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.

Primarily, we use it for a couple of different servers. Some are doing data hosting, and some are doing network management-type functions.

We use it on-premises. We do not use it on the cloud. Because of government work, we're not cloud-based.

By implementing Red Hat Enterprise Linux, we were mainly looking for stability. By having a lot of open source solutions, we ran into problems where there were too many flavors and too many variables. We ran into issues with ISO and other things where this particular site was a one-off from this site, which was a one-off from this site, which was one-off from this site. That became a problem for making sure that we stick to a consistent level and patch to a consistent level across the board.

The portability of applications and containers built on Red Hat Enterprise Linux has been good. We do a lot of containerization and a lot of microservices. It has worked really well. It helped in keeping our organization agile. Our partners provided us with a lot of quick utilities and reuse of things. We can shut down a container and spin up a new container to introduce new capability quicker. 

The biggest feature that I have found valuable is stability. 

The way it lent itself to automation has been very invaluable for us. It makes the setups a lot more consistent and repeatable across the board. We're able to deploy the product quickly in a very consistent manner, which meets our timelines. A lot of what we do has very short spending dates, and they need a lot of product work.

It has been pretty good for us. I have no complaints as such. We just learned that we can get access to more support documents by going through the portal. I didn't know that. If it was something that was more known or advertised, that would have helped us to find out some of the information a little better.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for about a couple of years.

It's a 10 out of 10 in terms of stability.

It's a 10 out of 10 in terms of scalability.

The customer service is good. There is a lot of support documentation out there for anything you're looking for.

Positive

We tried quite a few flavors of different things, but nothing provided the consistency that we are getting with Red Hat Enterprise Linux. We tried everything such as Ubuntu, Mint, etc.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux stood out for its consistency and stability. We had several different problems with drivers on Mint. There were so many different flavors. We had one developer who built everything on one, and then another developer built on another, and none of that was coming together. It was not meshing, so we finally went to a common platform with stability and supportability. It was a lot better. It has allowed the developers to focus more on their code rather than having to worry about fighting the underlying things, such as drivers aren't on this one, and that one is not working.

It was very straightforward. We've pushed in further to make our own ISOs, so we're making sure that everything is getting the same applications and everything is deployed across the board, and we are able to virtualize in some cases. It has been good.

You definitely get what you're paying for. From what we've seen, it has been great. It has also allowed virtualization and making their own ISOs. We're able to package all that up, and it has worked consistently and repeatability. We've written our own Bash scripts so that we can automatically deploy that and stick it as part of the build. We're saving a lot of time and getting to a common platform repeatedly.

Overall, I'd rate it a nine out of 10. There's always room for a little bit of improvement.

Currently, we're running our web servers on Red Hat Enterprise Linux. 

It improves our security posture, especially around patching. It has built-in security features for risk reduction and maintaining compliance. SELinux, which is basically the default firewall provided by Red Hat, allows me to secure myself in terms of the network ports that are exposed or enabled, which reduces the risk. When you have a web server, you have a public IP, and for the public, it's easy to do a port scan on that particular public IP, but when you do implement proper security controls in terms of firewalls, you're able to enable only those ports that you need for communication. For example, for a web server, you'll enable port 443 for HTTPS and one or two extras for a particular requirement for Tomcat or something else. The setup and configuration are quite easy. OS-level patching is a big deal for us for maintaining compliance. With the enterprise subscription, you do get patches as soon as they're released by Red Hat.

It helps with portability. I can take a snapshot of my Red Hat virtual machine and restore it anywhere regardless of the virtualization platform, as long as the processor architecture stays the same. For example, if you're doing a backup and restore from a RISC-based processor, you can always restore it to any other RISC-based processor. Similarly, if you're taking a backup or a snapshot on any X86-based processor, you can restore it on the same processor architecture, regardless of the platform you're running. It could be Dell, IBM, or something else. Portability is a huge but often understated feature. It means that if a server has gone down, regardless of the issue, when I have the backup, I can get my services back online in a matter of minutes by just doing a snapshot restore from one server to another, or from one container platform to another. It enables me to have the highest levels of uptime for my applications. Of course, it's also impacted by the hardware I'm running. I'd rate it a nine out of ten in that aspect.

Standardizing our web applications with Red Hat Enterprise Linux has enabled us to take advantage of automating some of the workflows. For example, previously when I had a mixture of different distributions, if I wanted to deploy a particular setting across all of them, I had to do configurations on each distribution separately, whereas now, all my web servers are running on Red Hat, so I can create a simple YAML script and apply the same configuration across all of them. 

In terms of development also, configurations have been evened, and when you're taking advantage of open-source tools, it even becomes easier. We've integrated some of the native tools, such as YAML, into our CI/CD pipelines, and it's easy for our developers to deploy the same source code across different servers. For example, if you have Application A that is clustered across three or four servers, you can easily use that one single pipeline and do the same configuration across all three clustered servers. It saves us time. We are also getting a bit of quality control because we are sure that the same configuration has been applied to all three clustered servers. It has enabled us to centralize the process of DevOps in our organization.

The first one is security. Initially, the reason for going for Red Hat was mostly around security because our web servers are normally public-facing, but now, all the other distributions have probably also caught up in terms of security settings. 

Aside from security, the advantage of Red Hat as compared to the other distributions is the availability of support and patching. When you have an enterprise subscription with Red Hat, you get support and patching. If you're deploying a new product in the market and you're not sure of its compatibility with Red Hat, you can easily reach out to their support team, and they'll be able to guide you about whether they support that particular product and how far have they gone in terms of testing how Red Hat works with that particular product. For example, we were deploying a new Nginx server a few months ago, and we were not sure whether the latest version was supported by Red Hat. We had a support call and got one of the engineers into a session, who was able to take us through the level of support provided by the Red Hat operating system for the latest Nginx application. Support is very crucial in such cases. Patching is also crucial. In the case of any common vulnerability exposure that has been or can be exploited, you can rely on Red Hat to quickly patch that vulnerability.

One of the reasons for preferring Red Hat is that you can run it on X86-based hardware from Intel or AMD, or you can run it on RISC processors, such as IBM or Sun Microsystems. In terms of portability, it's supported by all the virtualization platforms out there, such as Hyper-V, VMware, and OpenShift for containers. For portability, I'd rate it a nine out of ten.

Deploying clusters on Red Hat, as well as on Oracle Linux, is a bit involving. I'd like them to simplify the setup or at least give meaningful log files to be able to see what's happening at the cluster level. 

It has been close to 10 years since we have been using it in our organization, but personally, I've dealt with Red Hat in production for two years.

It's quite stable. I haven't had any issues in terms of performance and stability with my Red Hat servers. If I have an issue, it's normally a hardware-related issue or a storage-related issue. It's rarely at the OS level.

It's quite scalable. I personally haven't had any issues in terms of scaling Red Hat, be it in a virtual machine or be it through a container. I haven't had any issues in terms of scaling. I do know one limitation they have, but it applies to very few people. For example, the amount of RAM they support does not reach one terabyte. However, I've not had a use case where I needed to have one terabyte of RAM on one particular server.

We have around 20 Red Hat servers. They're distributed across Azure and on-premise. They're normally running web services. Most of the applications they run are accessed by everyone in the organization, and there are 3,000 to 5,000 users.

So far, I've not had an incident for which I needed to take their support. I have not yet contacted Red Hat support.

We were mainly running CentOS, but then Red Hat dropped their support for CentOS. For us, our security posture is highly important. Our major pain point was around patching. Whenever we had any vulnerable web servers exposed to the public internet, we were not able to get patching for any CVEs that were found. That's why we switched our web servers to Red Hat. Patching was Red Hat's main advantage. In terms of security features and control, such as user management and permissions, Red Hat is quite similar to other distributions. I don't see any difference in terms of other aspects. The switch wasn't because of a lack of features, but after switching to Red Hat, we are now exposed to their enterprise features or tools, such as OpenShift. So, our investment in Red Hat was because of their support and patching.

We have deployed Red Hat on-prem on Hyper-V. We've also deployed Red Hat on-prem on VMware, and we also have Red Hat on Azure Cloud. In terms of version, we have everything from 7.2 and all the way to 7.6. We currently don't have any real deployment of version 8 or version 9.

I'm the person who does most of the deployments. The deployment is quite easy. I'd rate it an eight out of ten in terms of the ease of deployment. Deploying Red Hat would be quite easy even for a beginner system administrator because it guides you during the deployment. It asks you whether you want to use a feature or what features you want to install alongside the operating system. Do you want a file server, or do you want a web server? The installation is quite straightforward and simple.

For me, normally the complete configuration from deploying the OS and managing storage, users, and security takes less than 30 minutes. In less than 30 minutes, I'm usually up and running.

We do everything in-house. We don't use any third-party help. Usually, I do all the deployments myself, but I also have an assistant. So, we currently have two people: me and my assistant.

It doesn't really require any maintenance. It just requires occasional patches. That's also handled by me and my assistant.

There is definitely an ROI. Automation definitely reduces the time taken to implement a particular task and the number of employees needed to do the same task. For me, it's majorly in terms of automation, uptime, and availability. The fact that Red Hat is quite portable means that whenever one of my systems goes down, I can easily just take a snapshot and get my services back online. 

Their licensing is quite okay. It isn't expensive, and it's slightly cheaper than Microsoft. Taking into account its features, its price is okay.

Support is something that serious enterprises would want to have. The advantage of running an open-source tool is that you do not have to pay for the tool in terms of licensing, but you don't have support. In certain situations, you might need support. For example, when one of your systems goes down, but you do not have the expertise internally to recover it. Depending on the industry you're working with, having downtime might not be optimal or might be costly. It might even be costlier than paying for the support or licensing of Red Hat.

Apart from support, for organizations that have some of their services exposed to the public internet, security is very important. They would want the patches for the latest common vulnerability exposures found to be affecting the particular systems they are running. So, support and security are the key features why any serious organization should choose Red Hat as opposed to an open-source tool.

We evaluated other options, but they were probably inadequate. We had the option of using AIX, but it wasn't portable for our use case. 

It's normally an issue of balancing the cost of support and the features that you are looking to achieve. If security is number one to any organization, Red Hat is a no-brainer. If support is a key issue, Red Hat again is a no-brainer. If you're facing any security or support issues, I'd recommend going with a distribution that has some sort of licensing tied to it.

I'd rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux an eight out of ten.

We are primarily using it for services, such as cloud infrastructure services, for our business. We are working with a Town Council in Bolivia. We provide the environment for deployed applications, and we are using it for the private cloud, Linux server, and applications developed within the company.

Mostly, we use version 7.0. We also have three servers with version 8.5. We are working with everything on-premise. We have a cloud, but most of the cloud is accessible from inside the company. It is not accessible from outside of the company.

Red Hat at present is the core, and we are also using Ansible, Horizon, OpenShift, and Kubernetes in our environment. They are a part of our environment. It is the best in terms of integration, and it is totally integrated with other solutions. With these integrations, all other solutions become a part of one big solution, which saves time. You can achieve the same results by building things from scratch with open source, but it would be very time-consuming. Deployments become easy and fast because everything is integrated. It is very good to have everything integrated, and we now have just two people working with the whole infrastructure. 

It has accelerated deployment. We are using OpenShift, and it is very easy to deploy new machines on our infrastructure. Like Ansible, we can deploy many machines with the same configuration or automatic configuration. It is really fast. 

With Ansible, we can easily create environments. Comparing the infrastructure that we had while using Windows 2012 with the tools that we now have with Red Hat, we have saved 80% of the time. Everything is automated with Ansible. We only check playbooks. It has accelerated the deployment of applications. Automation saves time and allows us to allocate people to other work. Previously, it was very time-consuming to create environments. We had to train people. We had to create maybe three or four virtual machines for load balancing according to the needs of the client, whereas now, OpenShift is creating them automatically and destroying them when they are no longer needed. It saves a lot of our time. People are doing more technical work. In the past, we had five people to work with the infrastructure, and now, we have only two people. Three people have been moved to another department.

We can run multiple versions of applications for deployment. OpenShift has Kubernetes inside. So, you can run one version, and immediately, you can deploy the next version and do a test of two versions. We test new solutions or patches in an application, and we run both versions at the same time just to have a benchmark and prove that some issues have been fixed. With Kubernetes, it is easy for us.

Its scalability and ease of setup and configuration are most valuable. When we have a hardware failure, we just save the configuration files, and in about half an hour, we have another server running with the same configuration. It is really easy to replace servers. This is the best feature.

It has very good integrations. The IPA feature is really awesome. We used this feature to integrate with Active Directory. Red Hat has many tools for integrations.

I would like training to be added to the subscription. It would be useful for when you have to train yourself or get a certification. There are many things that we are not using because we don't know how to use them. Having training included in the subscription would help us in learning more things and utilizing the full power of the solution.

I have been using this solution since 2000. I have been using Red Hat before it became Enterprise, but in our company, we adopted Red Hat about two years ago. We still have a few servers on Windows Server 2019, but most of our servers are on Red Hat.

It is very reliable. We didn't have any issues with services.

Its scalability is good. We can work with the same server and make it a load balancer. It is really easy. In one hour or one and a half hours, we can have another server working, and we can put it in the cluster. It is really easy.

We contacted them only twice, and we received good support from them. I would rate them a nine out of 10. The only thing that is missing is the training. If they can include training in the subscription, it would be awesome.

We mostly had Microsoft solutions, and we were using Windows 2012, and we had some issues with it. Working with Windows was really painful for us as administrators. For users, there was no issue. The servers were always working. We switched to Red Hat because it had the biggest offering. It is an enterprise solution, and it gives you all the things. With others, you have to do things on your own. It is a complete solution.

When we migrated from Windows 2012 to Red Hat, it was a game-changer. In the beginning, we were working with IIS for deploying applications. Most of the applications were developed in the company, and some of them were not PHP-native.

We also have four servers using Debian Linux, and we have another software that is open-source and built from scratch. It is like Red Hat, but you need to do most of the things from scratch. We're using Docker instead of Kubernetes for everything related to quality assurance for our developers.

It was complex at the beginning because we only knew the basics. We didn't know the purpose of many of the tools and how to implement them. We started training ourselves. It took us two years to implement or to make this change.

We first installed it on a few of our servers, but then we started working with OpenShift. We have a private cloud in our infrastructure, and it is me and one colleague doing this job.

We haven't measured it, but we would have got an ROI. It is doing many things for us, and it must be providing a big return on investment.

If you don't buy the Red Hat subscription, you don't get technical support, and you don't have all the updates. 

To have everything working like a charm, the cost that you pay for it is worth it. In Bolivia, we don't have the best internet connection. Therefore, we have a local service with all the packages, repositories, etc. We manage them locally, and because we have a subscription, we can update them. So, we have local repositories with all the packages and other things to make it easy for us to update all the servers. Without the Red Hat subscription, we cannot update anything.

We were thinking of SUSE because it also has enterprise solutions. We decided on Red Hat because of OpenShift. This was the key thing for us. 

Red Hats' open-source approach was also a factor while choosing the solution because there is a law in Bolivia that is forcing all public institutions to migrate to open source. By 2023, all public institutions must run on open-source solutions.

You cannot compare it with anything that is in the market because there is nothing that does the same. Amazon is doing something similar, but it is still a different service. Everything that they give us surprises us and changes the way we are doing things.

It hasn't simplified adoption for non-Linux users because we have mostly deployed servers, and they are not visible to the users. Users are just using the applications, and they don't know what is going on in the background. They don't know if they are using Linux or something else. They are using Windows on the client, but on servers, they don't know what is running.

We aren't using bare metal for servers. Everything is virtualized and working just fine. We have VMware, OpenShift, etc. Everything is deployed on our own cloud, and everything is on our server.

We use the dashboard of OpenShift to monitor the whole infrastructure, but we also have two solutions that are not by Red Hat. One is Zabbix, and the other one is Pandora. Both of them are open source. The dashboard of OpenShift doesn't significantly affect the performance of existing applications, but it is helpful because it can send triggers. It has triggers to send alerts and things like that. It is not really resource-consuming. It is really good.

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a 10 out of 10.

I am utilizing Red Hat Enterprise Linux for automated workloads.

Having prior experience with Ansible and its automation capabilities, I sought a centralized platform with a graphical interface. Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform seemed like the ideal solution, especially since I was already familiar with Red Hat Enterprise Linux. This familiarity made it a natural progression to explore containerization within the RHEL environment.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux helps to centralize development.

Choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux for our container environment provides a more secure and reliable platform for our applications.

I appreciate the robust security features in Red Hat Enterprise Linux, such as including security benchmarks like CIS security hardenings. These benchmarks offer a significant improvement over previous Red Hat Enterprise Linux versions and provide numerous valuable security enhancements.

The most crucial factor is arguably the availability of fast, reliable, and effective support, as this prevents isolation when managing Linux systems and significantly mitigates risk.

