of a platform is problematic.

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

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is stable. 

The scalability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux depends on its deployment environment. In a bare-metal setup, scalability is directly limited by the hardware server's capabilities. Similarly, virtualized deployments are still constrained by the underlying hardware resources. However, when RHEL is used within OpenStack, the Red Hat OpenStack platform can manage both virtual machines and workflows, enabling horizontal scaling by adding more nodes to the OpenStack cluster. In this scenario, the number of chassis in the infrastructure becomes the primary determinant of RHEL scalability.

The technical support is responsive and efficient, with a streamlined ticketing process. When troubleshooting hardware issues, their technicians typically check relevant files to diagnose potential problems with the chassis or related components.

Positive

I previously used Canonical in other open-source projects and pushed for a switch to Red Hat because of my familiarity with it in past projects. My current employer does not utilize Red Hat Enterprise Linux because of the high cost.

The deployment complexity is based on the project and the architect of the particular solutions. There are scripts that we can use to perform the upgrades or migration. The number of people required for upgrades or migration depends on the size of the solution. For a small solution, we can automate and don't require any people. If we are using a third-party solution already in place we can achieve the same goal without a large team.

The combined cost of implementing in hybrid and cloud environments to fulfill all our client's needs can be considerable.

There are only three distributions that offer commercial support. Red Hat Enterprise Linux, Canonical, and SUSE. It all comes down to the cost for each organization.

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

The amount of people required for Red Hat Enterprise Linux maintenance depends on the type and size of each project.

Red Hat already provides tools to maintain up-to-date migration plans. These tools can not only identify which components require upgrade but also preserve any already installed elements. Additionally, Red Hat offers a web-based solution for managing upgrade processes if required. However, we can choose alternative options: implementing the solution ourselves or employing open-source software for upgrades. I see no significant challenges with utilizing Red Hat tools for the upgrade process.

I recommend evaluating all the available solutions that offer the tools that Red Hat Enterprise Linux offers and comparing their functionality and cost to avoid issues after purchase.

We are moving toward a microservice architecture and using OCP4 as a platform. We run most of our APIs in OCP ports, so the base image is always Linux. It's a Linux image, and we add our own dependencies. We have a private and public cloud, so it's a hybrid cloud system, and we rely on on-premise data centers as well as the cloud. 

Red Hat Enterprise Linux supports our hybrid cloud strategy because we can have Red Hat Enterprise Linux on the public and private cloud, improving compatibility. 

If the compatibility is high, it's easier to move and migrate. If I have some components on the private cloud on Red Hat Enterprise Linux and components on the public cloud. 

Red Hat Enterprise Linux stands out for its stability and support, which are critical for enterprise applications in the finance sector. We don't want any downtime, so we need fast support and quick issue resolution. 

The main security feature is the regular patches and updates. When we do a security scan, there should be patches readily available. Security is essential in finance, and Red Hat Enterprise Linux helps us build a solid IT infrastructure foundation. 

I've used the Red Hat Enterprise Linux Web Console to configure the products. It's a nice tool with an intuitive interface that gives you a better picture of what you're configuring. It's helpful. 

Red Hat Enterprise Linux should be available in a free version that developers could try on their own machines before deciding to implement the enterprise edition. It would be nice to have a community version available with all the features so developers can become more familiar with Red Hat Enterprise Linux. 

I have used Red Hat Enterprise Linux for more than nine years. 

We haven't experienced any major outages or downtime. Most of our issues are quickly resolved. We don't typically upgrade to the latest and greatest because we want to ensure stability, and we have a lot of the components on the old system. We wait for a while to upgrade so we can see the most widely used and most stable version. 

I rate Red Hat support eight out of 10. 

Positive

We had Satellite and Red Hat Enterprise Linux from the beginning, but we also use other flavors like Amazon Linux. 

I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux nine out of 10. 

My primary use case for it is to run Jenkins servers.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is critical for our operations. We use it for all of our Linux servers. 

It works. It's consistent. It's well-documented. These are valuable aspects to me. 

Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9 updates the Cipher Suites and the security proceeds it. I wasn't pleasantly surprised because a bunch of our server communication didn't work. Having the Cipher Suites updated is a good thing but was not convenient.

