Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Reviews

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.

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux for just about everything in my company. Our use cases stem from three-tier applications up through cloud deployments, Kubernetes, containers, etc. Prior to this, I worked in an enterprise as a Linux engineer.

Being able to onboard faster is definitely an advantage to other Linux systems. In the enterprise, we had an onshore and offshore model. Our offshore model was hard to get onboarded into Linux, even if they said they had Linux experience. There is a big difference between managing one or two systems in your basement to managing a fleet of Linux systems, and that does not always translate over. Having a Linux system that has a cockpit with it where you can give someone a GUI, even though the engineers do not really use it, helps onboard new people into the enterprise, into their jobs, and into their roles a lot faster.

We have a lot of really smart people. They are constantly figuring out ways to do things better and faster with Red Hat Enterprise Linux. The openness of it and the ability to create whatever we want to create or have to create to make our actual job easier has given our operations people more time to focus on the things they need to focus on, and not the nitty-gritty of the operating system. Tuning becomes super easy. It is scriptable. It is easy to automate. That gives them all the time back in their day to be able to go solve cool problems and not infrastructure problems.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has enabled us to centralize development. All of our developers get their own developer environment, and that is all based on containers and some version of Red Hat Enterprise Linux. It depends on what they are at and what they are doing. So, we build and give it to them. They are up and running, and they just go. We have some legacy guys who are still helping our customers with older versions. Those people exist. I talked to someone earlier who still has a Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4 deployment out there.

When it comes to security and compliance, I like firewalld to do things at the host level and to complement what we are doing out in the enterprise with next-gen firewalls and things like that. I have had SELinux enabled on my systems and in my enterprises since it was available. It was a little bit of a learning curve, but it has helped to keep our systems as secure as possible. It complements well with what security groups are doing for the rest of the enterprise.

The portability of applications and containers built on Red Hat Enterprise Linux is great for keeping our organization agile. It is fantastic. We can run them on-prem. We can run them in the cloud. We can move them wherever we need them at the time. If something has to go to the edge for any reason, such as a bandwidth issue or an on-prem issue in the data center, we can push those workloads out. We could push all those containers to where they need to run and when we need to run them. It is super easy to do.

I have not used Red Hat Insights for long, but when I was a Red Hat Insights user, it was the first place I stopped to see what was going on and be able to quickly address and fix issues that Red Hat Insights found.

Red Hat Insights provided us with vulnerability alerts and targeted guidance. In terms of their effect on our uptime, we were able to plan our maintenance windows around what we were seeing in Red Hat Insights. We had the visibility and the ability to go in and plan things out. We could plan what needs to be done and then make that change and say, "This is what we are doing. Here is the playbook for it. We are going to run this in tonight's maintenance window." That prevented us from having to take machines down during the day because we found something critical at that time.

The features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux that are most valuable to me, both in the enterprise and now as a partner, are the enterprise features. We are able to have a Linux system that is open-source and that allows us to do domain trust IBM and all that fun stuff. We have a good solid enterprise Linux.

It is not broken. Linux is Linux. It has been since Torvalds created the kernel back in version one of the kernel. We have added more features. More things have come to Linux and kernel. All the AI stuff is a bunch of buzzwords. In the keynote today at the Red Hat summit, Chris Wright talked about lightspeed coming to Red Hat Enterprise Linux. What do we need that for? What are we doing with AI? Just the stability of it is fine. If anything cool comes out, I will be the first to check it out. It is a stable platform. It is a workhorse, and that is how we use it.

However, there should be training materials for new enterprises that do not cost an arm and a leg. Red Hat training is phenomenal, but it is expensive. There has to be a better way to onboard new engineers into Linux to really and truly compete with Microsoft. Microsoft is just easy. Everyone uses it. You have to use it in school, and you have to use it everywhere. From an onboarding perspective, we can improve and have an affordable training solution for someone who might not want to be an RHCE or an RHCA but still needs to do their job. It is not Linux's fault. It is what it is. It is a workhorse. It does its thing, but we can do better to enable customers to utilize Linux better.

I have been using it since Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4. It has been about 20 years.

It is super stable. When Red Hat comes out with lightspeed or integrates SELinux, there are no huge rollbacks. Once it makes it downstream in Red Hat Enterprise Linux, you know that is going to work. Everything has bugs, and we get that, but we know it is going to work. We know that nothing terrible is going to happen to our production environment, so stability is fantastic.

We can roll out more machines if we need more machines. We pull machines back if we do not need them anymore. One of the things that is lacking is that currently, there is no way to have ephemeral Linux instances for compliance month or your audit month. If you have to bring up a hundred machines, you have to pay for that upfront. That might be changing now, but in terms of scalability, that is a detriment to how smaller organizations can operate. Not everyone can absorb that cost. It is very scalable, but the pricing is a little prohibitive for scalability.

