Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Reviews

We are using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for running SQL servers, Oracle databases, Java applications, Apache, and data store types of things.

We use it for all sorts of functions. We have different levels. I am primarily an SE building and configuring the servers. The application-related work is for everyone else.

In terms of our environment, we might have some cloud. We have different engineering teams working on different parts of the technologies. My team and I do not touch that, so we have a basic cloud-based and non-cloud-based setup.

We are primarily able to standardize on the platform. By keeping everything standard, you know what might break or should not break. That is the true benefit. It seems to help keep a better level of standard across all groups, business standards, and application types.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux enables us to centralize development. That goes with platform uniformity. The development team has a common toolset and expectations from the toolset and what they are working with. It just makes things easier for each developer.

The portability of applications and containers built on Red Hat Enterprise Linux is very good for keeping our organization agile.

It is the most lightweight platform to use. It is very flexible. It is not very difficult to manage, configure, and deal with. That is a plus point.

Migrating people from Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 to 8 has been good so far. Irrespective of whether we are doing an in-place upgrade or a full rebuild, most people are able to convert over. There is no problem.

For our use case, it seems to be working well, so I cannot think of what it could do better. I know for our purpose and what we have been using it for, it has been working well. Their support, however, can be better.

I came on board when they bought our company. At the time, I was using CentOS. From what I know, they have been only using Red Hat Enterprise Linux. I started using it from Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7. It has been about 13 years.

It seems stable, but developers might have a different response. When you have a problem with a Windows server, you typically reboot it, but you do not have to reboot a Linux server to get it to work better.

It is a scalable platform.

It is pretty good. It varies based on the support person that you get. They might understand what you are talking about right away or not.

For one of the cases that I opened, I laid out every single detail possible. The first thing they said was that it was not that. It was something else. They kept going back and forth with different support teams on the same ticket. Finally, it clicked with somebody and they figured out what caused the issue. Somehow an RPM of a different version was installed on one server versus another one, and no one caught that. Some people were going down the wrong path saying it was networking and not some sort of binary that was installed which changed something. They went back and forth with different troubleshooting paths. Eventually, someone saw and understood what I meant.

Positive

We have always been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux at our workplace.

Deployment for our builds is typically PXE. I do not have insights into that because the build is built and configured by another team. I deploy and provide the server for the development team. I understand how Kickstart and other things work, but I do not install and configure it. It seems relatively easy. From what I have done in the past, it does not seem that difficult.

I am not aware of taking any external help for deployment.

The biggest ROI is in terms of consistency. We know how it works which makes going forward a lot easier.

We are coming from CentOS, so technically, our total cost of ownership has gone up, but it is still cheaper than Windows for a database server and things like that.

I was not a part of the evaluation. I came on board and began working with what was there.

In terms of security features, we do not use anything too advanced other than what is out of the box. We do not manage the compliance piece and things like that. There is a different group that manages that piece.

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

RHEL is a phenomenal operating system for three primary reasons: 

• Support compared to the rest of the Linux ecosystem
• Cohesive ecosystem 
• Application platform

The combination of these three aspects has proven to me from an advising perspective that it is key in decision-making.  

Our clients purchase the use cases via cloud provider and hyper-scale. It's a combination of both. Mostly, new clients prefer going for hyper scalers. Whereas the clients with Red Hat licenses, predominantly those from the banking sector, transfer the licenses to the cloud depending on their hyper scaler plan.

The main benefits my clients have seen are the supportability, maintenance of the operating system, security, and the ecosystem that ties it all together.

The solution has a phenomenal operating system. Its support features are best compared to the rest of the Linux ecosystem. Generally, applications don't rely on operating systems per se. When combined with the container ecosystem, security is the paramount feature that is most asked for.

The problems our clients try to solve by implementing Red Hat Enterprise Linux vary. The main ones include containerization, cloud transformation, and visual transformation in terms of how you get to the cloud in a hybrid mode. The key aspect that I give advice about is how for the operating system in terms of the scalability to bridge the cloud to the on-prem world, so where they could have the OpenShift ecosystem that it runs into and helps them manage both systems together. 

The solution's operating systems are phenomenally resilient and stable. The good part is that Red Hat has backing and support. Also, combined with IBM, it gives more confidence to my customers.

The solution's ecosystem is good but it would be better to create cohesive components in all of the development tools. 

A developers' hub feature would help. 

OpenShift already provides excellent visibility, but bridging the gap with Kubernetes would be key because Red Hat Enterprise Linux drives OpenShift.

I'm a big open-source user. I've been using different forms of Linux for quite some time. For my enterprise purpose, I use the RHEL for other purposes and a few other different Linux operating systems. We have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for more than ten years.

I have experience working with Ubuntu, Fedora, Canonical, etc. From that perspective, the solution's stability is good. The security feature plays a key role in terms of the pace at which it receives updates for operating systems to maintain it.

In terms of the architectural perspective, the nature of the solution is scalable.

The solution's technical support is very good. My clients generally manage it, and I have received positive feedback. They have a responsive support organization to communicate with.

I have used Canonical and Ubuntu. In comparison with Red Hat Enterprise Linux, Ubuntu's ecosystem consists of multiple operating systems and container platforms like MicroK8s. The partnership with hyper scalers in terms of deployment is one of its benefits as well. On the flip side, it has some drawbacks regarding licensing and export control, where Red Hat shines well.

The solution's pricing and licensing are good. Although the open-source space is becoming more competitive, Red Hat brings value in terms of support. At the same time, different operators like Canonical Kubernetes are catching up. Thus, the price would become the differentiation factor regarding packages for support, and container ecosystem combined with Ansible. All these key elements would add more value to the pricing.

The solution's key element is its cohesive ecosystem between hybrid and cloud environments. It helps clients such as giant banks create a single space for managing workloads in different hyper scalers. This way, it helps in cost management and visibility. It creates a single platform to manage work. It helps in saving costs, especially with subscription plans. It provides them with a consistent cost structure. Also, being an open-source solution has benefits that fit within the ecosystem.

I rate it an eight out of ten, primarily for the support and licensing terms. It helps some of our enterprise clients navigate open-source licensing and export control complexities.

There are areas of improvement, such as the cycle of updates and the ecosystem as a whole. Also, the elements like Ansible are priced separately. For automation, there is an opportunity to combine everything. Even though they are different products, they shouldn't be charged separately from the ecosystem perspective.

We use the product as our server's operating system.

The enterprise support of the product is valuable to us. When stuff gets difficult, it's nice to have somebody to ask about it.

The solution should be updated more with the releases of programming languages. They’re lagging a bit too much. We have a lot of developers complaining about having releases that are too old. For example, if they want Python 3.11, Red Hat Enterprise Linux supports only 3.9. So the product is lagging behind a bit more than our developers would like. 

It would be nice if all the features that are available on the cloud, like Image Builder and Insight, would be available on-prem.

I have been using the solution for five years.

The product is very, very stable and tested. It is like everybody tested everything for five years, and every problem was fixed.

We have never had a problem with the solution’s scalability. We have around 6000 Red Hat Enterprise Linux servers in versions 7, 8, and 9.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is a lot better compared to all other products. I rate the support an eight or a nine out of ten. There's too much information on the support page sometimes. If we log in to the support pages and try to find information, it's hard to get what we're searching for.

Positive

We had a lot of different Linux distributions. The pros of Red Hat Enterprise Linux are that it's the same platform for everybody, and it works for everybody. If you need something very special, you might get issues in Red Hat Enterprise Linux, but you can work around it. 

The biggest issue with Red Hat Enterprise Linux is mostly the old packages. It is a con if you have something that you know is a bug that hasn't really been released in Red Hat Enterprise Linux but has been released in the other products.

We do a template, and then we just use it. It's quite great.

We take 30 minutes to deploy the solution. It depends on the size of the machine.

I am using versions 7, 8, and 9. By implementing the solution, we wanted a unified server with a baseline platform that everybody uses. We wanted to have just one server that is enterprise ready.

We do not really have compliances in the same way as an American company has. It's nice to have IT security personnel. You get SELinux from the start. However, we get a lot of support cases because of it. The developers face problems with it. So, we get the security, but we also get lots of support cases. Usually, I end up in the middle of that because I work with support.

We run containers on OpenShift. We run only one platform, so portability isn't a concern. We only have Red Hat Enterprise Linux and OpenShift. We don't really need portability since we are government agencies. Nothing else other than on-prem is allowed for us.

The knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux is extensive. It is a bit hard to find information. However, when you find it, it's good. The packages are a bit old. We have a bit of an issue because of that. But other than that, it's a great operating system.

Overall, I rate the product an eight out of ten.

We've implemented OpenShift on top of OpenStack. It's a Red Hat OpenStack environment, which is the virtualization layer, and then OpenShift is for the cloud technologies.

It's currently on-prem on a private cloud. In the future, we might utilize a public cloud if the government approves that. Currently, the banking industry isn't allowed to go to the public cloud.

There is a big move towards digital banking. They prefer to have their solution up and running as soon as possible when the request comes in. They have to have the libraries and all the containers up and running. In a couple of minutes or seconds, they have their whole infrastructure up and running.

With regard to security, most companies are moving towards the black box approach and Red Hat. It's much more secure compared to the other vendors.

There's consistency, and it's resilient as well.

With regards to OpenShift, everything is related to cost. If you need a vanilla OS, you have to spend a lot on the licensing that is tagged. You have to spend on the infrastructure and the licensing on a core basis, and whatever is required on your containers, you just have to give minimum hardware specs.

Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization isn't up to the mark as compared to VMware and Hyper-V, but they're moving everything on OpenShift for containers and virtual machines, which is stable. If you go into the virtualization layer, they still need to improve a lot of things, but with regards to OpenShift, containers, Docker, and other things, they are doing well. 

We've been using it for three to four years.

Compared to Windows and other operating systems that I've used, it's stable. 

I'd rate it a nine out of ten in terms of scalability. We have plans to increase its usage in the future. Our infrastructure will be able to scale. We have a plan to grow it every three years.

Their support is very good. Most of the things are already listed in their knowledge base. Support cases are only raised when you end up with any critical situation. I'd rate their support a nine out of ten.

Positive

We've used Windows, Solaris, and AIX. The reason for switching to it was that everything is moving to the black box. People want everything to be secured. We got a lot of updates on Red Hat, and it was doing very well in the market.

It was very straightforward. When we did the proof of concept, we had everything ready within two or three days, and then the engineers who came to deploy it did it in a day's time once we had all the infrastructure up and running. This was just for the proof of concept.

With regard to the implementation, they had a timeline, and they did deliver before the timeline.

It has been deployed on Nutanix as well. They are present even in the marketplace for AWS. It's a straightforward installation. They have two categories: UPI and IPI, and the installations are very straightforward, but it requires a lot of expertise if you want to deploy it on a public cloud.

It was implemented by Red Hat. In terms of maintenance, it does require maintenance, but once it is highly available, it's easily done.

We've seen an ROI. It has had cost benefits. 

It has saved us money. We did a proof of concept with the VMware Cloud Foundation and OpenShift. We saw the feasibility and how fast it can be deployed. There were a lot of considerations. We evaluated it from all perspectives. Compared to the VMware Cloud Foundation, we noted that it was just 50% of the cost. If you go for VMware, they charge you on a core basis, and the licensing costs are huge. You'll have to spend on Microsoft licensing, and then you'll have to spend on the OS as well. Comparatively, it's much cheaper.

We purchased it directly from Red Hat. Compared to open source, it's very pricey, but you get the support, which makes it much better.

You have to deploy it and evaluate it. You can see that there's a lot of difference compared to other operating systems. It also depends on where exactly you're going. There are mainframes and other different places where you can deploy it. Even on the mainframe, it makes a lot of difference.

With Red Hat, there are a couple of things you need to consider while building your infrastructure. You need to have good hardware, and you need to have a compatibility matrix to be able to have a stable environment. It has to be tested in a proper way, rather than deploying it on any box.

In terms of the golden images created by the image builder tool, we have vendors who come with their solutions. They come with the containers, and they deploy them. Most of them are using GitHub, and we just provide the infrastructure. From a technical perspective, there's a solutions department that's into APIs. They handle everything, and we just provide the infrastructure.

Overall, I'd rate it an eight out of ten. 

In our organization, we use the solution as our internet banking platform.