I feel positive about the built-in security features when it comes to simplifying the risk and reduction and maintaining compliance. I'm also a Windows Server administrator so, compared to my Windows Server experience, I have very positive feelings about Red Hat Enterprise Linux security based on how easy it is to keep things patched, up-to-date, and compliant.

Some of the repositories and some of the DNS versions are very old. I just deployed something using Ruby and the DNS stable repository was sufficiently old that the Ruby project I was using didn't work. 

I would like more transparency and better options other than using something like Ruby Version Manager. I'd rather be able to get modern, up-to-date versions from the base repositories.

We have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for ten years. We're on a bunch of different versions. We're anywhere between version six and nine. My personal project is on nine.

We still have Windows servers.  

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is very resource-intensive, and it's hard to secure because Windows, the base use case, is all things to all people. 

I generally like Linux server products. I like the way they specialize, and I like the default security posture.

We have a hybrid environment. We do have some things in the cloud. We're using both Azure and AWS as our cloud providers.

I was involved in the process of migrating our Jenkins servers to Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9. It was not straightforward or complex because we changed a lot of things about our deployment. We tried to improve and streamline, and in the process, we broke some of our pipelines. 

It was not smooth, but that was not necessarily because of Red Hat Enterprise Linux, except for some of the security upgrades. We could not use the old RSA keys that we were using with RHEL 6 with RHEL 9. This meant that we either had to loosen our security by allowing legacy keys or tighten things down. We chose to tighten things down.

Another challenge is that we have some old Red Hat Enterprise Linux applications that are running on very old versions. We are trying to get everything off of RHEL 6 and 7 and onto RHEL 9, but there are a few applications that are stuck on RHEL 6 for various reasons.

We are getting rid of all of our Linux servers, so the biggest challenge right now is migrating our applications to RHEL 9.

When it comes to provisioning and patching, it is pretty manual. The company uses VMware, and the process is pretty manual and involves a certain number of shell scripts. I know we're trying to adopt Ansible, but we're not very far along.

I've had a very positive experience with Red Hat Enterprise Linux. My only point of comparison is Ubuntu, which I use for personal projects. 

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is a solid enterprise product with a greater emphasis on security. However, Ubuntu Server is easier to use in many ways compared to Red Hat Enterprise Linux. This may just be a matter of familiarity, but I find it easier to get current versions of Ruby with Ubuntu than with Red Hat Enterprise Linux. 

This is based on my somewhat limited use, but it's my impression nonetheless. That's what keeps it from being a ten out of ten.

We use RHEL for high-performance computing. We host most of our production servers in our data center. Red Hat is a great package that helps us customize most of the data and dependent packages we receive from the Red Hat operating system. Most of our server requirements are being managed with Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

We mainly use Red Hat for our application deployments, standalone servers, and VMs.

We use this solution in a university. Most of the production servers and applications are required for the students.

We've seen a benefit in hosting servers and email security. RHEL provides excellent results and performance. It helps us achieve our goals for scalability and services.

We normally run crontab to keep our servers up-to-date. It works well with Red Hat Enterprise Linux because it has an advanced suite of features that can be effectively used for production servers. 

It also has RPM Package Manager, which includes most of the tools and utilities that every organization needs to have.

There is portability in the applications and containers built on Red Hat, which keeps our organization agile. Enterprise Linux offers flexibility in terms of dependent packages.

Red Hat Linux definitely enables us to achieve security standard certification. Most enterprise solutions need to comply with security standards. Many Linux-based operating systems fail to provide security because of open-source techniques.

Most of our production servers fail to deploy in Linux. When we deploy in RHEL we don't think about security because it has a lot of features like policy management. We can give specific access to specific users who require SSH or Telnet. It's more flexible because it can be altered easily.

We have used many Linux-based operating systems for production purposes, but this is the only solution that guarantees performance and scalability. When we run industry servers, they demand high performance.

It has great software support because it has a wide range of tools and utility products in the database. It's relatively easy to use enterprise products, and we don't need to add packages from other third-party sources. They definitely have a good database.

