Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Reviews

Our primary use case for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) revolves around running and managing critical enterprise workloads. We rely on RHEL’s stability and security to support key applications, including Oracle databases, EBS (Enterprise Business Suite), and NMS (Network Management Systems).

One of the standout advantages of RHEL in our infrastructure is its integration with Ansible, which allows us to automate configurations, streamline patch management, and reduce manual intervention across multiple systems. This automation helps us maintain consistency, enhance security, and minimize downtime.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has significantly enhanced our organization's efficiency, security, and automation. As the foundation for our enterprise workloads, RHEL provides a stable and scalable platform that ensures high availability and performance across critical applications. One of the biggest improvements we've seen is through Ansible, which has helped us automate configuration management, deployment, and patching processes. This has not only reduced manual workload but also minimized the risk of human errors, leading to a more resilient infrastructure.

One of the most valuable features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for our organization has been its simplicity and automation capabilities. Managing enterprise workloads can be complex, but RHEL streamlines this through Ansible, allowing us to automate configurations, deployments, and patching. This has significantly reduced manual intervention and improved operational efficiency.

Security is another critical factor, and RHEL’s robust vulnerability management ensures continuous updates for Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVEs), keeping our systems protected. The integration of Red Hat Insights allows us to proactively identify and mitigate risks, strengthening our overall security posture.

Additionally, the stability and scalability of RHEL have been essential for supporting key applications like Oracle databases, EBS (Enterprise Business Suite), and NMS (Network Management Systems). The long-term support and extended lifecycle maintenance ensure smooth operations, minimizing downtime and disruptions.

Overall, RHEL’s combination of automation, security, and reliability has enabled us to optimize infrastructure management, improve security, and maintain seamless operations for mission-critical applications.

One significant area for improvement is SAP certification and compatibility. Many large enterprises rely on SAP workloads, and RHEL’s limited official certifications for certain SAP solutions create challenges for businesses looking for seamless integration and performance optimization. Expanding certification coverage and tuning RHEL for SAP applications would strengthen its positioning in enterprise IT landscapes.

Another key improvement would be user-friendly patch management. While RHEL provides strong security updates, further enhancing the patching process—especially with live-patching options—could minimize disruptions and make the update workflow even more intuitive for IT teams managing large deployments.

Additionally, expanded cloud-native support would be beneficial as organizations continue shifting toward hybrid and multi-cloud environments. Strengthening native integrations with cloud service providers, optimizing containerization tools, and improving Kubernetes compatibility could boost RHEL’s efficiency in cloud deployments.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for the last ten years.

One of the key contributors to its stability is the predictable release cycle and long-term support. Red Hat provides extended lifecycle maintenance, allowing organizations to run workloads without unexpected disruptions. Additionally, the continuous security updates and proactive vulnerability management reinforce system integrity, reducing potential risks and downtime.

Moreover, RHEL’s robust package management system, combined with Ansible automation, further enhances stability by ensuring consistent configurations across multiple deployments. The ability to automate patching and system updates significantly reduces errors that could impact performance.

Overall, RHEL stands out as a highly stable and dependable solution, making it an excellent choice for enterprises seeking a secure, scalable, and resilient operating system.

The knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is excellent. You just need to search for your concern, and the answer is right there most of the time, and it's accurate. If something isn't there, support is also good. If you log a ticket, the response and the level of attention that you get on a support ticket is very good.

Positive

We are in both the cloud and on-premises with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). On the cloud, we use Azure. On-premises, we have VMware and Nutanix.

I wasn't involved in discussions about considering other solutions before choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for my company, however, if that decision came to me, I would have chosen Red Hat since I have previous experience with Red Hat in my last organization. 

We did have SUSE before we chose Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). We still have SUSE since SAP workloads run on SUSE, as they have better collaboration between SAP and SUSE. We tried changing that to Red Hat maybe a year ago, however, the response from the SAP team was not supportive as they wanted to go with SUSE due to some licensing and support models that were not clear to me.

The transition is straightforward. The documentation is great. It's accurate. If you have a Red Hat account, you have access to knowledge articles. 

We're on the cloud and on-prem.

We don't use AWS for purchasing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

One of the key areas where we see ROI is through automation with Ansible, which has helped us streamline deployments, patching, and configuration management. This has significantly reduced manual effort and minimized human errors, leading to higher productivity and cost savings.

