Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Reviews

Our memory-intensive applications run on Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

We opted for Red Hat Enterprise Linux for our workloads due to its stability and the comprehensive support provided.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has enabled us to centralize our development to some degree.

We use it in containerization projects for workloads that need to run in private clouds, as it simplifies the process of shipping them as containers. The advantage of this approach is standardization, while the disadvantage is the necessity of shipping the container itself. Deploying containers on a platform like Kubernetes running on Red Hat Enterprise Linux may require some extra steps for scalability, but it is not a significant obstacle.

I appreciate that Red Hat Enterprise Linux, as a foundation for hybrid cloud deployments, is a commercial solution with reliable support.

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

We extensively use Red Hat Enterprise Linux's built-in security features because they are excellent.

Red Hat Insights has significantly helped us reduce risk in our environment by allowing us to identify which CVEs are impacting our systems.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux contributes to business continuity and compliance efforts by simplifying OS migration. Its generational upgrade path allows for easy transitions between versions, streamlining the process and reducing potential disruptions.

The time saved during audits and the ability to map CVEs using Red Hat Insight are valuable security benefits.

It helps avoid emergencies stemming from security issues, non-compliant settings, or unpatched systems.

Red Hat Insights provides the tools for proactive environment management. For example, it simplifies patch verification by confirming the desired automatic patching functioned correctly in one fleet, suggesting its likely success in the next. This clear visibility makes it easy to monitor ongoing operations.

Red Hat's portfolio helps lower the total cost of ownership for our enterprise landscape by providing reliable documentation that simplifies troubleshooting and reduces the need to resolve issues from scratch. 

Red Hat Insights provides good visibility and proactive management of our environment.

The primary issues are related to integration. Red Hat Insights utilizes several APIs that lack proper communication, resulting in inconsistent results.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for about four years.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux itself doesn't have issues. It performs well for our business-critical applications.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux scales quite well, allowing us to adapt as needs change.

While the support is generally good, prompt attention often requires escalating issues or marking them as high importance.

Positive

Red Hat Enterprise Linux saves time with good documentation and other benefits.

The licensing is a bit odd because we need to procure the licenses from a third party. We prefer a pay-as-you-go model with monthly increments instead of buying licenses in bulk that expire in a year.

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux an eight out of ten. While it has occasional bugs and software flakiness, updates are regularly released to address these issues.

To ensure your operations are compatible across different operating systems, prioritize OS agnosticism. Unless modifying the OS is a core function, consider a commercial solution like Red Hat. Although cost-effective, Red Hat may not be suitable for all companies.

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux to maintain our systems, manage our user logs, and monitor our storage.

The fact that Red Hat Enterprise Linux is stable has led to more enterprises wanting to use it. All the updates are current from a security point of view. So, the fact that we are one-managed or subscription-managed through Red Hat Enterprise Linux keeps us secure.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux's built-in security features simplify risk reduction and help maintain compliance, which gives us peace of mind.

The knowledge base of Red Hat Enterprise Linux depends on the end user. However, the information is always there, and the most reliable information is from the Red Hat system.

We have a dedicated server for provisioning and patching, and I am satisfied with how it works.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux's Image Builder and System Roles improve our productivity by increasing efficiency.

The Web Console is helpful because we use it to monitor and record users if we choose to, as well as check our system to make sure everything is up to date and we are current with the latest patches.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux helps us be more compliant.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux's ease of use in a controlled system, especially when dealing with constant repository updates, is valuable.

From a monitoring standpoint, we have Splunk, which is more versatile in monitoring data files, and Nagios, which can monitor multiple instances via Windows or Linux servers and different boxes. If Red Hat Enterprise Linux can improve its monitoring capabilities, that would be helpful.

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

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is stable.

I have not submitted any support tickets because we can find all the answers we need from the RHEL community for minor issues.

Positive

Red Hat has been the industry standard for most companies, but sometimes, organizations will run a Windows server and Active Directory alongside it.

The critical difference between Red Hat and Windows lies in their user interfaces. While both share a similar underlying structure, Windows offers a graphical interface for easy interaction, while Red Hat relies on command-line prompts. This makes Red Hat a more secure environment.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux helps improve efficiency, reducing vulnerability and, ultimately, a higher return on investment by minimizing IT costs and downtime.

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

We have between 100 and 200 end users. Red Hat Enterprise Linux is deployed in a standard, dev, quality, staging, and production environment.

Maintenance is minimal for Red Hat Enterprise Linux. We only deal with updates and patches.

We use the solution for server operating systems and to automate other systems. We use the tool for Windows automation and Linux automation.

The support we get from Red Hat is really good. When we have questions, there's always somebody we can approach and get an answer from. In my experience, Red Hat Enterprise Linux is more stable than Windows. The solution's ease of management is better, and it's much more powerful when you know the command line.