Red Hat's built-in security features simplify risk reduction and maintain compliance because Linux is mostly open source. We're running most of the production servers in this operating system, so we don't require a third-party solution because RHEL has a great range of security products with an inbuilt firewall. The inbuilt firewall is highly dependable and we can customize rules for outbound and inbound traffic, and specific accesses can be quickly returned in the script files. It has a great command line.

Red Hat allows us to build with confidence and ensure availability across physical, virtual, and cloud infrastructures. It already has a reliable operating system. Most companies rely on it for deployment on cloud and on-premise. With cloud, they prefer Red Hat because of the high-performance computing cluster.

It has great support for VMs and unlimited VM support. It's being deployed in our data centers and other large environments. It allows us to streamline the management of our infrastructure and makes it possible for more than one hundred servers and VMs to run, and it's up to date.

Red Hat Linux enables us to achieve security standards certification.

The graphical user interface should be more user-friendly. It's a concern because the command line is perfectly fine.

I have used this solution for five years.

It's very stable.

It's definitely scalable because we're deploying it in our VMs.

Technical support is satisfactory. There are forums that are also useful.

Positive

We used CentOS. It's a different setup than Red Hat. CentOS is also a Linux-based distribution. CentOS is open-source, so we don't need to pay for it. Compared to CentOS, Red Hat has advanced features but the cost is still high, so it's problematic for medium-level customers.

We switched to Red Hat because the service providers like high-performance computing. We mostly have high-performance computing deployed in our data center. We needed Enterprise Linux as a minimum requirement. Red Hat Enterprise Linux supports high-performance computing solutions, and packages have to be installed from their repositories. That's a must for any IT enterprise organization now.

CentOS is an open-source solution and provides 70% of the features that Red Hat provides. We pay Red Hat for the repository and application support.

It has a great set of dependable packages, software, and a collection of utilities embedded in that operating system. We don't need to get apps from the repositories. There aren't a lot of errors in the Red Hat operating system, which makes it useful for our system administrator.

The initial setup is very easy. It took about four or five hours.

The solution requires maintenance and constant updates.

Implementation was done in-house by a team of three people.

The pricing and licensing are a bit higher for Red Hat Enterprise because we're able to get 70% of its features with the CentOS version. For the 30% of features that Red Hat provides, I think they need to reduce the licensing fee.

I would rate this solution as nine out of ten.

My advice is if you're actually testing, you don't need to go with this solution. If you're an advanced Linux user or server administrator, you will definitely require Red Hat because many of the latest solutions require dependency-based repositories. It will be very easy if you're active with this operating system.

This has a set of repositories built into the database. We don't need to go anywhere to set up all of the databases and repositories. Everything is embedded into the solution.

If you're looking for HPC and NVIDIA clusters, most of the supercomputers need to have the solution, so it's better to have it equipped with that.

I use Red Hat to run applications like Apache, MySQL databases, etc. It is suitable for data storage and firewall. I can also measure performance with the SAR tools and do all I need with the Linux stack. I run several server farms, community applications, and more. Multiple teams use it. We have a hybrid setup, but we try to keep the use cases separate for each, so they're not transiting that much.

RHEL has made it easier to create, view, and update pools. We spin up a new one when necessary. We can quickly bring one down and move the traffic over, and it's a lot simpler to keep, update, and manage our application.

The solution has helped us achieve security standard certifications. Having the reporting on Ansible and other management components helps. We have a dashboard we can use and a blueprint to assist with the container. RHEL's toolkit helps us see which versions are running, so we can keep it lightweight. Also, having a newer base image ensures we have a standard. We always get what we're expecting. 

It helps us centralize development and move DevOps forward. They have a lot of support from multiple providers. I like having that standard. It makes it more straightforward for our developers to do troubleshooting here and there. The pipeline and support from the Red Hat team made a difference.

Red Hat support is pretty good. They're online, so you can look up things once you have support. Their AB integration has improved. It's easy to manage storage for moving, syncing LBM, etc.  

Red Hat excels at built-in security. There are lots of new security features in terms of profiles, email, using satellite, and disabling root login. They've got modules and built-in Ansible features. You can customize how it remediates, and Ansible will tell you what's out of compliance as you add rules.

Their container platforms are among the easiest to manage. Once you're done pre-testing, it is easy to migrate after you deploy in a sandbox. They have their inbox IDE and the like. 

I also think it's great that you can use one payment management system if it works correctly. You can see your overall footprint from both sides together on one screen.

I would like Insight to include some features from OpenSCAP, which they offer for compliance services. I played with it a little bit, but haven't gotten the updated setup to get that. It creates excellent documentation.

I have been using RHEL for 10 to 15 years.

RHEL is one of the more stable Linux platforms. 

RHEL is pretty scalable and easily rentable.

I rate RHEL support a nine out of ten. We can do captures to easily show them the issues we're having, and their response times are above average.

Positive

We had some smaller setups with this where we had some room for development, but now we're trying to standardize everything using smaller footprints, and not having to manage more workspace stuff. Now we're pretty much in RHEL and working on that.

RHEL was already there when I joined the organization, so I inherited it. In terms of maintenance, we try to keep it up to date. 

RHEL's price seems to be consistently changing, depending on what you're after. We might need a more extended license to lock in a price if it keeps changing. It would be nicer if it stayed steady within a specific range, but it's negotiable. We try to negotiate, and maybe a more extended contract would be better. 

When comparing to other solutions, you must consider the reporting and security features. It's an expense that we need to pay in terms of compliance. When you talk with your partner companies or potential customers, they need to know that we're on the ball and keeping up.

We have considered other solutions, but we see the added value from Red Hat, and there are many more features, so we must have support. I'd say we didn't do too much evaluation. We liked Red Hat from the get-go because they've got backing from IBM now. Also, they have started their own server- or container-oriented stuff. It helps to consider if we'll ever work with just Red Hat on AWS, given the ease of spinning things up.

I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux a nine out of ten overall. I don't think RHEL is exactly perfect, but it's a trusted, easy and well-supported solution. They are constantly improving and trying to make it easier. 

I work for a consulting company, and we have many customers using Red Hat. They use it both on-premises and on the cloud for various applications, including enterprise applications and manufacturing certificates.

We selected Red Hat Enterprise Linux for our workloads due to its excellent support, enhanced stability, reliable update cycle, and strong community.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has enabled us to centralize development and manage a hybrid model with on-premises and cloud deployments. It comes with built-in features that allow for efficient management of applications using tools like Ansible.

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux for containerization projects, and one of our recent projects is in the manufacturing sector, specifically on the shop floor, where the latest MES software relies on containers. OpenShift is a valuable solution in this scenario, enabling the use of existing hardware. For instance, if a user already has a VMware hypervisor, they can deploy VMs, utilize them as worker nodes, and build an OpenShift cluster on top of that existing infrastructure.

Red Hat is used both on-premises and in the cloud. By enabling Red Hat Enterprise Linux VMs with Azure Arc, we gain a single management pane for both environments, allowing us to apply policies, check for compliance and vulnerabilities, and more. This unified approach simplifies management and enhances security across our entire infrastructure.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has consistently performed well for our business-critical applications. Its stability is evident, as many trading applications rely on this Linux-based operating system globally. Red Hat Enterprise Linux is also widely perceived as more secure than other operating systems.

It offers robust built-in security features.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux, particularly with tools like Ansible, has significantly reduced risk in our environment. Ansible enables continuous deployment, streamlined patching, and efficient management of Windows and Linux VMs from a central location.

The portfolio helps reduce our total cost of ownership because our enterprise applications are typically based on its subscription model. This includes application support, vendor support, and other associated costs, making it a cost-effective solution.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux provides a stable operating system, and OpenShift enhances efficiency with a built-in Ingress controller, unlike some managed Kubernetes services.

There is a steep learning curve, especially for users from a Windows or GUI background, because of the command-line interface.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for over ten years.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has proven to be a stable operating system suitable for business-critical applications like trading applications worldwide.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux scales beautifully as our needs change.

The customer service is good, but there is room for improvement, especially in terms of continuity when handing over between support personnel.

Neutral

The stability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux, especially with OpenShift, provides a significant return on investment. The built-in Ingress and efficient management interfaces add to its benefits.