Their support is awesome. Their TAMs are awesome. The technical support that you get is awesome. There is the ability to attach yourself to bigger customers. When you are a small enterprise and you have an issue, you sometimes filter to the bottom of that list because there are other way-bigger customers who are way louder than some of the smaller ones. Being able to talk to your team and ask how to get a problem fixed is phenomenal. They are able to look at the backend and go, "Oh, there is a large telco that is having the same problem. I am going to add you to that one." From a customer service standpoint and tech support specifically, engineering has been fantastic.

The ability to talk to the people out in the community who work for Red Hat and maintain all of that, from the open-source side and the closed-source side, is amazing. A lot of people do not realize that they can jump on Slack or other platforms, and they can talk to the guys who are responsible for it and figure out what is going on. Sometimes, they ask to open a case, and other times, they say that they know and they are fixing it. Having that accessibility is amazing. You cannot call Microsoft and ask them to let you talk to the engineer who made X, Y, or Z.

Positive

I have been using Red Hat for 25 years.

We are using Red Hat Enterprise Linux everywhere. We are using it on-prem. We call it the fourth cloud, so we have our own cloud like every enterprise does. They might realize that or not. We are using it everywhere. We have it at the edge, in the cloud, on-prem, and hybrid. It is the whole nine yards.

Our deployment strategy is to make it work and get it out there fast. We use all three cloud providers: GCP, Azure, and AWS.

Its deployment is super easy. Once you know what you need, rolling out Red Hat Enterprise Linux is super simple. You just go and repeat until you need to change something and then you change it.

We are using OpenShift to deploy Linux containers for a virtualization competitor migration. We are using it to migrate workloads from that vendor to Red Hat Enterprise Linux, so we have Linux running in containers to do their virtualization. We are running Red Hat Enterprise Linux containers as well for some workloads, but for the bootable container aspects of it, we essentially have a VM. This is how we use it there, and then everything else is pure containerization. It is not Red Hat Enterprise Linux-specific.

We take care of the deployment for customers. 

When I was in the enterprise, we did not take external help. We did all of that in-house.

We have seen an ROI but not specifically with Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Red Hat Enterprise Linux is the workhorse. Everything else that supports Red Hat Enterprise Linux is where you get your ROI. When you take Ansible, you start automating all of your configurations. You take Insights, and you are getting those playbooks to remediate security issues and all that fun stuff. That is where you get a return on your investment. That is where you see your engineering dollars go down and they can focus on other aspects of the business. That is not specific to Red Hat Enterprise Linux. It is the whole ecosystem.

I have had sales folks who have been transparent with the pricing, and then I have had other ones who were not as great. Most of those ones that were not as great are not working for Red Hat anymore.

From a pricing perspective, there is supportability. What you get with that support is the ability to open a case before you do something. You can tell them that you are going to be upgrading your Satellite system or all Red Hat Enterprise Linux systems and that you need a case open. They open a case, and then when the day comes, they are there. They are ready, and they know what is going on. The price point for that is phenomenal because you are paying for support. From a pricing perspective, it is on point. It is definitely a value-add, and it is extremely transparent from a customer standpoint.

I have evaluated other solutions. Manageability is the main difference. I have successfully ripped out other solutions in enterprises that I went to and replaced them with Red Hat. They had large fleets and no centralized management. When you come to Red Hat Enterprise Linux, you have the Red Hat Satellite server. You have Red Hat Insights. You have all of those things that help you manage large fleets and a large number of Linux machines. When you evaluate other solutions, they have some centralized management now, but that was not common previously. It is kind of a hodgepodge. They are stitched together with all these other solutions, but it does not make sense. In one case, they jammed Linux into their management platform used to manage databases, and it did not work. How do you manage a thousand machines on some busted piece of management software?

If a colleague is looking at open-source, cloud-based operating systems for Linux instead of Red Hat Enterprise Linux, they should go for something based on the use case. They have to look at what they are trying to do and what they want to do. They can get away with Fedora, for instance, but the question for me always comes down to supportability. Do they want to be able to call someone and say, "This is broken. Help. Hurry," or do they have the skills in-house to do that? Most companies do not have those skills. They have one or two very good engineers, but they cannot fix everything at the same time. If they want portability, then they should not look somewhere else. They should go to Red Hat Enterprise Linux because they have the Red Hat name behind it.

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux an eight out of ten. There is always room for improvement in a product. Tens are unicorns. No one gets a ten. Maybe if Jesus made an operating system, he would get a ten.