Another major factor is security and vulnerability management. RHEL provides continuous updates for Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVEs), ensuring we remain protected against emerging threats. The ability to implement proactive security measures has reduced downtime and the costs associated with mitigating security incidents.

When considering setup costs, pricing, and licensing for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I always advise others to evaluate their organization's scale, workload requirements, and long-term support needs.

RHEL follows a subscription-based model, which ensures access to continuous security updates, patches, and support rather than a one-time licensing fee. While the upfront cost may seem higher compared to some alternatives, the value comes from its predictable pricing, enterprise-grade security, and extensive support ecosystem.

For organizations with large deployments, leveraging Red Hat Satellite and Ansible automation can help reduce administrative overhead, making the investment in RHEL more cost-effective in the long run. Additionally, Red Hat provides different pricing tiers based on usage—ranging from standard support to premium offerings, allowing businesses to tailor the subscription to their specific needs.

For startups or smaller teams, I often recommend exploring Red Hat Developer subscriptions, which provide access to RHEL for development and testing at a reduced cost. Similarly, cloud-based RHEL instances through AWS, Azure, or Google Cloud offer flexible pricing models, allowing businesses to scale efficiently without heavy upfront infrastructure investments.

Ultimately, I advise organizations to conduct a cost-benefit analysis, factoring in security, automation, and long-term stability rather than looking solely at initial setup costs. RHEL's value extends beyond pricing—it’s an investment in reliability and enterprise support."*

No

We have our in-house applications. We have several edge applications at our store locations. There is an in-house written app that we host on a basic Linux VM. Additionally, we have a few on-premises installations at headquarters. One of our major applications is being rewritten to be hosted on a Linux server, so that's in the process of migrating.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps me with configuration management. It has become a standard in many ways. There's substantial support and different applications that we run on it. The available options for configuration, maintainability, and stability are valuable, and it's not a rapidly changing base that we're working with.

My favorite feature of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) isn't narrowed down to one specific aspect. As someone who grew up using command line interfaces, the ability to access a command line and have the system at my fingertips is beneficial. There are multiple options and different ways to approach tasks with Linux, allowing for creativity in the process.

The command line feature of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) specifically helps me find ways to address problems. If there's a bottleneck, something slowing us down, or a manual process that we're spending significant time with, I can determine ways to either script around it or use an Ansible playbook. Having these different tools at our disposal is particularly useful.

While I don't have an immediate answer, there may be ways to lighten up the underlying system. There are many components I haven't investigated, making it difficult to pinpoint specific areas. It has always been reliable, and I haven't encountered many major issues. I've been content with Red Hat since I started using it.

We don't use SELinux because it gets in the way too much. It's a good product if you have the time to devote to it. A lot of management is involved in it. We typically set it to notify rather than completely disabling it, though vendors often request reduced security settings during application setup. Regarding areas for improvement, I can suggest streamlining SELinux, which currently feels heavy-handed in its approach to security. It's a system that requires deep immersion to understand. While there's probably justification for its current implementation, making the security component less intimidating for users would be beneficial. This is a recurring observation, as many users working on Red Hat systems or Linux systems tend to disable SELinux because it becomes an obstacle. With proper knowledge and usage, it could be beneficial, but it's similar to training a wild dog - it can be loyal, but without proper training, it becomes an impediment.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) professionally since around 2011, though I've been using some form of it since the late '90s.

We haven't experienced many problems with downtime. Our operating systems have been consistently stable regarding uptime. Any downtime issues have been related to upstream factors, networking, and power infrastructure.

In terms of stability and reliability, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is very stable. I rarely recall having issues where the OS wouldn't boot up. Any stability issues have typically been hardware, network-related, or facility-related rather than OS-related.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales with the growing needs of my company very effectively. We implement it in any place where we can find a suitable application.

The customer service and technical support for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are very good. I would rate it approximately eight or nine out of ten. It has been particularly good recently. Though there were past instances where support initially took a hands-off approach due to gray areas in their support scope, which was disappointing, they ultimately delivered when crucial support was needed.

Positive

We are largely a Windows shop. I'm probably the only Linux person on the staff. We have legacy systems, including HP-UX and Stratus VOS, with some RHEL outliers that are being phased out. While Red Hat will likely absorb some of that capacity, many people coming from a Microsoft environment are bringing Windows .NET applications. We're currently evaluating Azure as a hosting platform, which is already in place but not actively used yet.

I've been involved in Red Hat Enterprise Linux upgrades and migrations since Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5. We still maintain one Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 server due to legacy applications. We have successfully removed all Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 installations and currently maintain a large base of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 at our store locations, which we're migrating from. We've implemented both Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 and Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9, completing the entire cycle. We've been through all the versions. We don't do in-place upgrades or anything like that. We just rehost the applications, which is probably pretty typical. This is largely a VM-based environment.

I use Satellite combined with the Ansible automation platform for provisioning and patching. I implement kick-starting via Satellite for most systems, with Ansible handling the final configuration. As Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10 approaches, I'm interested in exploring image options to streamline the process, particularly regarding CIS benchmark compliance.

We are going to move to Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10. We've been pretty good about getting up to the latest version once it's available. It took us a while with Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7, but we jumped to Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 fairly quickly. I had my process down, so with Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9, I got right on to it and rewrote my configuration. I'm hoping to streamline that to get Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10 up and going once it comes out. I'll have a new service based on that. Our footprint is shrinking a little bit because a lot of our apps are being rewritten in a Windows .NET environment. It's not going to be as big as it used to be, but we're still going to have Red Hat.

The biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is time. Time is a crucial factor, and attempting this level of automation with Windows would be challenging. While automation is possible with Windows, it comes naturally with Linux. Being able to transform common manual tasks that previously took all day into processes that take an hour, half an hour, or even less, demonstrates clear value.

Management handles much of the pricing, setup costs, and licensing for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), though I receive many of the invoices. While it isn't inexpensive, it has proven to be a worthwhile investment. The virtualized environment has provided good value. Each of our Satellite locations has its own physical license, which adds complexity, but Red Hat and our partners have worked with us to secure competitive pricing.

My rating for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is 10 out of 10.

I am a system administrator using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for handling applications and databases. The machines I manage handle applications and databases, along with some JBoss.

Ever since IBM has come into the picture, Red Hat and Ansible have been developed very well. The reporting and workflows have become very good.

Among all Linux flavors in the market, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has a very high-level support developer team, which is important for our critical systems. We need a solid platform that provides one spot for vulnerability fixes, unlike Ubuntu, CentOS, etc. They only provide low levels of support. 

The management is fine. We're doing regular patches with Satellite. We're happy with it. It is manageable.

We can manage a hybrid cloud environment. Red Hat doesn't come fully into our picture with our environment since we're using the Amazon environment and VMware for virtual machines. Red Hat is just an OS, and it is easy to set it anywhere with no issues. 

They should be more generous in providing documentation in a friendlier way. The Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) documentation is good, yet not as good as other products such as IBM. Oracle, on the other hand, is the worst; they are very limited in sharing their documentation with engineers.

The Asian support could use improvement.

I have total experience in Unix/Linux of 25 years, which includes five years of Solaris, IBM HP-UX, IBM AIX, and HP-UX, along with Sun Solaris, while the other 15 years is with Linux.

We never faced any issues with stability, and we never faced any limitations.

We never faced any issues with scalability, and we never faced any limitations. For our company,  it is more than enough. I'd rate scalability nine or ten out of ten.

Red Hat support is good, actually. It depends on the region. I have dealt with several regions including Asia, Middle East, and Europe. The majority of European support is excellent. I would give it nine to ten out of ten. In the Middle East, it is between seven to eight out of ten, while in Asia, very rarely do we get nine or eight out of ten. I'd rate it five out of ten there.

Positive

We have moved to another technology since we are no longer working with Dell EMC or Networker. With Veeam, we are currently working for that vendor. We are using Veeam exclusively nowadays.

We're working with 80% Linux, 10% Unbuntu, 10% Oracle.

The initial setup was very simple. 

Management is fine, since we have the Red Hat Satellite, which allows us to do regular up-to-date patches. We are happy with the Red Hat Satellite. It is manageable.

I am handling the storage, backup, and operating systems of Linux flavors personally.

This question of ROI would be unfair for me to answer. We are not using the full range of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) products and are depending on other things. However, Ansible is doing very well with the new version, and in terms of workflow, it is easy to manage. Ansible has been performing very well, especially after IBM acquired Red Hat. IBM has enhanced Red Hat and Ansible very well, as they are famous for reporting and managing workflows.

The pricing is very simple. Compared to something like IBM, Red Hat is the cheapest.

Without something to compare it with other than Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I cannot do a direct comparison. However, compared to Unix products such as Oracle Linux or IBM, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is less expensive.

