Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Reviews

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.

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux for investment back-end applications.

The application's lack of readiness for a cloud environment has necessitated the repatriation of Red Hat Enterprise Linux to an on-premises infrastructure.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is the go-to standard within our organization because it is managed, supported, and automatically patched.

it helps us as the base layer to centralize our development.

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

Red Hat Enterprise Linux provides a stable and secure platform, which helps reduce risk in our environment.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has enhanced our business continuity and compliance efforts by providing stability and security, allowing us to strengthen our servers.

It's a very stable and secure platform with support options. Third-party software vendors often require Red Hat.

Data migration issues during upgrades can sometimes arise from the layers above Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

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

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has performed well for our business-critical applications. Stability is essential for us.

Scaling Red Hat Enterprise Linux depends primarily on the underlying machine, and virtual machines enable on-demand scaling for effective performance.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux's stability, security, and predictability are significant returns on investment.

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

The current plan is to refrain from running AI workloads with Red Hat until its AI capabilities mature and we have complete confidence in its security and accuracy.

I would advise considering Red Hat Enterprise Linux because it is stable, secure, and supported by third-party software vendors.

I'm using the Red Hat Platform with Open Stack and an RHEL product for storage. The use case is performance IOPS for Ceph Storage, which depends on a bare-metal RHEL server. 

For my security customer, we get greater than 90 percent uptime. RHEL helped us achieve security certification. It helped my end-user pass their security assessment. RHEL's built-in security features scan the third-party layer in the OpenStack and RHEL platform to assess the SSH and firewall security or patch updates from the RHEL platform and reset OpenStack. Security is the number one priority for my end user. They want to prevent hacker access from the outside. 

RHEL supports the hybrid cloud strategy. The goal of using a bare metal server has been to improve availability and database performance. The OpenStack platform uses network capability to improve database performance.

RHEL improves database and application performance for my end users. The application can collect regional and national data for my end user, a strategic customer in Indonesia.

I am confident in the managed services RHEL provides in terms of the OpenStack, Ceph Storage, and OpenShift container-based products. If there are any problems with the RHEL platform, Open Stack, Ceph Storage, etc., I can raise the issue to RHEL global support. 

For the past twenty or thirty years, Red Hat has reengineered its product from bare-metal on-prem to the cloud environment. Migrating an RHEL system from bare metal to cloud is somewhat difficult. They could add a fast boot. 

We deployed one side of RHEL in 2023, and we'll deploy the other side in 2025.

When I deploy RHEL for the first time, I try to learn about the performance and tune the performance. 

Scalability isn't an issue. Our customers haven't reported any performance problems from scaling up.

I rate Red Hat support eight out of 10. I have used Red Hat support since 2023. They escalate the ticket based on severity, and if they can't resolve the issue within the maintenance window, they will pass me to another engineer. 

Positive

We previously worked with Oracle Linux. My customer has two divisions. The network decision is focused on accounting database performance, while the IT division uses Oracle Linux. On the network side, the customer uses RHEL products like OpenStack, Ceph Storage, and OpenShift. 

My end user wanted to upgrade from RHEL OpenStack 16.1 to the latest 17.1.3 in April 2024. We also upgraded Ceph Storage and OpenShift. Now, my customer wants a testbed before upgrading to the RHEL version in live production. If there are problems, we open a ticket with global support and or two people will join our remote call. We have it deployed in Jakarta and plan to deploy it to Bandung.

I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux eight out of 10. I recommend all the Red Hat products, including OpenShift and Ceph Storage. OpenShift Container is a mature product for RHEL portal customers.

I use the solution in my company mainly for the operation system of the core business applications.

My company has experienced benefits from the use of the product, especially considering the agility that the tool offers in terms of the time to market in different areas of business and because of its compatibility with most of the applications in the market.

The most valuable features of the solution are the stability and scalability.

I run Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) on a hybrid cloud deployment, and it has impacted our company's operations, but I would say that it has been quite simple to implement, especially considering the security, which has been a considerable piece of the infrastructure.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped centralize development in our company. The applications run with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), and it became the standard for the operating system for the applications.

My company uses Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for containerization projects with OpenShift. This use of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has had an important impact on containerization, as it is a simple process. Owing to the simplicity, we always involve the solution's experts and get faster solutions.