The most valuable feature of the solution is its stability.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux's built-in security features do a really good job of risk reduction, business continuity, and maintaining compliance.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux, Ubuntu, CentOS, and Fedora are the main Linux systems. Ubuntu is the only enterprise-level OS with paid support because a lot of the work we do requires paid support contracts.

The solution's front-end GUI is not great and could be improved. It needs to be more intuitive if it's meant to be used as a desktop operating system replacement. I don't know how to describe it better, but OS X and Windows feel a lot more polished than Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux in my current organization for two years. However, I have been using the solution in general for ten years.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is an extremely stable solution.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is a scalable solution.

The solution’s technical support is very good.

Positive

The solution's initial setup is seamless and easy. We tried different things, but the easiest way we found to deploy the solution was to use VMware. We had scripts to download and install the tool.

We implemented the solution through an in-house team.

Once everything is set up, the solution is generally very stable. While other operating systems require a lot of maintenance, Red Hat Enterprise Linux is pretty hands-off once you properly set up and configure it.

Overall, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

When we are looking for Linux servers or developers need Linux, we have standardized around Red Hat Enterprise Linux. We do not use Ubuntu or any random flavors of the day. If it is a Linux deployment, it is Red Hat.

It helps with standardization. If someone comes to us and requests a Linux server, we have one product offering. We have a couple of different flavors of it, but people know what they are getting from us. The consistency, reproducibility, and standardization of it have been fantastic.

We are using Red Hat Enterprise Linux on-prem and on the cloud. We have it in Azure, VMware, and on-prem. We have it on bare metal. It is all over the place. Our operations are simpler, more efficient, and easier to handle. Our Linux team now supports one OS rather than a whole bunch of flavors that everyone has brought in. It has just made things more efficient and simplified.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has enabled us to centralize development. Those developers are now developing on Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Previously, we had people who were developing on Ubuntu and trying to push Ubuntu to production, but we did not necessarily support it. Red Hat Enterprise Linux gave us a clear path to production. Our developers also get an easier experience. They know which OS to use and what they are using from day to day. There is less confusion for developers.

We are using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for containerization projects. It has helped with simplification. We do not have to create too many of our own custom container definitions and do our own thing. We use minimal images and whatever is provided is supported under our subscription. It simplifies things and puts guidelines around things.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux's built-in security features are good when it comes to risk reduction, business continuity, and maintaining compliance. We use Red Hat Satellite to manage our Linux. That makes it all very simple. There is a feature called OpenSCAP. We use it for security scanning. All the features that they provide on top of the base OS make it very easy to manage.

The portability of applications and containers built on Red Hat Enterprise Linux is great for keeping our organization agile. We know we can rely on that middle layer. We can start with the container and then build on top of that. Having a solid and standard foundation makes it all easy to do.

The enterprise aspect of it is valuable. There is security patching, security scanning, and compliance. There are all kinds of features around managing and keeping it up-to-date and secure. Everything is in a box for us from Red Hat which makes it very easy to manage them.

It is constantly improving. It is important to continue to improve. That is another reason I like it. They are using newer kernels, which gives us access to newer hardware. They are already doing that. I cannot pretend to tell them what to do better. They can just keep on doing what they are doing.

Personally, I have been using it for about 12 years. I have only been with my company for about four months, but I know they also have been using it for years.

It is stable.

It is scalable. They define scalability. I am a basic user. I just deploy more VMs if I need to. It is easy to do. Its scalability is great.

They are great. I would rate them a ten out of ten. A big selling point is that when you submit a support ticket, you know you are reaching out to experts. That is great, and that is one of the primary reasons we went with Red Hat.

Positive

In my company, they were using AWX for automation, and we moved them to AAP. For Linux, I was a part of a project to migrate some of the other operating systems over to Red Hat Enterprise Linux. I am on the tail end of the move or standardization to Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

There were a lot of Ubuntu operating systems in the environment, but they had challenges standardizing around it. There were different versions. There was also CentOS, but it was old CentOS. They are naturally moving that to Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

The support and the standardization around it were the main reasons for going for Red Hat Enterprise Linux. CentOS is more of a community thing now, whereas we can call Red Hat and they help us with everything. The support and the enterprise features we needed pointed at Red Hat Enterprise Linux rather than CentOS. It is a better choice for production.

We deploy them from AAP and then we deploy them into VMware. We deploy them into Azure, which is our main provider. We do that all orchestrated through Ansible and Satellite.

We have outsourced support. TCS is a general contractor, but for Red Hat deployments, we generally go with Red Hat Consulting. We just finished a consulting engagement with them for that. I know they have used them in the past prior to me being here. We generally just use Red Hat Consulting.

We have standardization. I know what I am walking into every day. I know there is support behind it. There is the support of Red Hat and the community behind it. I feel confident using Red Hat Enterprise Linux. I might use other Linux operating systems at home, but a lot of the time, there is no documentation for them. There might be three guys in a forum from ten years ago who may have talked about my problem. With Red Hat Enterprise Linux, when I am going to work, I know what I am walking into. I can feel safe and assured using something industry standard that works, and I can get help with it very easily. It makes life a lot easier.