Regarding Linux Image Builder and system roles, I have tried both, however, cannot recall which one I downloaded. The last time I built it was more than five months ago. 

I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) nine out of ten.

My main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are for the core banking systems. It is a much more stable OS than other competitor operating systems, especially with Databases.
Most banks in Iraq use Linux, whether it is free like CentOS for a UAT environment or enterprise like Red Hat.

The Red Hat Satellite makes my life much easier when it comes to managing my Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems for provisioning and patching. Before few years ago, each server had to have internet access to make updates or deployments. After joining the Satellite, it's just one push, and all the patching is done. And all the datacentres prohibit having external access. So we can create a local repository at our Red Hat Satellite and then push it to other servers, with the option of choosing a specific version to push for all servers.

Furthermore, the IDM, which is FreeIPA, is great. I appreciate how it makes the management much easier for me, even when managing more than 500 users same time. Like when someone leaves the company or someone joins, it's easier for me to onboard or respond to other things. It makes my system more secure by monitoring all the user's activity, which is another important point since no one can have direct access to the server without being authenticated and authorised by the IDM.

The Red Hat Satellite makes my life much easier when it comes to managing my Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems for provisioning and patching. At first, we had to access each server to make updates or deployments. After joining the Satellite, it's just one push, and all the patching is done. All this distribution also helps us as we use it on-prem, and all the data centers prohibit external access. So we can create a local registry at our Red Hat Satellite and then push it to other servers without issues regarding version changes.

I am a big fan of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) built-in security features, which simplify risk reduction and maintaining compliance, and I would just say we achieve 99% success. I remember a few years ago when there was a zero-day attack. Red Hat was the fastest company to respond. We found out about it at six o'clock PM, and the next day at eight AM, they had some fixes and pushed updates. So we could respond directly and implement the fixes. Any security breach with Red Hat, I do not want to speak about others, since we face worse responses from other companies.

My upgrade or migration plans to stay current involve understanding the concept of OpenShift, which has not yet become very popular in Iraq. I try to keep pushing the client to understand the concept of containers and other things. It will take some time, however, it's a good feature to move ahead with OpenShift containerization. Even with the Central Bank regulation, we have to remain on-prem, thus OpenShift supports this point and offers a flexible solution. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped me mitigate downtime and lower risks by about 80%.

I am a big fan of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) built-in security features, which simplify risk reduction and maintaining compliance, and I would just say we achieve 90% success. I remember a few years ago when there was a zero-day attack. Red Hat was the fastest company to respond. They had some fixes and pushed updates in few hours from discovering the security breach. So we could respond directly and implement the fixes. I don't like to mention the other competitors, since we face worse responses from other companies.

My upgrade or migration plans to stay current involve understanding the concept of OpenShift, which has not yet become very popular in Iraq. I try to keep pushing the client to understand the concept of containers and other things. It will take some time, however, it's a good feature to move ahead with OpenShift containerization. Even with the Central Bank of Iraq regulation, we have to remain on-prem, thus OpenShift supports this point and offers a flexible solution. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped me mitigate downtime and lower risks by about 80%.

I can't pinpoint something specific to improve Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). I feel they are doing good. I haven't thought much about what they could enhance to become even better for me.

Currently, I manage an issue not related to the OS. It's more about how to purchase vouchers or training from them. Unfortunately, any MasterCard or Visa card issued by a bank inside Iraq is blocked by Red Hat without a clear reason.

While other vendors like Cisco, Microsoft, IBM, VMware, Veeam, Nutanix, etc., we can purchase learning and vouchers directly without any issue. Only Red Hat it's blocked, so to solve this, I have to travel to Dubai and buy it outside the country. This is a significant issue for me and all Red Haters in Iraq, and that's why I also develop myself with non-official content and stopped pursuing their certification since I must travel each time I need it.

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

Regarding stability and reliability, I didn't face any issues with that. It's 99%. Any issue I face with it is due to some mistake from a colleague or something pushed the wrong script, yet I haven't faced a sudden crash.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales to my company's growing needs very effectively; I didn't face any issues with scalability. Before working in my current company (Red Hat partner), I was a work at a payment gateway company. And we made a successful story by scaling out our datacenter and migrating the version from 6 to 8 without any major issues. Also, we did clustering with Enterprise Linux and other things, and all scalability was good, just requires specific knowledge. That said, it's manageable.

In my six years working with Red Hat, I only remember opening cases three times since the technical documentation on the Red Hat site is so comprehensive that if you carefully check it, you often won't need further assistance.

The support itself is satisfactory, and they solved my issues. They understood my concerns about the side effects of some changes, however, and they were perfect in their response.

Positive

I did consider other solutions before or while using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), including Ubuntu, CentOS, and Debian. I am a big fan of Red Hat. This is why I will always choose them. When you love something that much, you just stick with it. That's why I will consistently recommend it to clients as a Red Hat partner.

For the first time, it was a little bit complicated. However, once you know how it works, it's very easy.

My experience with the pricing, setup costs, and licensing for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) it's a little bit higher. I suggest that if they could make the price more affordable, it would be great. Some clients are just startups and when opening a budget with Red Hat, it doesn't cover what they need. Perhaps they could create a specific version for startup companies or offer discounts for first-time users.

On a scale of one to ten, I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a ten out of ten.

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as the operating system on our systems. Everything is built on it.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps us solve pain points. It keeps us easily compliant from my perspective with security compliance and streamlines everything in a multi-system environment.

The OpenSCAP vulnerability scanner is what I appreciate most about RHEL. We benefit from that tool specifically due to the fact that RHEL is under the recommended operating system mandate. Through that, they have their security requirements, and RHEL's OpenSCAP vulnerability scanner is a really good automatic scanner to scan for cybersecurity vulnerabilities in our system. The way it produces reports is really nice and it's better than the old vulnerability scanner that our system used.

My assessment of RHEL's built-in security features for simplifying risk reduction and maintaining compliance centers around OpenSCAP. It's better than any other tool I've seen. I've seen two or three other ones. It is really streamlined and nice. It feels professional when using the product.

When it comes to managing our Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems for provisioning and patching, our software team handles it efficiently. We maintain a close connection with our Red Hat account managers and representatives who are extremely helpful with any Linux or Red Hat level issues.

RHEL and the Linux architecture system are easier to work with for our program maintenance and updates. Given our 30-year-old product, making current updates would be almost impossible on Solaris. The maintenance and updates for today's requirements can really only be executed with a Linux architecture, making it essential for our operations.

One of our current issues is that Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 10 discontinued support for X11 and started support for Wayland. All of our machines run on X11 window manager, which creates a huge issue in our transition. Red Hat is working with us on this matter.

There's a high barrier to entry for getting into Ansible and automating things on a system level from my perspective. When we tried it last week, we found it challenging to automate things using Ansible.

I have been at my company for two years now. The entire time has been heavily involved with using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has been able to scale to meet the needs of my company and its growth. I credit that to the Linux architecture that can scale to our requirements. We have a unique configuration. That said, my company primarily runs on Linux, and it has scaled very effectively.

The customer service is amazing. The accessibility of the support team and their responsiveness is consistently impressive. 

I would rate the customer service and technical support as nine out of ten.

Positive

We were previously on Solaris before switching our in-house systems to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 7. We actually skipped RHEL 8 and are transitioning from RHEL 7 to RHEL 9. We are not yet on RHEL 10.

We have had issues with deploying Red Hat Enterprise Linux. I'm actually really focused in on one of our current issues where Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10 discontinued support for X11. All of our machines run on X11 Window Manager. And that's a huge issue that we're transitioning. It totally breaks everything we have, and we're working with Red Hat to figure that out. It's nice they're working with us. Yeah. However, it is a big problem during our transition.

Regarding the security features and vulnerability scanner with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), we have not yet seen a return on investment as we haven't proposed it to the organization. We are currently working on scanning and fixing vulnerabilities. We are confident the the organization will be pleased with our improved compliance using the RHEL scanner, which should lead to a return on investment.

I don't have much insight into the pricing, setup costs, and licensing. I know we are licensed and have maintained a good relationship with our account manager.

While using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as our operating system, we do consider other solutions for specific features. We have alternatives available for various tools, however, we prefer to default to Red Hat since it's the organization-wide preferred operating system. In the past two years, we have been increasingly transitioning to RHEL tools.

On a scale of one to ten, I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a nine.

My main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are mainly all of our business applications, as they all run on RHEL.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps me solve pain points related to reliability, stability, and security, mainly. 

