Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Reviews

We host Red Hat Enterprise Linux on our VMware Cloud and manage our customers' machines.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux machines are more stable than Windows machines.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux helps to avoid cloud vendor lock-in.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is a reliable operating system that can run for long periods of time without any issues.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux should modernize its UI to make navigating the screens easier.

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

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is stable.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux can be easily scaled on a virtual machine.

The technical support is good.

Positive

I was not involved in the initial deployment but it was straightforward. The deployment took around 15 minutes per machine.

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

I recommend using Red Hat Enterprise Linux over an open-source OS because it offers better support.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux requires minimal maintenance.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is a reliable solution and I recommend it to others.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is connected to our internal private cloud that is air-gapped.

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux as the operating system on our network management and data management servers. It is our server operating system of choice for any type of hardware that needs to be reliable and stable.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux solved our need for automation and running containers. It is the most stable open source operating system available. When compared to other OSes, it is reliable and works well. This is important for my line of work, where I need to be able to reliably transfer files across thousands of miles. I need to do this quickly, and I have found that other OS solutions, such as Windows Server and Ubuntu Linux Server, are not as reliable or as quick. I have found myself constantly having to troubleshoot problems with these other OSes, and there is often not a lot of documentation available to help me.

The Red Hat Enterprise Linux knowledge base is awesome. Everything is documented, so I could easily find the information I needed to troubleshoot my misconfiguration issue. The knowledge base even provides suggestions for likely causes, which was helpful because most of the time, when something isn't working right on a Red Hat Enterprise Linux system, it's a configuration issue.

Security is one of the benefits of Red Hat Enterprise Linux. It is secure from the start, and it does not take long to configure it to meet government security standards. It also performs well during the staging process, and it does not break or cause services to be lost. In contrast, other operating systems often lock accounts, break, and cause services to be lost.

Simplifying risk reduction and maintaining compliance is straightforward and uncomplicated. There is plenty of documentation to help us, so if we get lost, we can refer to it to find our way.

The portability of applications and containers built on Red Hat Enterprise Linux makes it easier for our company to stay agile. We have found that our applications and programs run just fine on Red Hat Enterprise Linux, which provides a lot of supportability.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux's most valuable feature is that it comes with all the tools we need to set up and maintain an enterprise-grade system. Even if we install the minimal version of Red Hat Enterprise Linux, we will still have everything we need to get up and running quickly and easily. And if we ever need to restore our system from a backup, Red Hat Enterprise Linux makes it easy to do so, whether we are restoring from a scratch build or a backup that is a few weeks old.

A feature that I would like to see in the image builder is the ability to open the image in live mode and access a command line interface. This would allow me to immediately apply the necessary security settings required by the STIG. By doing so, I can deploy the image with the confidence that vulnerabilities present in the live network cloud service are closed before deployment, rather than applying the settings afterward as suggested in the example by Red Hat.

Ideally, I would prefer to deploy an operating system that already has all the necessary configurations in place. This would involve accessing a command line interface, adjusting configuration files as needed, setting up banners, and establishing user accounts. After making these changes, I would create an image and deploy it. I've noticed that the current image builder is primarily designed for commercial use, but as a DoD user, I have different requirements. Therefore, having an emulator or virtual terminal that allows me to interact with the kernel and make live changes, which can then be saved to create a customized ISO, would be an excellent feature to have. It would be great if Red Hat Enterprise Linux had a similar capability. Interestingly, Ubuntu Linux does offer this functionality with its "Custom Ubuntu Basic ISO Creator" (CUBIC).

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

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is stable.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is a scalable operating system. Red Hat Enterprise Linux offers a wide range of options and features, and we are only just beginning to explore its full potential.

The initial setup is straightforward. I installed Red Hat Enterprise Linux using the stick method. I had to create nine different partitions, all of which were encrypted. This is where things got a little complicated. We need to decide whether to create a LUKS partition or partition and build our image on top of a LUKS partition. Initially, I was individually encrypting each partition using the "encrypt" option. However, this is not ideal because we cannot grow or shrink an LVM partition that is on an encrypted partition. Once the partition is created, it is set in stone. So, I needed to figure out how to encrypt just the partition and then create an LVM partition on top of the encrypted partition, such as SDA3. This was a bit of a challenge, and there is not a lot of documentation on how to do this. The documentation that is available is a bit confusing, and I got lost a few times. Once I figured it out, it was not too bad. The entire deployment process takes about 20 minutes.

