Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Reviews

We mainly use Red Hat Enterprise Linux for general applications. We have Red Hat Enterprise Linux for identity management. We use it for NTP services. Most of the bank services that run on Linux run on Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Our core applications include bank cards solutions.

It is a stable operating system, and that is why we use it. We have many team members who understand how to use Red Hat Enterprise Linux, so it's much easier to use this version of Linux to deploy services.

There is ease of use. A lot of resources are available online if the team wants to understand something. There is also the ability to use various automation tools to run multiple tasks.

For risk reduction and compliance, we have CIS benchmarks. There are various configuration files that we are able to update and change. Using the benchmarks available from CIS, I can have a template and automate that across multiple machines using automation features such as Ansible. When examining permissions for file systems, enabling login, and enabling file integrity, these are the items we would use for security.

The simplicity of patching Red Hat Enterprise Linux is most valuable. We just use the DNF update. We use the Red Hat satellite for our patch repositories, which is quite simple. I look at it at an infrastructure level because I'm in the infrastructure team, not in the application team.

The knowledge base is good. When we troubleshoot or have issues, we go to the Red Hat website. There are a lot of documented issues. They have a good knowledge base.

Identity management could be simpler. Red Hat Enterprise Linux has Identity Manager, but it is not as simple to use as Microsoft Windows Active Directory.

I have been working with Red Hat Enterprise Linux for a very long time, approximately 15 years.

It is stable. I would rate its stability a nine out of ten.

So far, I have not been affected by significant issues in terms of security.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is scalable, so I would rate its scalability a nine out of ten.

We are using it across two sites. We have 6,000 people.

I have contacted tech support of Red Hat Enterprise Linux for some questions. Their tech support is quite good compared to other companies.

Before working with Red Hat Enterprise Linux, I used CentOS and Microsoft Windows. While comparing CentOS with Red Hat Enterprise Linux, I see stability as an advantage; Red Hat Enterprise Linux is quite a stable operating system.

I have done cloud deployments and upgrades.

It does not require a lot of maintenance. For managing Red Hat Enterprise Linux systems, when it comes to provisioning and patching, we use Ansible, which allows us to patch multiple machines. We normally use Red Hat Insights. Once we configure our machines to talk to Red Hat Insights via Red Hat Satellite, it can tell us the vulnerability status of various machines in the environment. Then, we can decide which machines are most vulnerable and patch accordingly. We can use automation tools such as Ansible to run various patches across the environment.

We have used Leap to do the upgrades from Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 to Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8. Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 was going end of life. Upgrading from one version to another can be a bit complex. It is sometimes an issue because of multiple compatibilities. You need someone who is a bit skilled on the operating system.

We did the deployment ourselves, not through an integrator, reseller, or consultant.

We have four people involved in maintenance because we have many servers.

The cost of Red Hat Enterprise Linux is reasonable.

I would recommend it for mission-critical applications. It's a good operating system to run mission-critical applications.

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux a nine out of ten because of the support, stability, and ease of use.

I typically use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in my federal government contracts. Federal government customers are the only ones that use Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

Most government agencies use Red Hat Enterprise Linux because they have a requirement for commercial support. That is the only reason why Red Hat Enterprise Linux gets used over any other Linux distribution.

The only reason our clients use Red Hat Enterprise Linux is because Red Hat offers commercial support. 

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is a solid product. They have decent support, although not the best. They have a good knowledge base and a well-developed ecosystem.

Recently, Red Hat did a strange thing where they took over the CentOS project and changed several things in their pipeline. I don't believe that I, or the vast majority of Linux systems engineers out there, are fans of their development process for the operating system.

