Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Reviews

I work in the energy sector, so we use Red Hat Enterprise Linux for a variety of purposes. These include high-performance computing, running applications like SAP, geospatial applications, and Oracle. We rely on Red Hat Enterprise Linux for a wide range of applications, including those that require running Oracle databases.

It is important to our organization to have a solution that avoids cloud vendor lock-in. We just don't want to be locked into just one side or the other. We want to have the flexibility and availability to explore other options.

One of the main reasons we chose Red Hat Enterprise Linux was its reliability and stability. Compared to the Microsoft Windows environment, the Linux environment provided much greater stability. Therefore, we decided to use Red Hat Enterprise Linux for all our critical applications at that time, as they required a Linux-only environment.

We use Red Hat Image Builder as well. The golden images created by Image Builder are okay. In our organization, we prefer to create our own images because we need to incorporate our own security measures and harden the images accordingly.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux could do better in live patching. In this day and age, vulnerabilities are constantly emerging, I feel that Red Hat Enterprise Linux has fallen backward in terms of live patching, particularly live kernel patching. There are other products available that can perform this function, and they often follow their direction. 

Currently, my company has a live patch solution where we can patch the kernel without rebooting. This is essential because certain applications cannot tolerate downtime for reboots. However, there is a security concern when the patching process is delayed, as it exposes the system to high vulnerabilities and risks. So, when critical applications go down due to rebooting, it has a significant impact on both the financial and operational aspects. It requires a lot of money and manpower to schedule and execute the reboots, and during that time, the application downtime results in losing money. I believe this is an area that Red Hat Enterprise Linux should focus on to address this challenge.

I have been using the Red Hat Enterprise Linux operating system for around 20 years. We transferred our existing subscriptions to the cloud version. We are actually exploring hybrid solutions and availability options. As we transition to Azure, we are bringing our own subscription.

The scalability is good. We are able to scale efficiently. In our high-performance computing department, they handle a lot of scaling, and it's going well. Red Hat Enterprise Linux scales well.

I'm not particularly fond of the support. For example, when we have a server that's down, we raise a ticket indicating the severity of the issue. Then we receive another email suggesting things we can try to resolve the problem. I miss the days when we could directly speak to someone because sometimes, depending on the maintenance contracts and SLAs, it can take a lot of time without actually making any progress. Whereas speaking with a support representative could significantly reduce the downtime. So, I'm not really crazy about it.

The knowledge base is good. I would rate it a nine out of ten. 

Neutral

One of Red Hat Enterprise Linux's pros is that it has been around the longest. When working in a large corporate environment, reliability is crucial. In case something breaks, you want to have the assurance that there is a reliable support system to address the issues. Red Hat Enterprise Linux provides that level of support. 

However, it's important to note that even with a solid distribution like in Red Hat Enterprise Linux, the effectiveness may vary depending on the specific customer or scenario. It's about assessing how well the distribution handles issues when the next customer raises a complaint. So, we need to carefully consider the pros and cons based on our requirements. For certain workloads and development tasks, we might consider freestyle options that don't require paid subscriptions. In my company, we have a development program that greatly supports our decision to go with Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

Personally, I find the deployment process straightforward, but I've been doing it for quite some time. I can't speak for someone who is new to it. However, from my experience, it's relatively straightforward. I've been in this role for a while, so I'm familiar with the process.

Currently, we use Azure AVS, which allows us to migrate existing physical machines to the cloud until we can fully modernize them. It's much easier than it was a couple of years ago, but there is still some work to be done. Overall, it's manageable for us to move workloads between the cloud and on-premises or data center environment using Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

We have streamlined our deployment process within our guidelines. I can build a server in just three minutes. The time required depends on the type of server we need. If it's a more specialized server, it may take longer. However, it's nothing like the old days when it used to take several days. Especially in the cloud environment, it's quite fast. On-premises is a different story because we need to consider hardware availability, which can take longer. But once we have the hardware, the deployment itself typically takes less than an hour, especially when we leverage tools like Satellite for automation.

We have indeed realized a return on our investment. If we hadn't, we wouldn't still be using Red Hat Enterprise Linux. However, we are always striving to improve our return on investment. That's why we continually conduct due diligence and explore other operating systems to ensure that we're not blindly sticking with a particular company. We want to find the best solution that can potentially save us more money while delivering an equal or better return on investment.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is starting to realize some other companies are gaining some footing in the industry. Red Hat's pricing still needs to get a little bit better. When you look at what you pay for a subscription compared to what you can pay with some of these other companies that do offer a lot of technical backing behind them, it starts turning heads.

Red Hat should focus on making enhancements and providing better support in that arena.

Before choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux, we did evaluate other Linux-based solutions. When we initially chose Red Hat Enterprise Linux, we had options like Solaris and SGI. However, even recently, we have continued to evaluate other distributions because the Linux landscape is constantly evolving. There are new solutions emerging, so we have to perform our due diligence and assess what they can offer.

For customers looking for alternatives to Red Hat Enterprise Linux, my advice would be to choose something that aligns with your requirements and that you are happy with. Don't just pick something because it's cheap. You gotta look at the long term. Also, know what is needed for your project. For example, if you have issues, can you get those issues resolved in a timely manner? If you run into an issue, you're stuck, and they can't help you out, this means your project will be delayed. You will need to weigh that out.

Our servers utilize Red Hat Enterprise Linux for production and development environments due to the application's strong performance on this platform. Additionally, some workstations also use Red Hat Enterprise Linux as their operating system.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has robust built-in security features that effectively mitigate risk and help maintain compliance.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux offers a comprehensive knowledge base that provides reliable support. When online searches fail to yield the necessary information, their resources consistently deliver the answers needed.

It also offers a positive management experience. Its monthly update patching, scheduled according to the number of users and their security profiles, facilitates efficient system maintenance and allows for the closure of inactive accounts.

I used the Red Hat LEAP feature when upgrading from Red Hat Enterprise Linux seven to eight, which simplified the upgrade process.

The Red Hat Enterprise Linux web console is user-friendly. Simply open a new terminal, log in, and enter our desired commands or searches.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has yielded cost savings compared to a Windows environment, offering better stability, ease of use, and maintenance. Unlike Windows servers, it eliminates the need for reboots during updates, enhancing operational efficiency.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has improved our uptime and security. 

I appreciate the simplicity of reporting in Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Running a command, tagging the log, and sending it to support is all it takes. The user-friendly interface has consistently improved from version four to eight, particularly in login and display features. Overall, the system is stable, easy to use, and maintain.

Red Hat should improve its support services, specifically the responsiveness and expertise of its India-based team. Response times need to be faster, and support staff should have access to more detailed procedures to address customer cases effectively.

I started using Red Hat Enterprise Linux in 2019. Specifically, I started with Red Hat four and then upgraded to version eight.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is very stable. I would rate its stability as nine out of ten.

Scalability is easy because Red Hat Enterprise Linux supports virtual machines. I would rate the scalability a nine out of ten.

Technical support is taking a long time to resolve our issues, and we must monitor the resolution time for each ticket.

Neutral

The initial deployment is easy; follow the instructions and use the automatic setup. This straightforward process takes no more than 15 minutes, even for new users.

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

We have Red Hat Enterprise Linux deployed in one location with 15 users.

We have local maintenance for Red Hat Enterprise Linux by certified admins. 

I recommend Red Hat Enterprise Linux for enterprise production environments due to its stability and proven industry track record.

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.

Our primary use case for Red Hat Enterprise Linux is as an operating system foundation for running a wide range of applications and workloads. It is commonly found on Linux workstations and is frequently used in conjunction with Kubernetes and containerization deployments.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux facilitates standardization, streamlining automation and general server usage. Its seamless integration with Ansible simplifies network and infrastructure automation, ensuring consistency across development and operations for a more efficient workflow.