The built-in features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for risk reduction, business continuity, and maintaining compliance are very important because our company is always aware of all these security issues that constantly happen.

Though the product has many features, the tool's virtualization area has certain shortcomings that require improvement. The product should also offer more containers and probably some financial services.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for five years.

It is a very stable solution.

It is a quite easily scalable solution.

The technical support for the solution is very good. I rate the technical support a nine out of ten.

Positive

Before Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), my company used to use Windows. My company started to use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) after we found that it offers more stability, sophistication, and security and serves as a standard for many products.

The product's initial deployment phase was easy and quick.

My company did follow some strategy to deploy the product, and we also had the support from the vendor.

The solution is deployed on the cloud and on-premises models.

My company sought the help of a system integrator during the implementation phase of the solution.

In terms of ROI, I see that the tool offers stability, performance, agility, and resilience.

If I describe my experience with the product's price, I would say that we have to live with it for now.

My company evaluated other Linux products, such as SUSE Linux Enterprise Server (SLES), against Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

I would recommend Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) to a colleague who is looking at open-source cloud-based operating systems for Linux since it is a tool with more market experience and offers more documentation and support from the vendor, which is not easy to acquire when it comes to open-source software.

Red Hat's portfolio has affected the total cost of ownership across our enterprise landscape by around 10 to 20 percent.

My company has the product in two data centers, but the production happens only in one. Mostly, my company uses the cloud services offered by Azure.

I rate the tool a nine or ten out of ten.

We have over a thousand VMs or physical machines running on Red Hat Enterprise Linux. We have various applications, and we also run the OpenShift Container Platform on-prem, so we have a lot of containers. They are migrating a lot of apps from the mainframe over to Spring Boot type of app. It fits well in the container.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux gave us stability. There is somebody to call when we have issues.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has affected our system's uptime or security.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has not yet enabled us to achieve security standards certification because we do not go after any of those. There are some products that we will have to do once we get there, but so far, we have not had to certify anything.

Red Hat Insights gives a lot of insights into known issues that we do not think about unless we call support. It tells us to proactively fix something.

I have used Image Builder and System Roles mainly for Red Hat Enterprise Linux for Edge. It builds out the OS tree build for us, which is very helpful. I do not like to do that myself.

I use the Red Hat console every now and then, but I do not use it heavily. I am old school.

The security updates and the support that comes along with it for applications are valuable.

Red Hat Insights was a nice feature to discover. I did not know about Ansible until probably eight years ago. I learned that language, and that was a void or something that was missing for over 25 years.

I like the SCAP Workbench interface that I can use to build some security around. I use Ansible to go out and do configuration management checks as well. Overall, I feel it is very easy to get the data I need.

We finally started doing Red Hat Enterprise Linux for Edge. That one definitely is an improvement. One piece that is missing is that we are required to use moby-engine, but currently, Red Hat Enterprise Linux for Edge forces Podman, so we have to work around it.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for a decade in my current organization, but overall, I have been using Red Hat for over 25 years.

Early on, support was closer to a six, but now, it is a nine out of ten.

Positive

I have used them all back from the early nineties. I have used CentOS and others. The reasons for companies switching from those to Red Hat Enterprise Linux are that most of it is open source, and they get more product features. There is a market. If other companies are doing it, they tend to switch over. Containerization is a major reason as well.

I was involved in the OpenShift deployments. We are also directly involved in every version of Red Hat Enterprise Linux. We are involved in the proof of concept. Its deployment is straightforward.

We used Red Hat with the OpenShift deployments to make sure we were doing it right, and then a lot of other things, such as Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 or Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9, we just did ourselves.

In terms of our upgrade and/or migration plans to stay current, we are upgrading everything to Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8, and we are going to Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9 already. We are making that a product feature. We are using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for Edge for our remote deployments.

In terms of provisioning and patching, we deploy the base image, and then we use Ansible for the configuration behind it. For Red Hat Enterprise Linux for Edge, we use the OS builders to build out that same image. I use Kickstart to build the base image before the configuration.

I do not track that in the company, but I am sure we have seen an ROI.

It seems to be fair. It is not overpriced. I went to the simple model, and that makes it easier for us to deploy.

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