The way that Red Hat used to work was that they had a free version. It was the community version called CentOS. Everything that Red Hat developed, they backported to the CentOS community. About four or five years ago, they took over the CentOS community and they killed off CentOS. They were pushing the Red Hat Enterprise Linux stream variant, which was supposed to be the replacement. I wish they would just go back to the way it was before. I do not like the new development process and the new hierarchy. The vast majority of people in the Red Hat open-source community also do not care for it much.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux since its inception. I started using Red Hat Linux in 1999, but I do not remember what year it became Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

They are typically slow to respond. I feel their first-line support is lacking in knowledge.

Their knowledge base is pretty decent. It is pretty standard. Linux is such a mature product now that the knowledge bases for all the major distributions, even the open-source free ones, are so vast. I do not know if any Linux distribution offers any real advantage over others when it comes to the knowledge base.

Neutral

I have worked with all operating systems. I have been doing this for 30 years. In the military, I was a Windows and Linux systems administrator. I was using Solaris Unix back then. I have been using Windows for about 30 years, and then I have used all Linux distributions such as Ubuntu, Debian, Red Hat, Mandrake, Yellow Dog, etc. If there is a Linux distribution out there, I have probably used it in a project somewhere.

The only reason that I, or anybody else, uses Red Hat Enterprise Linux is because it offers commercial support. That is it.

The Red Hat package management system is inferior to most other package management systems in the Linux world, mostly to the Debian-based ones that used the App system versus the Red Hat RPM package management systems. Red Hat is also not as unified or as streamlined as other distributions.

The setup is pretty simple and very straightforward. I would rate it a seven out of ten for the ease of setup. Its upgrades are moderately straightforward.

The management depends on where those systems live. On-prem ones are managed differently than the cloud ones. Cloud-to-cloud ones are managed differently. Red Hat is slightly more work-intensive than other Linux distributions. I feel that Debian-based distributions, such as Ubuntu, Devuan, and AntiX, are easier to manage than the Red Hat-based distributions, and obviously, Red Hat Enterprise Linux is the flagship for all those distributions.

It is used just to meet requirements. Being government agencies, they do what they have to do to meet requirements. It helps them meet the requirements of having commercial support, and that is about the extent of it.

I am not a big fan of Red Hat Enterprise Linux. I use it because government customers have a requirement to use it, but outside of that, I would never voluntarily use it. In fact, I recommend against using it. 

We do not use features that are proprietary to Red Hat Enterprise Linux. We do our best to avoid proprietary tools. We stick to open-source tools. Typically, we use things like Ansible to achieve those goals.

I am a consultant, so I have worked with both on-premises and cloud deployments. I have used it in both Azure and AWS. It is client-defined. Our workloads are not hybrid workloads. They are usually dedicated. If we put a workload in the cloud, it is all in the cloud. If we put a workload on-prem, it is all on-prem. I do not know if Red Hat necessarily provides any special features to support hybrid workloads, and if it does, we certainly do not use them. We try to stay away from Red Hat-integrated tools and utilize industry-standard tools. We use Terraform and Ansible. Ansible is now owned by Red Hat, so it is technically a Red Hat tool, but it is also an open-source project.

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux an eight out of ten. It is good for commercial usage, but I would never use Red Hat Enterprise Linux in a startup environment.

My primary use case for Red Hat Enterprise Linux is for cloud-related tasks, such as working on AWS. Specifically, I create virtual servers on Amazon EC2 instances. My department has 50 people using the solution.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has increased our productivity by making monitoring more manageable and allowing us to be more proactive. We get more information we need from the virtual machines using the command line. It's also a highly secured system with built-in protections. We've also saved time because command-line operations are more efficient. Time is money, so we also save money by decreasing our time on these tasks. 

When I started working with Red Hat Enterprise Linux in March 2021, I did not immediately realize its benefits. It took me several months to understand the full power of Red Hat Enterprise Linux and the problems it solves. After three to six months, I recognized the full power of Red Hat Enterprise Linux. 