The hybrid use of Red Hat Enterprise Linux has positively impacted our operations by providing flexibility in where we run our systems. Whether in the cloud or locally, the consistency of the platform simplifies management. Potential network restrictions may arise, but it has streamlined our processes overall.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux enabled us to centralize development and standardize our platform. This means all developers, regardless of their programming language, like C# or .NET, develop for the same Red Hat Enterprise Linux platform. This standardization allows us to run applications consistently across different environments, whether on the cloud or on-premises.

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux with Podman for containerization. The combination of Podman and Red Hat UBI has significantly benefited our workflow, primarily due to the ease of use. Setting up Podman on other systems, such as Ubuntu, can be challenging because the installer from the Debian repositories sometimes has compatibility issues. However, on Red Hat Enterprise Linux, installing Podman with Yum is seamless.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is lauded for its robust security, though its strictness can tempt automation engineers to temporarily disable certain measures for specific tasks, potentially leading to oversights in reactivating them. While these stringent security protocols can pose challenges for some users, they ultimately enhance the overall reliability and stability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux systems and their applications, making them a worthwhile trade-off.

Containers built on Red Hat Enterprise Linux with Podman offer excellent portability, running consistently across various environments such as Kubernetes and other Linux distributions. While they run virtually anywhere, the containerization workflow on a Red Hat Enterprise Linux system is arguably more streamlined and user-friendly for professional use.

Red Hat Insights is an excellent tool for addressing urgent security issues, non-compliant settings, and unpatched systems. It provides a clear understanding of areas for improvement and existing vulnerabilities within an organization, enabling a focused approach to remediation and enhanced security.

While Red Hat Enterprise Linux offers robust security, the complexity of some security features can be a challenge when automating tasks. Nevertheless, I highly value its security measures, along with its user-friendliness, virtualization capabilities, and ease of deployment and automation.

To improve standardization, deprecate YUM and transition to DNF. While backward compatibility is necessary, a decision to move to DNF was made two years ago. Run both in parallel for a period, then drop YUM or limit it to Red Hat Enterprise Linux eight, not nine.

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

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is highly stable.

The solution is highly scalable due to the interconnectivity between installations and the central management capabilities like the Red Hat Cockpit. It allows for seamless scaling across different environments.

Customer service is rated highly, with support available out of the box through the subscription. The support team assists with bugs and mitigation guidance, and knowledge base articles help resolve common issues.

Positive

The biggest return on investment includes built-in security, ease of machine setup, and consistency across all deployments. These features contribute to efficiency in development and operations.

While the cost of Red Hat Enterprise Linux may seem high, it's necessary to support Red Hat's extensive research and development, which includes maintaining long update cycles for the operating system. This cost, however, can create a barrier to entry for those new to the industry, making knowledge of Red Hat Enterprise Linux more exclusive. Despite this drawback, the price is ultimately justified by the benefits of using a stable and well-supported operating system.

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

For small-scale or hobby projects, open-source cloud-based Linux is perfectly sufficient. However, for professional workflows in larger organizations, investing in a Red Hat Enterprise Linux license is recommended. This provides support, a more standardized development process, and enhanced features.

The impact on the TOC is minimal because many people are already accustomed to it. This is a benefit of Red Hat Enterprise Linux's standardization, as widespread familiarity simplifies ownership. However, platforms outside the Red Hat Enterprise Linux scope, such as Ansible Automation Platform or OpenShift Container Platform, require specialization and have their own ownership structures. In my experience, this doesn't necessarily expand ownership of the underlying Red Hat Enterprise Linux virtual machines.

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.

Our primary use case is that we use it for transaction servers.

We have it on-premises, mostly virtualized.

RHEL helps speed up our deployments. We don't use things like Kickstart and Satellite for deployments, because we usually just clone systems. But the ability to script customizations during deployments is particularly useful for us. It enables us to tailor each machine the way it needs to be.

We use RHEL to run multiple versions of the same application or database on a specific operating system and its features for managing them, things like Satellite and Insights, make management of multiple versions of an application server much simpler.

We use Red Hat Insights to monitor the systems and it is a godsend. It's like having an extra person on staff. Insights is a constantly updated database of CVEs and configuration best practices. It checks everything in the environment to make sure that it is patched, up-to-date, configured properly, and using industry best practices. When you look at the Insights control panel, you know either that everything is good or, if you have an issue, you know exactly where to look and how to fix it. Nine times out of ten, it even gives you an automation script to fix it automatically.

Other than Satellite, we also use Red Hat Ansible, but not Ansible Tower. They integrate very well with RHEL. They're tooled for integrating with it and they do that well. That integrated approach makes my life much easier. The primary function we use Satellite for is patching. Having something that's built to manage application environments and make sure that everything is patched correctly to use Ansible, plugs into everything else, including Satellite. You can use it to manage RHEL, Satellite, and other things, such as Windows and networking equipment. The tightest integration is with Red Hat.

RHEL enables us to deploy applications and emerging workloads across bare-metal and virtualized environments and I find those workloads to be extremely reliable. The reliability is so good that I rarely find myself calling Red Hat support any longer. Support is the first benefit of using RHEL, but the second thing is that the platform is so stable that the need to use support is negligible.

There is potential for improvement when it comes to ease of use. It has become easier to use over the years but could be better still. Linux, in general, has never been a simple solution. It's usually a more complex solution than something like Windows. If there is a downside, it's that it is more complex than some of the other solutions.

I've been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for about 10 years.

One of its most valuable features is its stability and reliability.

We have applications that we've scaled quite significantly, with over a dozen servers running the same application, load-balanced, and RHEL scales quite well.

We have an installation of about 200 servers and about another 800 servers in our SaaS environment. We're looking to grow the environment where it makes sense. I like to take the approach of considering the appropriate tool for the job. We are primarily a Windows shop, but often the right tool for the job is Red Hat. That's where we would grow our environment, where it's appropriate and the right tool for the job.

Our engagements with RHEL support are usually good. It's been a while since I've had to contact them, but they're good even when it's a significant issue that takes time. They don't even have any problems moving issues around through time zones and having support work on them around the world.

Positive

The initial setup of RHEL is very straightforward. It's all menu-driven and most of the time there are only a few answers that need to be given during the setup procedure to get a system up and fully running in a few minutes.

We can get a system up and running in about 15 or 20 minutes if we need to. We can do a custom build and use the full build process, or sometimes we do virtual cloning and then just run scripts to individualize the machines.

RHEL's single subscription and install repository for all types of systems may be a bit of a stumbling point. It seems that the descriptions of the subscriptions change every year or two and it gets a little complicated. And the naming conventions they use in the subscriptions can be a little complicated.

As for maintenance and administration of RHEL, there are just two people in our organization who handle that, me and another engineer.

The prices are comparable, and good for what is being provided.

RHEL is certainly more difficult to use than Windows, but it requires fewer hardware resources than Windows and, in my experience, it has also been more robust.

The fact that RHEL is an open-source solution isn't a concern, directly. Where it might be a factor would be when we're looking at using a tool for a particular need and we're looking for the best platform for it. That's the biggest factor.

Make sure that you have well-trained engineers who are familiar with RHEL. If you are looking for a solution that runs in a mission-critical environment, you always want a supported solution. If you're looking for Linux, I don't think that there's a better-supported solution than RHEL.

In our particular scenario, our underlying infrastructure is either VMware virtualized or bare metal, although the latter was mostly in the past. Rolling out to a virtualized solution or rolling out to bare metal with RHEL—with the exception of the bits that are unique to those platforms—the operating system installation and the like are going to be very similar.

Overall, RHEL is a very solid solution.

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.