Open integration is beneficial because it enables the use of various benchmarks to strengthen Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

Integrating Ansible Automation offers benefits, while Red Hat Enterprise Linux provides robust security features, including benchmarks for security hardening.

I would like a more straightforward process for extending file systems without the need to write all the names of logical volumes, to simplify administration and automation.

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

Early versions of Red Hat Enterprise Linux had several issues, but up from RHEL 7 I have found it very stable.

The support is accessible and responsive. I have engaged with them almost every day for two weeks and opened many cases, receiving assistance with my challenges and issues.

Positive

The Red Hat Enterprise Linux subscriptions are quite expensive.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is considered an industry standard.

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

I recommend considering Red Hat Enterprise Linux if the budget allows, as it is widely used in the industry and offers superior software support.

We have RHEL running on our machines, which handle extensive computing tasks and data analysis. The team is responsible for managing the operating system and virtual machines that host various applications run by developers. My department doesn't use containerization, but other departments do.

Red Hat's security patches and standard compliance ensure risk management and continuity.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux helps us reduce risks in our environment through operating system patches. In my previous job, we ran baselines through Ansible to ensure every server was compliant with the company's standards based on CIS standards. Red Hat Enterprise Linux has contributed significantly to business continuity and compliance efforts.

We haven't encountered any critical vulnerabilities that required Red Hat Insights to resolve. They all had low CVE scores, so they could be handled with regular patching. We haven't had to use emergency procedures yet. Red Hat Insights has dashboards you can use to see your performance, what systems are critical or require patches and all that stuff. 

Red Hat could add some AI features. There's a lot of talk about AI nowadays, but I don't think will be in Red Enterprise Linux itself. The cloud applications benefit from AI, but I don't think that will be integrated into the OS yet. 

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

We've hardly had any downtime. It goes down occasionally, but the system performs well overall. There aren't many problems, and when we do experience issues, Red Hat support resolves them quickly.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux can scale to meet the organization's needs as they evolve.

Customer service is rated eight out of ten.  Red Hat support has been instrumental. As an industry standard, it provides quick solutions to any technical problems that arise.

It is generally easy to initiate a support case with Red Hat, and there are clear escalation paths if needed. The support team responds based on the contract level.

Positive

I used Sun Solaris previously. It was nearly perfect, but it had some areas for improvement, similar to Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

The benefits of investing in Red Hat Enterprise Linux include stability, continuity, and robust support.

Other Linux operating systems like Debian are community-driven but lack the large company support that Red Hat offers.

I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux nine out of 10. Red Hat is a large organization with a solid community that can provide upstream and downstream support. I don't give it a 10 because operating systems always have room for improvement. It's almost there, but there are a few things that Red Hat could do better. 

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux for configuration management of on-premise servers within the bank, making it a bank-wide solution.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is hosted in the cloud, but the use cases are for on-premises.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux enabled centralized development by controlling deployments through features like sign-in, role-based access control, and Ansible Tower. The API integration enhanced control by standardizing deployments, providing oversight, and enabling management from a central location.

It facilitates easier environment management and performs well in that aspect, as we haven't encountered any issues.

Regarding the portability of applications for Red Hat Enterprise Linux, the only tool we utilize is Ansible Tower. Its ease of use on servers and local machines, consistent interface and debugging process ensure a streamlined workflow regardless of the platform.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux significantly enhances the bank's capacity to manage numerous deployments. Its integration with Ansible Tower provides exceptional scalability, which has proven invaluable. Furthermore, the seamless integration change simplifies deployment management, making it substantially more efficient.

API integration streamlines connections with other tools, simplifying data sharing and enhancing workflow efficiency. Features like sign-in, role-based access control, and API integration provide crucial control over deployments.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux packaging could be improved to simplify infrastructure maintenance and provisioning. While Red Hat Enterprise Linux is a robust operating system, managing it alongside external tools can present maintenance, provisioning, and compliance challenges. Streamlining the packaging process would enhance efficiency and ease of use for administrators.

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

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is a stable platform.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is highly scalable. By adding more hosts and doubling the number of VMs, it has successfully worked for our needs.

Technical support responds quickly to urgent issues, but minor bugs may take a considerable amount of time to resolve.