Our total cost of ownership across our enterprise landscape has gone up because we were using a lot of mixed and free open-source solutions. However, there was an extra cost of operations and extra cost of hiring for specialized skills and things like that. With the Red Hat portfolio, I feel that we spend more on subscriptions, and we save in terms of efficiency and operations. I feel that we spent some money to save money on the backend, and I hope that is how it ended up.

I do node counts for the Red Hat Enterprise Linux system. I am gathering data for our decision-makers about how many nodes we need and how many things we need. Once or twice a year, they ask us to true up and find out how many nodes we are using and what the actual consumption is. I then report that, and then the account team usually works on the money part of it. I just work on the count.

We use Red Hat Insights a little bit. I am more of an Ansible guy, and we use Red Hat Insights for our licensing and a few other things. We have not been using Red Hat Insights as much as we wanted to. I know that on the Linux side, they are using it a lot for license count, monitoring, and other things.

I feel we are underutilizing Red Hat Insights. Our account executive has shown how it works and where it is, but we have not committed to it yet. That is coming soon. As we gain more Red Hat products and standardize more, we will have to rely on a single pane like that, so we will be using it more. I know that Red Hat Insights provides vulnerability alerts and targeted guidance, but we are not utilizing it right now.

To a colleague who is looking at open-source, cloud-based operating systems for Linux instead of Red Hat Enterprise Linux, I would say to go for whatever they find to be the best. My standard for an enterprise solution is Red Hat Enterprise Linux. It works very well, but they have to make sure that it fits their use case. Fortunately, Red Hat Enterprise Linux fits most use cases. They might end up there, but if there are licensing or cost restrictions, there are other free options, such as CentOS. The ecosystem of Red Hat Enterprise Linux is healthy, so I would recommend it, but if they want to use something else, they need to come up with all the standards around that.

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux a ten out of ten. It is my preferred enterprise operating system. Everywhere I go, they are using it. It has been great. There are no complaints.

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 predominantly use Red Hat CoreOS we use it to connect to different types of OpenShift clusters.  Whenever I work with RHEL, it's always been with the CLI.

Previously, when we were using other distributions, we weren't getting a lot of support for the operating system itself. However, Red Hat has mainly focused on the operating system, so we get more support. 

AWS has its own version of Linux for its instances. All these cloud providers provide more support for the infrastructure and services, but they don't focus on the operating system itself. But Red Hat, with its customer portal, provides better support if something goes down. That's what differentiates RHEL from other products.

One great thing about RHEL is that it has a big community of users. There's a huge community that uses CentOS. If you need some help or have a question online, you get more resources for RHEL compared to other products. 

It's a really good operating system by itself. It's more versatile, integrating with tools like Ansible for automation.

There are amazing resources online, and because we are an enterprise, we have enterprise support. We can always create a support case, and we have some resources to help. The knowledge offered by Red Hat is great.

Another feature I tried was RedHat Insights because they offer it for other RedHat products as well. I've used it for OpenShift. It was helpful. It provides a good, in-depth understanding of what's going on in the actual infrastructure. It gave us good insights into the level at which we can run the containers and if you can scale the infrastructure vertically or horizontally and how to manage it better.

There is room for improvement in integration with different cloud platforms. There should be better integration because right now, a lot of cloud platforms have their own versions of Linux, which runs better on them, and they have better integration with the services. RHEL is great, but RHEL is more of a generic form of what Red Hat provides.

I've been using RHEL for about four years now.

There were certain times when I encountered issues. There are certain problems with integrations. 

For example, we had an issue once where the operating system had issues accessing the data server on our VMware infrastructure. So we did have a couple of engineers help us out with that, but that's one area where it can improve. But that's nitpicking. 

It's been great so far, but that's one thing I would like to see that would make RHEL a little better product.

Positive

We prominently use RHEL, but we've also used Ubuntu. We also have used PCF. I use Ubuntu Xenial and have worked with Amazon Linux for a while.

One pro is that at the operating system layer, RHEL has better support from Red Hat, and if something goes down, I found many resources for troubleshooting online.

For example, we predominantly use Amazon Linux if I'm using AWS. There aren't a lot of resources if I run into an issue. RHEL has way more documentation on Linux. It has a bigger community, from an operating system perspective.

One of our deployment models is on-premise, and the other is on the cloud. It's a hybrid. We have a big footprint on the cloud.

We use Azure because a lot of resources are already deployed on it. We can use all the features I build on RHEL, but you can scale up the infrastructure, depending on the demand. That's the reason why we use Azure.

For the upgrade process, we mainly use Ansible automation. Whenever we want an upgrade, we just go into the Ansible Tower, change the version, and make sure we are applying that to the right environments so that there's no outage. 

Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten.