Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Reviews

We primarily use Red Hat Enterprise Linux for auxiliary workloads in our larger clusters, such as logging and automation.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux was chosen for its centralized management tools, such as Satellite, which, despite occasional issues, simplifies numerous tasks with a streamlined, efficient approach.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux helps centralize our workloads.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux performs well for all our business-critical applications.

The built-in security features enhance some of our existing functionalities.

We conducted a purple team test and achieved a passing score with only minor issues identified. The robust security features inherent in Red Hat Enterprise Linux, such as its built-in tools, significantly mitigate our risk of cyber attacks by enhancing our overall security posture.

The documentation is excellent. It allows me to upload documents, inquire about specific details, and receive prompt answers, which is incredibly beneficial.

One area for improvement is the Subscription Manager, which is sometimes an inconvenience, especially when it doesn't work well with Satellite. Also, we experience issues with package management since different Red Hat packages may not be automatically obvious regarding their repositories.

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

We appreciate the scalability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux due to its simplicity. Although some automation is necessary, tools like Ansible can streamline deployment to a few clicks, depending on the environment. However, deploying on VMware occasionally introduces additional complexity.

The customer service and support are brilliant compared to other vendors.

Positive

I primarily use Red Hat Enterprise Linux at work and Debian at home. Red Hat Enterprise Linux is preferred at work due to its extensive documentation and robust support.

Time saved on troubleshooting issues and readily available support are the main returns on investment from using Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux a nine out of ten, however, its cost remains a significant barrier. Although I don't personally handle the expenses, the price is frequently discussed, especially when dealing with cloud vendors. Due to this cost, we often avoid using Red Hat Enterprise Linux in our cloud environments despite its strengths. It would be ideal to utilize it consistently across all platforms, but the financial implications make it impractical for our cloud clusters.

While we utilize Red Hat Enterprise Linux for some containerizations, most employ alternative solutions.

I am interested in using AI with Red Hat Enterprise Linux, but we are not currently utilizing it.

When considering a third-party Linux OS as an alternative to Red Hat Enterprise Linux, the decision depends on the intended use. While other operating systems might be suitable for testing purposes, Red Hat Enterprise Linux is generally preferred for its reliability and comprehensive support, which is crucial when encountering critical issues. However, if immediate support is not a primary concern, alternative options can offer a cost-effective solution.

Our Red Hat Enterprise Linux systems support specialized voice applications and telecommunications systems, which are integrated into the larger infrastructure.

We chose Red Hat Enterprise Linux for our workloads due to its superior security and the straightforward implementation of security policies compared to other operating systems.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has enabled us to centralize development, and we are using automation tools like Ansible and Red Hat Satellite Server to streamline the process of building and managing these operating systems.

It offers strong performance capabilities that are suitable for business-critical applications.

There are built-in security features that can be automated. We must gather all the relevant policies and incorporate them into our automation scripts to apply them to the operating system.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has provided zero downtime, which is incredibly reliable for us. It has also contributed to our business continuity and compliance efforts.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has contributed to business continuity and compliance efforts.

Since implementing Red Hat Enterprise Linux, our penetration test results have significantly improved.

Red Hat's portfolio helps reduce our total cost of ownership across our enterprise landscape.

The most valuable features for us are the flexibility and security that Red Hat Enterprise Linux provides.

We have experienced some issues with the support.

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

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has performed very well for our business-critical applications, and we have had no problems related to it.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux scales very nicely for us; it is good, flexible, and provides all we need.

There have been some issues with support, but this might be because of our environments and their air-gap configurations. However, overall, the experience is quite satisfactory.

Positive

We chose Red Hat Enterprise Linux over other Linux distributors because of the security reasons. It's much easier to implement security policies with Red Hat Enterprise Linux compared to other OSs.

The biggest return on investment with Red Hat Enterprise Linux is the flexibility and security it provides.

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

While we plan to initiate containerization projects on Red Hat Enterprise Linux, we are postponing them because some of our legacy systems are not yet compatible.

We are planning to use AI for an upcoming project that will help people find solutions to problems with on-premises systems in environments without internet connectivity. Due to this air-gapped requirement, we must build and test various AI systems within that secure environment. Therefore, we are currently in the initial planning phase of this project.

I would advise choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux because it fulfills our needs perfectly. Why choose something else?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is highly stable.

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

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

Positive

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

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

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

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

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

It is for binding servers. It is for web servers, such as Apache and NGINX, and KVM virtualization.

We have servers running all time. We have not had any issues with Red Hat Enterprise Linux. We have had issues with Microsoft products over time. Because of the updates, we had downtime, but that is not the case with Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

It has been very productive for our organization. We have an online client buying or purchasing products from our website, which is available 24 hours.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is good when it comes to building with confidence and ensuring availability across the infrastructure. I would rate it a ten out of ten in terms of stability and reliability. In the case of our web server, I have had availability issues with Microsoft, whereas, with Red Hat Enterprise Linux, we have not had many such issues. There has been only 1% downtime, whereas, with Microsoft, we have had a lot more downtime.

We have support. If we have any issues with the distro, we can call their support team. We have reliable packages from Red Hat.

Network management can be easier. It is getting more complex. They can also give more customization for the CLI.

I have been working with Red Hat Enterprise Linux for six years.

It is very stable. We have three websites running on Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

It works fine. We have had servers running for ten years. We have been just updating them, and we have not had any issues or downtime.

It is scalable. We can upgrade it, and the upgrades do not impact the product.

We have a team of five people who are using this solution.

We have premium support. It is excellent. We have not interacted a lot with their support. We have almost five engineers working in the team, so we did not have to contact them a lot. We did have any major issues with the hardware or software. 

Neutral

I also use CentOS for educational purposes. Support and regular updates are advantages of Red Hat Enterprise Linux over others. 

For directory servers, we always use Microsoft because it is easy to manage and easy to control. Implementing and managing domain controllers on Microsoft is easy, and we can apply policies by groups (GPO).

Its deployment is very easy. It does not take long. Its maintenance is also easy. We can expand the storage for the operating system or the web server.

To those looking into implementing Red Hat Enterprise Linux, I would advise making use of Red Hat's community. 

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has had some impact in terms of security, but we have other security measures and procedures. We have not used SELinux and other embedded security features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

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

I use Red Hat Enterprise Linux for web application support, mainly OpenShift.

Azure is the cloud provider.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is easier to manage because it can scale to a large amount and be managed across many platforms. This can lead to cost savings for our organization.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has reduced the amount of management required on the Windows side.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is extremely resilient because it is much more secure.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux's day-to-day functionality is very easy.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has helped our organization save money by not requiring large-scale virtual machines, resources, or images.

OpenShift is the most valuable feature because it can be used to create applications on the fly.

The UI is not user-friendly and has room for improvement.

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

I am impressed with how extremely stable Red Hat Enterprise Linux is.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux's scalability is excellent.

Technical support is quick to respond, but sometimes tickets can get stuck in tier one for a while before they are escalated.

Positive

We previously used Windows but switched to Red Hat Enterprise Linux for cost savings.

The initial setup is straightforward. We can copy and paste any templates we need into the environment.

We have seen a return on our investment simply from receiving timely support when needed.

We purchased the Red Hat Enterprise Linux license via Azure and the vendor.

We evaluated CentOS but ultimately chose Red Hat Enterprise Linux because of the support.

I give Red Hat Enterprise Linux a nine out of ten.

When evaluating operating system options, keep in mind that Red Hat offers the best support.

I've used it primarily in federal government computing centers. However, I've also used it in private companies.

I run everything on it. I've run databases, I've run web servers, and I've run application farms - so pretty much everything. I have it for MongoDB, data crunching, and more, so it covers the gamut.

The product saved us a lot of money compared to other products, like Solaris. Also, having one OS as opposed to many OSs is nice. For the most part, the benefit for the organization is saving money compared to other operating systems and having good stability.

I'm just a tech guy, so I don't know how well it affects the organization's efficiency. However, I do find that we keep things running.

The consistency, stability, and centralized batching are great.

It is easy to troubleshoot using RHEL. Their support site has excellent references, and it's widespread, so you can find pretty much anything you want on Google.

RHEL's built-in security features and security profiles for helping to reduce risk and maintain compliance are good. I like them. We don't run the firewalls on the servers. However, we run STIG and more against them, and we do pretty well.

They don't have any huge innovations. However, they're supporting many excellent projects and integrating many excellent tools into their stack. We hope they keep doing what they're doing and keep supporting open source.

The licensing model is kind of a mess. It works, however, it could be streamlined. For example, just how they apply the licenses to servers and the solution seems like a mess, at least from my end of it.

I've been using the solution for 15 to 20 years. 

I like their stability. I like that they are gatekeeping a lot of the changes. They are not too far behind the curve. However, they are maintaining stability, which is important, especially for running businesses.

Technical support is excellent. 

I've never had any issues with their tech support.

Positive

We also use Red Hat Ansible and Satellite.

I have used Solaris, and I've used different distributions of Linux, however, not always in a professional setting.

The deployment is straightforward. 

Building out a server or building out infrastructure is simple, comparatively. Setting it up so that you can deploy multiple servers is simple. Being able to do post-install and install via Ansible is great. It's smooth.

We've been rolling out new OSs across the entire infrastructure at the scale of maybe a year or two. That said, we're getting it ready to deploy everything in a month or two, at a maximum.