Neutral

Our projects utilized various solutions, including XLD and UCD, as well as some legacy technologies. Red Hat Enterprise Linux proved easier to configure than previous platforms, offering greater flexibility and alignment with current best practices.

While I lack direct deployment experience, I understand that Red Hat Enterprise Linux facilitates straightforward modifications, minimizing concerns about system disruptions.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux offers the greatest return on investment through its invaluable support, which is crucial for our critical applications. The comprehensive documentation and extensive resources, including Q&A and solutions to previous issues, are also essential.

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

Red Hat Enterprise Linux offers robust built-in security features that help with risk reduction, business continuity, and compliance. However, hosting external tools within a bank environment can create challenges in synchronizing policies and meeting security expectations. Ensuring the tool's security configurations align with the bank's server requirements can be complex, but this challenge is not unique to Ansible and is a common issue when integrating external tools into secure environments.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux offers greater control and a higher level of security compared to some open-source alternatives, which can be crucial for enterprise applications where stability and reliability are paramount. This focus on security is a key factor in choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux in the enterprise for production environments. We mostly use it on bare metal servers, which are dedicated. In terms of deployment, we use the on-premises version of Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has given us better insights and allowed us to manage the environment more effectively. In terms of overall performance improvements, it has provided us with increased visibility into security, which has been helpful for our cybersecurity team.

Its built-in security features seem pretty sufficient for our purposes, but we have other teams that manage the security and build aspects. I am more involved in the maintenance of it, but in terms of the built-in security features, I find it sufficient. The security team also takes care of the compliance aspect.

I mainly use the Red Hat database for vulnerabilities. It is pretty good for determining whether or not a vulnerability has been resolved. 

We use Red Hat Satellite for patching. I like Red Hat Satellite for patching and keeping us secure.

We have used Red Hat Enterprise Linux in hybrid environments. It seems to work fairly well. For hybrid environments, it is probably one of the easier ones to deploy because it allows us to scale.

We were able to realize the benefits of Red Hat Enterprise Linux immediately after the deployment.

In terms of the organization and structure, the support is on point. The reporting and other things are very standardized. It does not leave much room for error when working in production environments.

When we first deploy Red Hat Enterprise Linux, it is very challenging to determine which security features have been deployed. It would be beneficial to have more insight into this. Additionally, once it is built, there does not seem to be an option to retroactively change security features, which can make it difficult to ascertain which ones have been deployed.

Their knowledge base is very verbose. There is too much information. It can complicate things a little bit. It is very detailed. If they can shorten it, that might be helpful.

We have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for a few years now, approximately seven to eight years.

I would rate the stability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux as seven out of ten. We do encounter problems, most of which can be resolved. Occasionally, we face issues that cannot be resolved until the kernel developers address them. These are typically dealt with through quarterly releases or major upgrades.

In terms of scalability, I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux about a nine out of ten. It is easy for us to make snapshots when we are patching. If we need to clone, we can do so, although they might not be full backups necessarily.

We use their portal for contacting support. The support from Red Hat is quite quick because it operates on a service-level agreement (SLA). For the paid support features, they are very responsive.

Positive

I am familiar with CentOS, and I have used OpenSUSE and SUSE Enterprise for testing and comparison purposes.

CentOS did not have as many security features. Of course, CentOS had the community support. CentOS was bought by Red Hat, and then the support started lacking. It was then discontinued to promote Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

We have done some physical to virtual migrations using VMware. We have been mostly involved in that. We have done a little bit of virtual-to-cloud migration but not as much as physical-to-virtual.

The migration is more on the complex side. There are quite a few players involved. We need to collaborate with different teams. We need to make sure that the database is there, and that the database team is always involved. It is not terribly simple. It requires quite a bit of project planning and coordination. We usually have a six-month project so that it can be planned and tested.

It does require maintenance on our end but not very frequently.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux licensing is quite costly, but I personally do not deal with pricing.

My advice to new users would be to focus more on the build aspect because it can be overlooked by many new users.

The Leapp utility works well when you do not have a much-customized environment. The more customized your environment is, the more complicated it gets to get Leapp to work to switch over to Red Hat Enterprise Linux. It is possible, but the more customized your environment is, the harder it is because it will require the kernel module. Convert2RHEL is pretty much the same as Leapp. The more customized the environment, the harder it is. It is feasible. It is just a matter of how much time you are willing to spend on it.

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux a seven out of ten.