Feature-wise, what I appreciate the most about Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is security; it's much more secure, and I don't have to patch it that much. For us, security is a very key aspect of our operations, especially since we are even more security-conscious due to what happened with us in the past, so having Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in our environment makes us much more confident. When we deploy new applications, it's RHEL by default; we don't even consider another operating system right now since it keeps our environment secure and our business stable.

Security requirements are always a consideration in choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for the cloud since it is much more secure than other operating systems and has a proven track record of being compliant and secure for many years.

When it comes to managing my Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems for provisioning and patching, it's about 50% manual and 50% automated, and we are currently starting a project with Ansible to fully automate it end-to-end. Right now, it's all semi-automated, and we want to make it fully automated.

For us, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) supports our hybrid cloud strategy mainly through seamless migrations from on-premise to cloud, which has been really helpful. Frankly, we don't use the knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that much; our team prefers to get help from Red Hat support directly.

One of the suggestions I have for improving Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is finding better solutions around domain authentication, as we are facing several issues with our current methods.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for 20 years.

The stability and reliability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has been excellent for us; aside from a couple of upgrade challenges, we generally don't face any issues during a normal business day.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales with my company's growing needs, as we are increasing our footprint in both on-premise and cloud, with all new deployments on Linux without any scaling issues.

In terms of customer service and technical support for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), it has been good in general, although we have recently faced some challenges around domain authentication where support is lacking. 

At this point, I would rate customer service and technical support a solid eight out of ten due to recent issues; I would have given a nine otherwise.

Positive

We deploy Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) both in the cloud and on-premise.

The deployment has been great. I've never had any issues either patching or upgrading it. We are right now on Red Hat 9. I saw that Red Hat 10 has been announced. Our team has been able to manage the entire life cycle from starting at Red Hat 4 until now. It has not been a problem at all.

I am involved in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) upgrades all the time; we are currently in the process of upgrading from Red Hat 8 to 9 for all of our environments. Upgrading Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has its challenges; we had a couple of hiccups in a couple of cases. Overall, about 95% of the use cases have been issue-free, with just 5% of cases occasionally encountering problems.

The biggest return on investment for me when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) comes from security, as we experience fewer incidents, more stability, and less business impact, without outages resulting in revenue loss.

My experience with the pricing, setup cost, and licensing of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has been good; the licensing isn't very expensive compared to other products we're using.

While using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), we still consider other solutions as we do have other operating systems, however, for business-critical applications, we usually prioritize RHEL.

On a scale of one to ten, I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a nine.

Our use cases for Red Hat OpenShift revolve around telco environments, where we deploy telco applications using container microservices architectures. We have around 32 to 35 OpenShift clusters, with multiple worker and master nodes running on them, totaling more than 500 nodes across pre-production, test, and various production environments. We onboard different applications onto these OpenShift clusters, which primarily operate in private data centers on bare metal rather than in VMs, since the motive of this client project is to align the telco environment with a cloud-native approach.

It enables customers to deploy any type of application. A lot of enterprises are moving to the Linux environment from the Windows environment.

When it comes to development, it saves time because, unlike Windows, you don't require a lot of different things and licenses.

I appreciate the features of OpenShift, particularly its built-in capabilities such as operators and integration with multiple identity providers. Operators eliminate the need for creating helm charts, and considering Kubernetes, which Red Hat OpenShift is built on, the enhancements make OpenShift a preferred choice for many enterprise customers.

The documentation and knowledge base for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are quite good, allowing for effective searches, though I would prefer something more interactive.

I have tried the Insight features in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), which provide a good overview of clusters, but most customers at the OpenShift level do not opt for the Insights feature for two reasons. Firstly, Insights is specific to individual clusters and does not offer a single pane of glass for multi-cluster environments. Having a centralized Insights feature for multiple clusters would be more appealing, especially for customers managing a fleet of 50 or more clusters.

There is one feature that could significantly enhance our time to market: enabling AI capabilities. For instance, if you have a fleet of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) servers, potentially thousands running, they can incorporate a built-in agent that monitors key metrics. This agent would allow us to easily query and track the CPU and memory status of all clusters. Instead of generating traditional reports through Insights, we could leverage AI to curate this information directly. If such features could be included in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), it would be a game-changer. There would be no need for external AI solutions; just an integrated AI agent would suffice. This enhancement could help minimize operational costs. From a customer perspective, while capital expenditures (CapEx) are already being handled through Red Hat solutions, we need to focus on reducing operational expenditures (OpEx), especially related to reporting. Even when Insights are generated, someone still needs to analyze them. By incorporating this advanced capability into Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), they can streamline processes and deliver valuable insights more efficiently.