There is some maintenance. For example, we have to patch all the time, however, that's true of any product. I am constantly tweaking and upgrading and making changes. That said, in terms of knocking out the foundation, I don't have to do that often, so that's good.

While it's my understanding that the solution has saved the organization money, I can't say exactly how much. I don't know the exact numbers.

At this time, we do not use Red Hat Smart Management.

The benefit of using multiple Red Hat products is that they integrate well, so I don't have to worry about fitting different Lego pieces together. They just work. I prefer Red Hat over most other solutions since I'm most familiar with it at this point and it offers consistency.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

We use the solution primarily for simulation and CAD solutions. It serves as the main use for our operating systems.

The openness of the operating system makes auditing a lot easier, plus the tools for auditing make that a lot easier to maintain. 

Automation makes compliance a lot easier. 

The knowledge gained from using the system completely makes troubleshooting easier and increases the knowledge pool in the company.

The extendibility of the solution and its openness, along with its integration with all of our other open-source projects, are highly valuable. 

We appreciate that it is one of the few enterprise-enabled Linux operating systems we can use. 

It is very extensible, which aids as our needs change.

We have encountered compatibility issues with certain hypervisors, mainly with Red Hat Enterprise Linux six hosts on the newer versions of FoxMox.

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

The solution has performed really well for our business-critical applications and is very stable. I have no issues.

The solution is very extensible, adapting perfectly as our needs change.

Customer support is very helpful and insightful. I would rate it very well, approximately an eight on a scale of one to ten.

Positive

The biggest return on investment is the knowledge gained by using the system. The access we have to the operating system increases user involvement and facilitates troubleshooting, thus expanding the company's knowledge pool.

The pricing and licensing are reasonable.

For non-business critical applications, a third-party Linux OS may suffice, however, for something running 24/7, it is advisable to go for stability and enterprise support.

We use this operating system for our on-prem servers because it is more secure and reliable. We can install whatever application we want.

I chose Red Hat Enterprise Linux because it is more secure and reliable than other operating systems. Red Hat has a feature called SELinux. I always use it because it is more secure than the other operating systems. I am using it with most of the applications. It is our baseline OS for any application.

The built-in security features are helpful when it comes to simplifying risk reduction and maintaining compliance.

Red Hat has very useful documentation. I always use it when I face an error or something like that. It is very reliable, and I use it all the time.

Over the last three to four years, I did not work in just one environment. I worked in two environments, but all the time we used Red Hat Enterprise Linux, we got more security and reliability. We have seen performance enhancement and less downtime for our main application. There is more reliability and better performance. It has improved our environment. We now have better performance, more reliability, and more security. There is about 30% to 50% improvement.

I have previously worked in the banking sector for one of the banks. We can now configure Red Hat Enterprise Linux for PCI-DSS Compliance. It has improved in that aspect.

SELinux is valuable. The main reasons for using Red Hat Enterprise Linux are security, reliability, and efficiency. The system is very reliable, and it is more efficient than others.

It is not very easy to manage because it has a command line interface, and it can be a little bit confusing from one version to another. For example, the administration of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 is a bit different than Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9. It is a little bit hard but not that much.

The GUI experience can be better. They can make it easier to access files and copy them. We should be able to do that without the command line. For example, if you compare it with Windows, Windows is easier to use. They can just simplify the user experience.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for three to four years.

It is stable. I would rate it an eight out of ten for stability.

I did not face any issue with scalability, so I would rate it a nine out of ten.

We implemented it at the HQ and the DR site. We used it at two locations. We had 100 to 200 users using these servers.

I have experience with Windows Server. From a security perspective, Red Hat Enterprise Linux is more secure. From a performance perspective, Red Hat Enterprise Linux has better performance, but from the ease of management perspective, Windows is better.

The installation at the application layer is a little bit complex. The duration depends on the application, but most of the application takes months. Implementing an easy application or service, such as a web service, takes two to three days.

When it comes to the management, I manage it locally. I go through SSH on the command line and manage it. For security patching and updates, most of the time, I use Red Hat Satellite. It is a product from Red Hat for managing updates. Red Hat Satellite is easy to use and very helpful. I have upgraded from Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 to Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.

When it comes to security patches, they require a restart. That can cause some downtime.

I do not have much knowledge of licensing. That is handled by the procurement team, but I know that it is expensive. If they can provide more licensing options, it will be much easier for companies to buy.

I would recommend Red Hat Enterprise Linux because it is more secure, reliable, and scalable.

I used System Roles two years ago. It was simple to use System Roles. I succeeded in implementing them, so it was simple. They can be managed, but I used them only one time, so I do not have this much experience with them. 

I also used a service called Cockpit. It was easy to use. It was very helpful and easy.

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