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

Red Hat Enterprise Linux customers typically begin AI integration by experimenting with chatbots or virtual assistants to improve productivity. However, a comprehensive business case outlining the use case and value proposition is crucial to secure sponsorship and justify a more extensive implementation.

I recommend considering the support system and available resources when choosing an enterprise Linux distribution. Red Hat, for example, offers a vast partner ecosystem, certified applications, and a subscription-based support model. Its open-source nature, strong community support, and extensive field experience contribute to its popularity. Furthermore, Red Hat's large developer base and significant code contributions demonstrate its wide-reaching impact and robust development.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux serves a variety of purposes in our organization. Initially, we used it for web hosting and web application support. We've since expanded its use to banking, where it serves as the foundation for our applications, and to containerization projects utilizing Podman.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has brought uniformity and standardization to our workflows, providing excellent support enhanced by using Ansible. This has allowed us to centralize development and standardize all our systems.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux enabled us to centralize development by providing a standard system used across the board. This streamlines development by consolidating our efforts into one system with a single template for deployment and maintenance.

We are successfully using Red Hat Podman for containerization projects without any negative impact.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux's support and broad community assistance minimize the effort required to reduce risk, maintain business continuity, and ensure compliance.

Red Hat's container platform enhances organizational agility through the portability of applications and containers. Its centralized approach, which consolidates all resources in a single repository, streamlines operations and reduces management overhead. This robust system simplifies maintenance and ensures consistency across the platform.

My favorite feature is Ansible.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux could improve its communication slightly, but even that is already quite good. They could become the most efficient solution by focusing on improving areas where there is always room for enhancement.

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

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is stable.

Regarding scalability, it's enterprise software, so we can make it as big as we want.

Red Hat's customer service and support are excellent. For example, when we experienced instability with IBM DB2, their support team helped us optimize the system for our specific use case and implementation.

Positive

Before I started with our company, they used CentOS. Later, they transitioned to Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

The greatest return on investment from Red Hat Enterprise Linux is the support received.

Companies considering open-source systems are often startups or those seeking platform flexibility. Switching to Red Hat Enterprise Linux due to subscription costs can be a significant financial step.

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

While Rocky Linux is a viable open-source alternative to Red Hat Enterprise Linux for those seeking a cloud-based operating system, a Red Hat Enterprise Linux subscription offers numerous advantages beyond the operating system itself and may be a worthwhile investment, depending on budget.

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux for model bases and websites.

We chose Red Hat Enterprise Linux for its robust security and reliable support, which are critical for our government healthcare department and require 24/7 operation.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has enabled us to centralize our development by consolidating all our servers in one location using VMware and deploying a single instance of Red Hat Enterprise Linux across that infrastructure.

It provides stability to our containerized workloads.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has performed well for our business critical applications.

The built-in security features are great. We have never had a security breach in our Red Hat environment and receive monthly updates.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux enhances our system's security by providing monthly updates, including critical security patches, significantly reducing our overall risk.

Itcontributes to our business continuity and compliance efforts through its stability and rapid issue resolution.

We use Red Hat Insights to ensure compliance with any Red Hat product integration.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is helping to reduce our total cost of ownership, and our planned shift to virtualization is expected to further decrease TCO.

Red Hat's support is valuable for our employees who are new to OpenShift.

I'm seeking a streamlined method for migrating from an OpenShift environment to a VMware virtualization platform utilizing Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

The price of Red Hat Enterprise Linux always has room for improvement.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for 15 years.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is stable.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux offers scalability as long as licensing compliance is maintained.

The Red Hat technical support is excellent.

Positive

The greatest return on investment from Red Hat Enterprise Linux is the skilled support it provides to our application teams.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is expensive, particularly for governments operating with limited budgets.

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux an eight out of ten. While it is open source, which typically means ongoing improvements, there are still some minor details that could be refined.

When choosing between a third-party Linux OS and Red Hat Enterprise Linux, consider the workload. Less critical workloads that don't require 24/7 operation can utilize various third-party options. However, for stable, secure, and mission-critical systems demanding 24/7 uptime, Red Hat Enterprise Linux is the optimal choice.