We have seen a return on investment in all areas with Red Hat Enterprise Linux, including productivity. We use it in our daily operations in almost all of our systems. In one form or another, Red Hat Enterprise Linux is running on our systems. If we are not running Red Hat Enterprise Linux, our systems are unstable.

I give Red Hat Enterprise Linux a ten out of ten.

For those who are looking at other open source cloud-based operating systems for Linux, I would recommend Red Hat Enterprise Linux. It is well-documented and has a large pool of information available. We can also use CentOS content with Red Hat Enterprise Linux. The pool of information for Red Hat Enterprise Linux is far greater than some other open-source solutions.

The environment in which we deployed the solution is enterprise-level.

There are multiple use cases, and I am mostly focused on information security. Before we promote an ACS policy to production, we should be able to test that build and see how that policy behaves for that build. We use Podman to build some test images and get them to our development box. Then we use commands that we scan against those images. That has been one of the major use cases. 

In the future, we'll move our automation program from an on-premises Windows server to a Linux server. Over a period of time, we want to move those applications to the cloud and OpenShift. Currently, we have many legacy applications that are still being run on Windows Server, and we use the title job scheduler for that. Once we mature and gain more confidence, we want to containerize those applications and move them to OpenShift and Linux.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux's most valuable features are the Podman and a lot of packages that come inbuilt as part of the regular package. Podman gives you the opportunity to build those images. Since it's a public registry, you cannot pull those images from a docker, and proxy blocks that. If we know how to recreate that scenario, we use Podman to recreate that image.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux should provide more training because many people are not very familiar with Linux's user interface. If it is made very similar to Windows and people can relate to it, they would be more comfortable.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for seven to eight years.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is a stable solution.

I have experience interacting with Red Hat support for ACS. The initial level of support is very minimal. They try to collect all the data, then go to developers or technical people, which usually takes time. So we don't get an immediate response. Hence, there is scope for improvement in Red Hat Enterprise Linux's customer support.

Raising a ticket and having somebody look into it takes time. I rate raising a ticket and addressing it a six to seven out of ten. However, we interact with a responsive relationship manager, who escalates and gets issues fixed. I rate this relationship manager an eight out of ten.

Neutral

Since we have the capability to test vulnerable images, we know much in advance what their impact will be. We can test ACS policies against those vulnerable images. That gives us early visibility instead of deploying that application and finding what is happening there. Using Red Hat Enterprise Linux and all associated components gives us that visibility into vulnerable images, and we can set policies based on whatever we see. So in terms of business impact, we avoid many vulnerabilities that get into the production.

We run some applications on the cloud, but they are not business-critical applications. We run all business-critical applications on-premises. We are not dependent on the cloud for business-critical applications. We are not locked with the vendor.

We use Qualys to scan the underlying node. We expect any critical vulnerabilities to be patched as early as possible. We have an enterprise policy wherein any business-critical vulnerabilities seen on business-critical applications or nodes need to be fixed within 30 days. If some running application is exposed to the internet, we want that to be prioritized. If vendors can prioritize a 30-day life cycle for critical vulnerabilities, that would really help many other organizations.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is the only option we are currently looking at. We don't want to go with Windows. We already have this ecosystem where we use OpenShift, and it's already integrated with ACS. So we would not like to go with any other different OS. Red Hat Enterprise Linux will integrate easily with the entire ecosystem.

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

We're using it to support security applications. We also use it for various infrastructure aspects, such as hosting Satellite or Ansible Automation or Confluence. We have a mix of different apps running on it.

Our improvement as an organization, from using RHEL, has been the ability to take the stance of an infrastructure-as-code approach. We've seen that with automation of server deployment, getting them spun up a lot faster. Traditionally, the environment was using Satellite and Kickstart. Regardless of whether we were bare metal or virtual, it could take a couple of hours to Kickstart a server. Moving to infrastructure-as-code and deploying a server takes about 10 minutes until it's ready to use. It's a lot faster.

In addition to Satellite, we're using Ansible Tower. Those are the only ones we're paying for. We use other products, like Red Hat IDM for identity management but that's part of RHEL. When it comes to the integration between these products and RHEL, we're able to use Satellite for our dynamic inventory, with Ansible to help deploy new servers or manage servers, and we use Ansible Tower to patch our servers. Everything works pretty well.

That integration has helped to improve things compared to how they were when I got here. For example, we have a more automated process for patching. As we develop it and work through issues, we hope it will be more of a pipeline and a lot easier and faster, compared to how it was done before. Similarly for building servers, now that we're able to use Satellite as our dynamic inventory, we're able to run Ansible, whether it's predefined playbooks or ad hoc, without having to do something manually or maintain an inventory file.

We also use the AppStream feature in some cases. We have a couple of applications that require different versions, and we're able to install it and it makes the requirements for those specific applications.

The most valuable features are

• stability
• supportability.

Those have been the two common and important features over the years. They're pretty equal. You want to have something that's up and running and stable, something that's not going to crash. But if we do have an issue, we can get somebody for technical support who can help us work through the problems.

As for the consistency of application and user experience, we spin it up and almost forget about it. It just does what it's supposed to do, regardless of the underlying infrastructure. It's all good and there are no issues as far as supporting applications or things crashing go. Because it's doing what it's supposed to do, it's not a source of concern.

And similarly, there are no issues when it comes to deploying current applications and emerging workloads across bare metal, virtualized, hybrid cloud, and multi-cloud environments. We just have to take note of whatever the requirements are for the application we're deploying, to make sure requirements are met, and then build a server based on those requirements.

In this environment, I'm not doing any cloud work, but in my last environment we did do a bunch of public and private cloud and we had no issues there. It worked fine and as expected in AWS and OpenStack. We were doing infrastructure-as-code in that environment as well. We would create an image-base, whether for AWS or OpenStack, and then we would automate the deployment again, using Terraform and Ansible for configuration. It made deployment of cloud-based workloads relatively quick.

My biggest issue right now is Red Hat Consulting and trying to use some of their services to help get us going. Technically, they're good, but we seem to have issues with scheduling.

Also, we initially deployed it with Red Hat Satellite. We're now moving more to automation using Terraform within VMware, to automate the clone and then follow up with Ansible to configure. Red Hat's standard deployment is with Satellite and Kickstart, but we're looking at other options to help speed it along. We do have a mix of bare metal and virtualized servers and it's easier to spin up in the virtualized world versus bare metal. That's why we're looking at some options outside of Red Hat, for the bare metal. We'd like something that we can use to build a server a lot faster, as well as address network latency issues.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) since version 4 or even before that, since 2000 or 2001, before it was RHEL.

In the environment I'm in right now, we've never had any issues. It's very stable. 

In another environment that I worked in, we had some Oracle Databases, but that wasn't really an issue with the operating system. It was more an issue with some configuration items between the database and the OS. And that was about four years ago.

In the last company I worked for we were deploying a PasS environment, where we were doing some stuff with containers, and RHEL worked well. In my current environment, it's more of an application base but, again, it seems to scale. Both have worked fine.

Red Hat's tech support has been pretty good. I'll open up a ticket to see if I can get information from Red Hat when I don't have the time to find it on my own. But 99 percent of the time we get great support and we're able to get the answers that we need.

Positive

The pricing is fair. We do a bunch of dev work and there is some free dev licensing out there that's great for doing proof of concept work. When that was brought out a couple of years ago we heard about it, but it didn't seem to have been communicated to our Red Hat representative. We would ask him about it and it seemed that they were confused. 

But the cost has been pretty stable over the years for what you get.

We figure out what we need for servers, make our purchase, and then manage it all in Satellite. We just make sure we're using what we pay for.

In the past, I've used other versions of Unix, such as Solaris and HP-UX, as far as paid versions go. In other environments we also used community versions, like CentOS and Oracle Linux. 

Oracle Linux would probably be the closest thing to a paid solution, although I think it's free. But using Oracle Linux wasn't a good experience. Dealing with Oracle support was not the best. Maybe it has improved, but it just wasn't the same as Red Hat support.

Times have changed from when I first started using it. Back then it was just a matter of putting a CD in and installing it. One of the companies I worked for did a lot of homegrown stuff and I used their tools that were like Kickstart. Now it is all automation with infrastructure-as-code. The complexity of deployment is about the same. Some of what we're doing to deploy stuff is outside of Red Hat and it's a matter of finding what tools are available.

We're in the process of deploying something right now where we have different versions of Python. That's the only use case we have with multiple versions on the same server. I don't expect any issues, but it's still early in that deployment.

We have three people dedicated to maintaining the infrastructure environment that we work in. That includes managing Linux servers, the applications that go with them, and dealing with day-to-day tasks like patching. It's the typical life cycle maintenance functions: break/fix, dealing with hardware issues, deploying new applications, and maintaining a VMware environment.

The reason we're using it is because it's stable and we know we can get support. I know there are other versions of Linux, ones that I've used, but I've never experienced the kind of support with those versions that Red Hat has provided. Red Hat is a stable Linux solution provider.

We are using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) primarily in the health care industry for AI modeling and edge computing. One use case involves specific monitoring in a room with equipment and hardware.

I'm keen on this product because everything works as expected. It has embedded compliance features. We expect more in version 10. The keynote mentioned embedded OpenSCAP reporting, which is something everyone wants.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has a lot of specialized documentation. Typically, people search on the Internet and find solutions by trial and error. However, everything about Red Hat Enterprise Linux is there in the documentation. You only need to follow it correctly. 

The security features have room for improvement, especially for highly regulated industries like health care. That's why it isn't the primary OS in health care. It would be great if they added some features to address the specific challenges health care providers face. 

It isn't hard to patch, but migrating between versions is difficult. We have the the latest version, but the previous version is still working very well. It's hard to leave a working version to upgrade. I would like more AI features, but those will be added to the next version. We are in an AI age, and it's an area where we need to keep pace. 

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux since version 3, starting around 2000. Currently, we use version 9.4.

The stability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux is excellent. I have nothing negative to report in this area.

Scaling Red Hat Enterprise Linux as our needs change has been good. The older versions continue to work well even as we introduce newer solutions.

I rate Red Hat support nine out of 10. They provide competent support and help resolve issues quickly. You don't need to spend a long time searching for a solution. I don't rely on them much, but it has been a big help for my colleagues.

Positive

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for many years, so it is my default choice when selecting an operating system.

I'm a technical guy, so I'm not dealing with the money side of things, but we've seen a return on investment in terms of time saved due to the good documentation and support. 

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is expensive, but I'm not paying anything because it's the company's money. However, it's priced comparably to other enterprise Linux solutions. It costs a lot because you have a large staff working on the concept and improving everything. There is an open-source developer part that is free, so you can test everything before buying it. 

I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux eight out of 10.  I know this is a good product because I've used it for many years, and it continues to improve. The OS is great, so I continue to use it. If I'm working on a new project and given a choice between another solution and Red Hat Enterprise Linux, I would always choose Red Hat for the community, support, and documentation. 

There's a free developer version. If you are thinking about purchasing Red Hat Enterprise Linux, you can try the developer version for free. Practice using Red Hat Enterprise Linux, and you will see the difference between the other distributions and Linux. If you want the product to perform at an enterprise level, you need to learn the product. There a plenty of tools and also the Red Hat Academy.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is a versatile operating system for many workloads, including databases, web applications, and infrastructure. It is a reliable and adaptable platform suitable for various computing needs.

When I started my current job 14 years ago, we used many different Linux distributions, which created management challenges. However, when we began deploying a hardened version of Linux, Red Hat Enterprise Linux was the best option due to its robust support, familiarity with our team, and overall suitability for our needs, making it an easy choice.

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

It offers robust built-in security features that surpass those found in Windows. Its highly customizable environment allows for easy system hardening, eliminating the need for additional purchases as all necessary security components are integrated within the operating system. 

Red Hat Enterprise Linux enhances security and reduces risk. In a mixed environment with Windows, securing Windows systems is significantly more challenging and achieving a truly secure state is nearly impossible, whereas Red Hat Enterprise Linux offers robust security features that mitigate these concerns.

It contributes to risk reduction through its strong security features. With a mixed environment of Linux and Windows, making Windows secure is challenging, whereas RHEL does not have such issues. Furthermore, automation with RHEL reduces manual labor, allowing us to automate almost everything, which saves work.

The portfolio helps reduce our total cost of ownership by significantly decreasing employee work hours. Automation through ready-made images eliminates manual labor, allowing us to automate almost everything and ensure consistent accuracy, ultimately saving time and resources.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux's built-in security features are very good. Compared to other systems like Windows, it's on another level. With SE Linux and the customizable nature of Linux, creating a tightly-hardened environment is easy. Additionally, the knowledge bases and white papers provided by Red Hat support are very helpful.

While there are no specific features I would like added to the next version, there is always room for improvement.

The licensing cost of Red Hat Enterprise Linux is high and could be improved.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux since 1998.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux performs admirably, earning a nine-point five out of 10. While minor issues exist, they are not significant enough to substantially detract from its effectiveness.

The Red Hat support works well, though I haven't used it extensively. I appreciate the knowledge bases and articles provided by them. Consultancy services have been used, but not much of the support services itself.

Positive

At my current job, we started with a lot of different distros. Managing them was chaotic. When we began using hardened versions of Linux, Red Hat was selected because it was the best option for us. We have a support system in place and Red Hat Enterprise Linux is familiar to our team, making it the easy pick.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux licensing is expensive.

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

We will soon be using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for containerization projects.

For servers, Red Hat Enterprise Linux is the recommended choice due to its robust features, including comprehensive updates, ease of management, and excellent compatibility with tools like Ansible. While other distributions may be suitable for workstations, Red Hat Enterprise Linux excels in server environments with its stability and long-term support.

Our primary use case for Red Hat Enterprise Linux is to deploy OpenShift solutions on the cloud.

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux with AWS, GCP, Azure, and Oracle Cloud.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux offers easy migration between cloud platforms, a crucial advantage for businesses. For example, we recently helped one client move from AWS to Azure and another implement a VPN solution using both Oracle and Azure to leverage the strengths of each platform.

It offers a comprehensive knowledge base that can be accessed through the Red Hat portal.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux helps support our hybrid cloud strategy.

The upgrades and migrations are straightforward and typically performed when introducing new hardware.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux's most valuable feature is its seamless integration with Kubernetes, a powerful platform for automating the deployment, scaling, and management of containerized applications.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux should enhance its support for commonly used application servers such as JBoss, Tomcat, and Apache.

I have used Red Hat Enterprise Linux on the cloud for five years.

I have a Red Hat account for client support, and their technical support is excellent.

Positive

We have used other Linux solutions, such as Ubuntu, SUSE, and Debian, but the primary difference lies in the level of knowledge and support provided. Red Hat excels with a comprehensive support portal, while SUSE offers less extensive support, and Ubuntu provides no official support options.

The initial setup is complex. I rate the complexity as two out of ten, with one being the most complicated.

Our clients see a return on investment within the first year.

The licensing for Red Hat Enterprise Linux in Peru is very expensive. On a scale of one to ten, with ten being the most expensive, I would rate the cost an eight.

We leverage Red Hat's Hybrid Committed Spend program to procure and implement Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

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

I use Red Hat Enterprise Linux to control my Docker systems and build and run containers on them. I also use it for a tokenization project I'm working on.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has improved the availability and security of our systems. The knowledge base, Wiki forums, and other resources are very helpful in simplifying my daily operations. We realized the benefits immediately after deployment. 

The most valuable features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux are the availability, file system performance, and overall system availability. The kernel is more secure than my previous operating systems, such as Windows.  Red Hat's knowledge base is helpful. I consult it several times in my daily work. I can ask questions on the forums and get help in my daily operations.

Using Red Hat Enterprise Linux's image builder is easy. I can use GitAI to pull any image I want to build on my system and reach into it using Red Hat. I use Convert2RHEL to publish my work on tokenization. I'm publishing more than 70 prints on my system daily, and saving this file. It's easy to use.

There are performance issues with the response time when accessing the console, but I'm unsure if that's Red Hat Enterprise Linux's fault or if it's due to the lack of CPU or memory on our machines. The enterprise interface could be improved. I can only use the keyboard to transfer files from one system to another. I want to use my mouse on the interface, not just scroll up and down. I would also like my logs archived as an RAR and sent to me. 

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

Stability is critical to us. Red Hat Enterprise Linux ensures our machine's availability and reduces the need for frequent restarts.

I have not contacted customer or technical support myself. Our infrastructure team handles any contacts with Red Hat support.

Positive

I have used Ubuntu before. Red Hat has a more robust knowledge base, and finding solutions to any problem is easier.

The infrastructure team handled the initial setup. I'm a software engineer working on my applications. The infrastructure team builds the machine, and I only use it. It was relatively easy, depending on the complexity of the deployment configuration. After deployment, we have maintenance on our machine if there are new patches to deploy. I have three machines, and each one is identical, with the same containers, so I don't need to do maintenance on our machines more than once monthly. 

It is important to use the knowledge base and familiarize oneself with key commands to gain more about Linux and ease its usage.