We are using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for our customers. We have been using it at the infrastructure level for more than 10 years. However, we have been using Red Hat OpenShift only for the last two to three years as our container platform.

It helps reduce downtime. Overall, it's stable, but it also depends on the type of workload you are running. 

It is scalable. For example, creating logical volumes and extending disks is straightforward. This process is quite easy.

Red Hat's support is generally good, but sometimes they take a long time, which can be frustrating for customers, particularly when dealing with products still in development, such as new versions of Red Hat OpenShift. When bugs arise that lack solutions, both customers and Red Hat are searching for answers, leading to delays until new releases are issued.

Positive

I have used Ubuntu and CentOS. I find Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) better than Ubuntu and CentOS.

Its deployment is easy. The number of people required and duration depend on how many servers you're deploying.

We utilize a hybrid environment with some of our customers operating in the public cloud, allowing us to manage both on-premises and cloud infrastructures.

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) an eight out of ten.

Our use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) involve a lot of infrastructure; we run Ansible on it, and we run any other containerized utilities we're using on Podman. We run OpenShift as well, so I don't think we have any RHEL workloads on there, but we definitely use RHEL for a lot of our internal infrastructure.

The Podman feature of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is very valuable; that's probably the core of it—just a simple containerized solution that allows us to stand it up in a server really quickly. This feature and other features benefit our company since we are able to quickly deploy containers to support our infrastructure with minimal management needs from our engineering team. 

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps us solve pain points such as automation, as well as supporting other file servers using NFS and other kinds of development workloads we're running on it.

My experience with RHEL has not been too complicated; most of our stuff is on RHEL 9 now. A lot of times, our security team comes to us for some of the patching and upgrades, so we're following their lead, however, it hasn't been too difficult for us. We manage our Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems for provisioning and patching using Ansible and Terraform a lot, so we've been happy with that management experience.

My assessment of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)'s built-in security features is that using SC Linux is helpful for us to lock things down, and our security team is pretty happy with it whenever they're doing their vulnerability scans. From a security standpoint, we're happy with it.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped to mitigate downtime and lower risk. If there ever is a problem, it's quick to stand up a replacement system.

It's pretty lightweight, so I'd much rather deal with a RHEL system any day versus a Windows system. If you compare it to a Windows system, which has a much bigger attack surface, there's a big reduction there.

When it comes to our security team having to scan for vulnerabilities and such, there is a lot less vulnerability scanning that needs to be done, so it's been a better fit for us for our infrastructure.

I am interested to see how Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) can be improved. It can be improved overall. Specifically, I'm interested in seeing some of the image incorporation with RHEL 10, as that might improve some of our upgrades and help in moving to the newer versions. I'm eager to learn more about that.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in my company for ten-plus years.

It has been very reliable and stable; I have not had any major crashes or outages with RHEL.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales very well with the growing needs of our company, as we can spin up instances quickly whenever we add new environments or data centers.

I have been pretty pleased with the customer service and technical support; it's infrequent that we have to engage support, but when we do, they've been responsive and we've gotten some answers, so we've been happy. I would rate the customer service and technical support as eight out of 10.

Positive

We have considered other solutions before or while using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). We've considered other Linux distros in the past, however, the ability to have a fully supported platform allows us to reach out to support from Red Hat if needed, which is the reason why we've stuck with Red Hat versus others.

In terms of deployment, it's been good standing it up and then maintaining it with patching through Satellite. Upgrades have been not time-impacted. They're pretty quick to get patching done. Everything is pretty easy. Migrations aren't too complicated. 

The biggest return on investment for me when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is certainly the ease of use for the engineering team; they can get things done without taking a lot of their time.

My experience with the pricing, setup cost, and licensing of the Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) platform has been pleasing; it's pretty straightforward and we haven't had any major concerns with costs on it compared to others, so we've been happy.

Currently, we don't have any upgrade or migration plans to stay current with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as far as moving to RHEL 10; that's going to be coming, I'm sure. Most of it involves keeping on the latest versions, and sometimes it's just a driver for keeping Podman up to date whenever Ansible needs to run, as Ansible is core for us.

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) an eight out of ten overall. 

What could make it a ten comes down to us being able to have time to dig into some of the features we're not using, so it's probably just on us to get wowed by some of the stuff we're not doing today.