The most valuable feature of Red Hat Enterprise Linux is its command-line capabilities, which allow you to execute large operations quickly. For example, let's say you want to create a hundred files or directories. In Windows, you need to create each one by hand, which is difficult and time-consuming. Linux has multiple commands to create files in a few seconds. It also has the "top" command that gives you all the processes running and their utilization of resources like CPU, RAM, etc. That isn't possible with a management console or GUI.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has good security features, so it's harder to breach than Windows. There's also a large Red Hat Enterprise Linux user community, so when I get stuck, I can go to Stack Overflow or other user forums and get help. I typically get a solution within a few hours when I post a question. 

I don't handle patching and provisioning because I don't have much experience, but I've heard from senior engineers that it's easy on Red Hat Enterprise Linux. 

Red Hat Enterprise Linux could make some back-end improvements. On the front end, Red Hat Enterprise Linux could make the interface more colorful and improve the user experience. A better-looking interface would attract more customers.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux since March 2021.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is stable, providing a reliable platform for our operations.

I would rate the scalability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux as nine out of ten, indicating it scales well with our needs.

I rate Red Hat support eight out of 10. The technical support is excellent. They are readily available to assist with any technical issues that arise. Their documentation is clear and built into the GUI, so you can easily access information if you're curious about a topic. Red Hat has a large, well-informed user community.

Positive

Previously, I used only Windows, but now I use Windows, Linux, and AWS environments. I transitioned to Red Hat Enterprise Linux as it enhances productivity, reducing the time-consuming aspects of software development and project management.

Setting up Red Hat Enterprise Linux wasn't complex, but also not overly simple. It was about average. It took about half an hour to deploy the solution at one location. After deployment, we need to install updates, but that process has gone pretty smoothly.

We have a team of more than twelve individuals working with Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has saved us time and increased productivity. We've also saved money by not purchasing other operating systems, such as Windows or Mac. 

Most Indians will find Red Hat Enterprise Linux a little costly. It's slightly above average. Its pricing has room for improvement because it's more expensive in the local market due to purchasing power parity in India. 

I highly recommend Red Hat Enterprise Linux to others due to its productivity benefits and efficient command-line operations. It offers key advantages in terms of time-saving, security, and community support.

My use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) include doing OpenShift tasks and general Linux use cases.

The feature of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that I value the most is automation. Automation saves time for me as I don't have to keep doing the same tasks repeatedly. My company benefits from automation in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) since we use Ansible to deploy numerous operating systems. 

We can initiate 20 deployments, and they get configured automatically, which is efficient.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) might have helped to mitigate downtime and lower risk, though I cannot think of a specific example.

Improving Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is a challenging question. Regarding SELinux, they could make that clearer or make it easier to use.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for about a year.

The stability and reliability of the Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) platform are really amazing. There are many instances where I'll have an Active Directory server go down, and I go into the remote consoles because Windows is doing forced updates, and it drops, which is extremely annoying. I haven't experienced any similar issues using RHEL.

Evaluating how Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales with the growing needs of my company is challenging because much of what I do is lab work, so most projects are not scaling out. They remain at a set scale, then get torn down, and we create another one at that same scale.

I've had limited experience working with Red Hat support. 

I submitted a ticket because I was trying to access training material since we were a partner and were supposed to get it free, however, I had an issue with my account. 

I opened a ticket, and the person who took it responded in 20 seconds and fixed it immediately, which was excellent. I would rate the customer service and technical support of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) at a ten out of ten. It was extremely fast.

Positive

I'm not certain if Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the first solution of its kind that our company is using.

Most of my management of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems for provisioning and patching is done in labs, so I don't see many persistent workloads. Most systems get torn down. I haven't done much patching, but I'm familiar with Cockpit, and I have personal VMs that I manage that way.

When upgrading from RHEL 8 to RHEL 9, we encountered some issues and had to use a leap utility for jumping between releases. Once we found the documentation, the process was straightforward.

Since we operate in a lab environment, instead of upgrading Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), we typically download the newest release.

The biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) from my technical perspective is automation. I use automation daily to provision VMs and other systems. You can initiate the process and focus on other tasks while it runs, which increases efficiency.

I get our licensing for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) through our account team, so I don't handle that aspect.

We did not consider other solutions to my knowledge before choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) since Ansible is ubiquitous in our environment.

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) overall as a nine. There are some inconsistencies with commands, since it's built upon years of development, some legacy commands remain with opposite rules compared to newer commands. If it were more consistent, it would merit a ten.

My experience is primarily on-premises. I work in the financial and banking area, which has about 2,000 VMs.

The benefits are reliability, stability, and good support.

I find Red Hat Enterprise Linux stable. 

The knowledge base offered by Red Hat is good. They also have good support for the business. The web console has been acceptable, but we don't really use those tools.

I don't find Red Hat Enterprise Linux's security features to be good. They have many vulnerabilities that haven't been fixed for many years. They have numerous vulnerabilities that remain unresolved. Just some security details could be fixed. They have many vulnerabilities left over from previous years, with not enough being fixed, and their commitment is only to fix the critical and important ones. For moderate and low severity issues, they don't have the commitment. The security part is weak. Based on all scan reports, they have many vulnerabilities that can't be fixed adequately. 

We will be involved with some Red Hat Enterprise Linux upgrades or migrations to other cloud platforms. It's not straightforward in my opinion; we have to create an image from Red Hat Virtualization Manager and convert the image to a format that can be recognized by other platforms, such as Microsoft Azure. We have to convert the image and then import it to the Azure cloud. It's not easy, as it requires manual work. There's no tool available for this process.

I have three years of experience with Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

The uptime is excellent as it's automated and stable. I would say the uptime is very good.

Overall, their support is good. I would rate their technical support an eight out of ten.

Positive

We didn't use any other Linux systems before. Initially, we used other operating systems such as AIX and Solaris, but Red Hat Enterprise Linux was the first Linux we introduced.

We also have SUSE Linux for one specific product.

When it comes to provisioning and patching, we use the satellite. It's acceptable when patching. I am satisfied with the provisioning and patching process as it's easy to manage. We don't use Insight, and I don't know about it. We don't use the Linux image builder or System Roles; we use our own Ansible Playbook to build a system.

We have all the automation set up for server provisioning and patching. We have the web console, but we don't really use its tools. We use our own Ansible Playbook, which allows us to manage and customize. We have many customizations. All the agents are installed for compliance, IP setup, file system creation - everything is automated.

When we create a VM, it only takes running the playbook and clicking a button. It takes about two minutes of work, and the automation handles the rest. In about two hours, the VM is up and running. If we use their tools, there are many limitations for customization, and we can only build an OS, but for the rest, we still have to run the automation. That's why we don't use those tools.

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

My main use case for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is when I was working with another company, where we used the Ansible Automation Platform provided by Red Hat and OpenShift, primarily for any code automations and server productions.

I have additional insights about my main use case for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL); we've used it as a standalone server for different products, more specifically as an Ansible server and key servers, just provided by virtual machines.

The best features that Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) offers include how comprehensive the enterprise packages are, as you can get stuff included with it and the documentation that follows, which I think is good even though it is a Linux distribution that you have to pay for.

I also appreciate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)'s built-in security features, as they require less configuration and include compliance associated with it. More specifically, regarding the documentation, if I had any specific questions about Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I could go directly to the website and find the answers there.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has positively impacted my organization by providing a lot of security to run all of the systems we had in a particular environment, especially since I worked with more government operations, where security was the top priority, which Red Hat prioritized. We didn't have to worry about security configurations within the infrastructure, saving us time, and it was easy to navigate if you had a great background in Linux, plus Red Hat support was very helpful with any specific questions on the product.

I wish that Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) had more free options available; there are similar Linux distributions, but in terms of training and certification, I think it would be beneficial if there were a better free trial, allowing users to gain better experience with the platform itself.

That's the main improvement needed for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

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

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is stable and handles growth and changes efficiently, specifically with new AI platforms being integrated.

I have not experienced customer support for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

Positive

I did not use a different solution before Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL); it was strictly Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

I cannot share any return on investment from using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

I never dealt directly with the pricing, setup cost, and licensing for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) since that was managed by someone above me; it was more about day-to-day use cases for me.

My advice for others looking into using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is to be sure to look into the documentation and review the products because it is very customizable, and I would recommend using it for an enterprise.

I choose a rating of seven for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) because it is not a solution I use every single day. I rate it higher because it is applicable across multiple infrastructures Azure and AWS Cloud, but it is not universally used in particular environments, especially the one where I currently work, which is not really code-dependent.

I was offered a gift card to do this interview regarding Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), but that's the only business relationship my company has with this vendor.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) serves multiple purposes in our enterprise environment. It's used for running containerized workloads, third-party software, and tons of automation. RHEL predominately runs critical production systems because its versatility makes it suitable for various enterprise workloads.

One feature of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that is most valuable is its sophisticated update strategy. The system allows for staged updates rather than requiring all changes to be implemented simultaneously. This approach is crucial for maintaining system stability, ensuring that packages remain compatible during upgrades, and preventing software failures during operating system updates.

The security benefits RHEL provides are particularly significant to most customers. There's a reassuring confidence that comes with Red Hat's support and commitment to system security. What sets RHEL apart is Red Hat's proactive approach to handling vulnerabilities - they not only identify security issues but also provide clear solutions and upgrade paths. This level of support and accountability is unique compared to other operating systems, where such comprehensive security guidance isn't always available. Additionally, RHEL's robust security architecture results in fewer vulnerabilities overall, making it a more reliable choice.

From a technical standpoint, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) performs exceptionally well - it's reliable, straightforward, and functions as intended. The only significant concern isn't about the product itself but rather its pricing structure. Red Hat's recent changes to their pricing model have prompted some customers to question the cost and explore potential alternatives. While I can't speak to the business aspects, the feedback I've received consistently indicates that cost is the only notable concern. The product itself meets or exceeds expectations; it's purely the financial aspect that has raised discussion among users.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the industry standard operating system for businesses. Based on my experience across multiple companies, RHEL is widely adopted because of its long-standing reputation for stability, security, and reliability. Most choose RHEL specifically for those three reasons.

What can I say? Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) just works. The system consistently performs as expected, and on the rare occasions when issues arise, Red Hat's response is swift and effective in both identifying and resolving problems. This reliability stands in stark contrast to other operating systems like Windows, which has experienced high-profile failures - such as airport system outages - due to problematic updates. RHEL's track record of stable performance and minimal disruption makes it a trustworthy platform for critical operations.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)'s scalability is effectively enhanced by the cloud infrastructure running it rather than RHEL itself, but the operating system works seamlessly in the cloud. When additional capacity is needed, new RHEL instances can be automatically provisioned to meet demand. The combination of RHEL's reliability and regular updates, along with cloud platform flexibility, ensures customers can confidently scale their operations as needed.

I would evaluate the customer service and technical support of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as great. I am a former Red Hatter, so I might be a little skewed. But when I talk with customers, they love it. That is never a concern. 

Security requirements were a primary consideration when choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for the cloud. We have Amazon Linux as. Red Hat is often the requirement, so we have to follow this path.

For many customers, security requirements drive them to choose Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). For example, while Amazon Linux on AWS is an available option, security policies and third-party software often specifically require RHEL. This compliance requirement effectively determines the path, making RHEL the mandatory choice in some situations.

My management of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems is streamlined through AWS Systems Manager, particularly for provisioning and patching operations. The cloud environment simplifies this process significantly, as I have access to pre-configured Amazon Machine Images (AMIs) and built-in management tools. The system's orchestration and automation capabilities handle most of the work automatically, reducing the manual intervention to mainly scheduling tasks. This cloud-based approach has greatly simplified what was traditionally a complex system administration process, making RHEL management more efficient and less labor-intensive.

The primary return on investment (ROI) from Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) comes from two key areas: robust security and reliable support. The platform's strong security features protect daily operations, while Red Hat's consistent and dependable support ensures expert assistance is available whenever needed. This combination of security and readily available support creates significant value for the investment, providing peace of mind and operational stability.

My experience with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has been largely positive, though there was a significant shift in their pricing structure last year. That change caused considerable discussion among customers. While I'm not familiar with all the specific details, this pricing change became a major talking point, particularly because it resulted in increased costs for many users. What's noteworthy is that customers' concerns were solely focused on the new pricing structure - never about the product's quality or performance. This pricing change led some customers to reevaluate their commitment to RHEL, purely for financial reasons rather than any technical considerations.

We only consider other solutions before or while using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) if it is a requirement, for example, if they have to have Windows, then nothing we can do. If that is the requirement, but other than that, I think it is pretty much the default in most cases. There are other players, Amazon Linux, of course. It just depends on what the use case is and what the requirements are. That dictates which way to go. In most cases, we go with Red Hat because that is what is required.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the default operating system in many cases, but alternates are considered when requirements allow. For instance, if a system explicitly requires Windows, we have no choice but to use that instead. While other options exist, our operating system selection is primarily driven by specific use cases and requirements. Most frequently, customers implement RHEL because it's either mandated by their requirements or is the most suitable choice for their needs. Their decision-making process is straightforward: RHEL is the go-to solution unless project specifications or technical requirements specifically demand an alternative.

Regarding system updates, our approach has evolved away from traditional upgrades. Instead of updating existing instances, we follow a more modern deployment strategy: we create new instances with the desired specifications and simply decommission the old ones. This approach aligns with container methodology and works well with our automated infrastructure. The process is efficient and straightforward, eliminating the complexity of in-place upgrades.

As for rating Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I would give it nearly a perfect 10. Its reliability is exceptional - once deployed, it runs consistently and dependably. RHEL has established itself as a trustworthy platform, similar to IBM's reputation in the mainframe world. Users can count on both the product's performance and Red Hat's ongoing support.

My main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are mostly development at first, and then after that, it's actually running full production loads on it.

One of the nice pain points that Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) addresses compared to other distributions is the polished applications within it. 

Their repository tends to be more foolproof. The SELinux feature in RHEL is pretty strong. 

SELinux is not something that I was ever using before in the open source community, and it was very confusing at first; however, after a while, it made sense why that layer exists. The SELinux feature and other features of RHEL benefit my company by allowing us to lock in the server more traditionally than we would be able to with special permissions. 

It's about getting very granular versus just putting an umbrella on some things, and security-wise, it's very effective.

The security features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), including SELinux and its features, make it easier to be aware of compromises.

The Insights tool is very good at providing CVEs to alert us about vulnerabilities quickly. I can't quantify the impact in percentage terms since I haven't faced specific situations. However, the outlook compared to other distributions looks good.

To improve Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), it would be helpful to have a step-by-step process to make setup easier. Cockpit needs more features to manage complex tasks such as RAID configurations, as most of that is reserved for the command line.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for about a year and a half.

I find Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) to be super stable and super reliable.

I have not scaled Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) outside of using templates and cloning features. I haven't scaled it out with OpenShift yet; it's something I want to explore, as I now understand what tools OpenShift can offer to scale out RHEL machines effectively.

My experience with customer service and technical support for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is mixed. On a professional level, they are very responsive, which is part of the contract, but on a personal level, responses can take forever, and I often get pointed to community posts.

Positive

We did not consider any other OS solutions while using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), although there have been discussions about using Ubuntu. I don't think it will go that way because we are very satisfied with what RHEL offers overall.

The biggest return on investment with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is that every time I put an application or tool in there, it's going to work. I don't have to second-guess it or go back; I know it will be a polished application.

Regarding the experience with pricing, setup costs, and licensing for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I would say it's beyond my pay grade. That said, it's not cheap at all. While it could always be cheaper, they provide substantial value for the money, and they consistently introduce new features that add value.

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as a ten out of ten overall. 

It's a great OS that has grown on me over time, and the more I use it, the more I understand its value and why it costs what it does.

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux as the operating system to host various applications developed by our application group. It has our test tools, web servers, and Java applications. We install it based on the requirements of the applications.

It is a good product. All Linux solutions are pretty solid. It carries a different business model than a lot of them, which fits more into our business model. That is where it excels. We do not prefer unsupported ones or buying third-party support.

The most valuable feature of Red Hat Enterprise Linux is its support. I primarily use the product because it offers a phone number for support when needed. 

It integrates well with our existing systems like SaltStack for patching and provisioning. However, its primary value is in having support when issues arise.

There is room for improvement in terms of pricing and its knowledge base. 

I consider the cost high. The knowledge base is extensive and deep but can be confusing due to outdated or non-applicable information that you have to sift through to find relevant answers.

I have had experience with the basic and extensive use of Red Hat Enterprise Linux for about 15 years.

Customer service varies. I would rate their support a five out of ten, as it depends on the person at the other end. Sometimes the support is good, and sometimes it is not so good. It is like any other support organization.

Neutral

I did not switch from any previous solution. Red Hat Enterprise Linux has been in use since before my tenure.

I work in the casino gaming industry. Most of our servers are in Windows. We have about 30 Linux instances. We install it based on the implementation requirements of an application. There is a justification for putting an application into our environment. It goes through a process at our company, and then where we install it or what we install it on is usually up to the requirements of the application.

We have on-premises and cloud-based environments. Red Hat Enterprise Linux is running in one of those environments. It has adequate features for security in cloud environments. 

We use SaltStack, and we built the patching mechanism ourselves. We are pretty satisfied with it. If we were not satisfied, we would change it.

The upgrades with Leapp used to be painful. It used to not work at all for us. When we went to Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9, it did work, but it was a fairly painful process. The advantage is we do not have to reinstall the apps on top of the new image of Red Hat. It is an in-place upgrade. The problem is that you can install Red Hat Enterprise Linux in 50 different ways, and in the past, Leapp assumed you did it the default way. They have added some flexibility so that we can work around some of the stuff, but it makes you install it a certain way, which is not necessarily the way we would do it, mainly because of our security standards and performance needs.

We have not experienced a noticeable return on investment with Red Hat Enterprise Linux itself, as the operating system serves its intended function without bringing additional advantages.

Pricing depends on the model used, costing about $3,000 per virtual host in the virtual environment. It varies depending on whether you get high availability. There are modules that are upsold such as kernel patching, which we do not use due to cost considerations.

In the cloud, we use their licensing. For on-premise, we use the subscription, so we have two different licensing models.

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

In our environment, we primarily use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for managing customer environments and our own. The customer environments are mostly Apache web servers. Some customers have databases, like Postgres, running on Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Others run native Docker on it to manage application dependencies. 

We run containerization projects in the OpenShift environment based on Red Hat Enterprise Linux OS because that's more suitable for containerized workloads. You can do some machines on Red Hat Enterprise Linux, but not all of them. Your worker nodes need to be Red Hat CoreOS, but your master nodes can be Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

I was more experienced with other Linux distributions and Docker. It's open source, so you can fetch Docker and run it, but they don't have support if you have questions or if something isn't working as expected. Podman is similar to Docker. I don't primarily use Red Hat Enterprise Linux for containerization, but I set something up in Podman on Red Hat Enterprise Linux. It isn't used that much. Tinkering and development are the main reasons you would use Podman on a single centralized Red Hat Enterprise Linux machine. If you want to orchestrate on a larger scale, you use OpenShift.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has made significant contributions to our business continuity and compliance efforts. If a critical vulnerability is spotted in the wild, Red Hat fixes it most of the time. It's usually within a day if it's a zero-day vulnerability. Log4J was a bit more difficult because it was not a single package, but it was mostly shipped with other products. It's hard to analyze which application is vulnerable and whatnot. The solution lets us centralize development. We use Ansible to orchestrate the tooling deployment or to fetch a lot of information. 

Red Hat always clearly describes the vulnerability on its security pages as a CVE score. You can fix errors by patching or mitigating them. If the patch hasn't been released, you can mitigate it to prevent the vulnerability from being exploited. Red Hat Enterprise Linux helps us guide the data and ensure it is correctly placed. I was monitoring it daily, but it was a bit too frequently. Now, we get vulnerability notifications weekly or monthly about a vulnerability or exploit that's been discovered. I also look on Reddit directly to see if there's a fix or a mitigation we can implement.

Sometimes, when upgrading or migrating systems, there are differences in the repositories of the versions that aren't one-to-one replaceable. For example, there are significant differences in the repositories from version 7 to 8. We needed to upgrade Red Hat Enterprise Linux from version 7 to 8 because it had reached the end of its life. A Postgres database was running on it that used a Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 package, allowing some database or reporting features. When I upgraded to Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8, it was not in the repository. I needed to install it with some workaround. Of course, it was installed with some minor incompatible dependencies. 

I have mixed feelings about the built-in security features. SELinux must be configured correctly for the port and directory, or applications won't run, so we primarily disable it. Sometimes, we enable it and tinker with legacy systems deployed long before I joined the company. However, chances are it will break something if you enable it. 

We have been using RHEL for three years.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has performed very well for our business-critical applications, with minimal downtime.

We don't need to dynamically scale our application because of our workloads, as we mostly use Red Hat Enterprise Linux for our internal tools. We don't have much demand to scale out.  Containerization lets you quickly scale out your application with some bots if your hardware supports it, and you have enough resources. 

In VMs, we didn't need to dynamically hot plug some service to compensate for the load. It would be vertical scaling by adding more resources. Sometimes, we need to do that for databases that consume a lot of memory, CPU, power, etc.

I rate Red Hat support eight out of 10. It depends on the priority of the requests. We had to launch several P1 requests because something wasn't working in our OpenShift environment, and we were stuck. The support response was quick.

However, we were annoyed that most of the support was based in India. Sometimes, they don't know what the problem is and need to escalate it to an expert in the US or or Germany. It prolongs the ticket resolution, but once it gets to the expert, they fix the problem instantly because they know more. 

Positive

We previously used other Linux distributions with Docker. We prefer Red Hat Enterprise Linux because of its enterprise support capabilities, which open-source distributions like Debian or Ubuntu lack.

I'm unsure what the standard Red Hat Enterprise Linux license costs for one machine. We pay for premium support that guarantees a response in two hours. 

I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux eight out of 10. If applications and package installations work correctly, I would give it an 8.5. It's a pleasing OS to work with, especially Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 and 9, which are more polished than Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7. I briefly interacted with Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6, I'm 27, so I know I'm very young, but I know colleagues who worked with Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4, 5, and 3. 

Other open-source Linux distributions might work if they have high levels of community involvement so the community can identify and fix vulnerabilities quickly. Alma and Rocky Linux are all upstream from Red Hat Enterprise Linux. If you want to go with an open-source distribution, I will point you to Alma and Rocky because they are the one-to-one replacements from CentOS. You don't need a subscription. 

We are a big company with many customers, so we prefer a stable platform with support. You can't open a ticket for open-source distributions like Debian or Ubuntu if you have a problem, ticket. With Red Hat, you can open a ticket if you discover a bug. That's included in your support subscription. You also get regular patches, so we can show our customers we are compliant, etcetera. It's a no-brainer to use an enterprise distribution with support instead of something open source where you don't have a support subscription.