Some of the solution's features include scalability, lower footprints, and the fact that licenses don't really cost us much. Also, the upgradeability is fantastic. With Windows, you can't upgrade to certain versions. I haven't found that issue with Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

Working at a bank, I can say that lack of scalability is a big no-no for us since we deal with people's money.

It would have been nice if we had the ability to do updates without rebooting. If we can update certain parts internally without having to remove them from the entire server, that would be fantastic since, else, there will be downtime, and we will need to reboot. We have to schedule downtime. If we can do so, we will patch it and continue running. Even though the downtime is minuscule, having as little as possible downtime could be great.

Speaking about the downtime caused due to the lack of the aforementioned feature, we reboot about 40 servers every time there's a patch, and they're not staged all at once. The whole process will take an hour or so.

I have been using the solution since I started using Red Hat Enterprise Linux version 7.

Regarding stability, it's good since we haven't had a major outage.

I rate the support an eight out of ten, considering the callback feature and rapid response compared with Windows, where you need to wait for a couple of hours to get support.

With Red Hat, the community is so robust. Most of the time, while waiting for a Red Hat engineer to call us back, the solution to the issue is already provided. This is because it's an open source platform. 

Positive

Previously, we used AIX. Now, we still use CentOS and Rocky for development.

Though the solution is deployed on a hybrid cloud, I would say that ninety-eight percent is on-premises, and two percent is on the cloud.

Also, I am running my workloads and applications on the cloud.

We transferred our license to the cloud because we were originally a VMware on-prem shop. We're transitioning some of our workloads to cloud licensing. Also, I have opted for a subscription. I don't know where we got it from because when I came to the company, it was already in place.

Comparing Red Hat Enterprise Linux to other operating systems, it is a nice solution, especially considering the support we get from Red Hat. Not a con, but on Windows, the GUI or navigation can be a little bit tricky.

By implementing the solution, my organization is trying to solve the agility issue. Using Red Hat Enterprise Linux, we are not tied to Windows patches. Windows patches break sometimes, and then the application goes down, which is a big issue. With Red Hat Enterprise Linux, we have that reliability and robustness.

I am very impressed with the solution's resiliency.

Regarding how easy or difficult it is for us to move workloads between the cloud and our data center using Red Hat Enterprise Linux, I have found it to be very easy.

Regarding portability, it is easy. I was speaking to someone over there who benefits from containers. I mentioned it to my manager, and we are going to have a discussion about it.

In terms of my assessment of the solution's built-in security features when it comes to simplifying your risk reduction and maintaining compliance, I feel it is good. We haven't ever had an issue ever with the solution.

As nothing is perfect, I rate the overall solution a nine out of ten.

We have a very large system with ten application teams. We've got four DevOps squads that support those teams. We use this solution to containerize about 85% of our applications and software. OpenShift 4 maintains our applications and our databases, keeping our system up to date and it integrates with our CI/CD pipelines.

We also use OCS for security compliance.

RHEL runs as the backbone for our applications. We are able to meet our deadlines of becoming the system of record and creating an operational maintenance system, on time and under budget. Our system processes 4.7 million customers' flood insurance policies yearly and processes their claims. It's the backbone for all of our applications and what they do.

RHEL's built-in security features have helped us reduce risk and maintenance compliance. We've been switching over even some of our build pipelines to use OpenShift. We are able to run a GitOps model to be able to track and store changes and then press the button to be able to sync it with OpenShift and this has been great.

The containerization capability has been most valuable. Having our applications and our databases containerized has allowed us to be able to migrate from our on-prem site to the cloud in a much faster timeframe. We don't have to change the applications or databases and there's a lot less rearchitecting. That has been a game-changer for us.

The OCS is built to help monitor and scan OpenShift 4 containers and Core OS. That integration has been seamless for us.

This solution could be improved if it was easier to set up and run in cloud environments. It can also be costly to manage a large OpenShift environment.

We have been using RHEL since 2016. 

This is a stable solution.

We're about to build out and use the elastic capabilities to spin up OpenShift clusters as needed on demand so we're about to find out if it is scalable.

It's been great. We've been having weekly meetings with them as we migrated to Google. They've been a great partner in providing support as needed in helping troubleshoot issues.

I would rate their support a nine out of ten.

Positive

The initial deployment and setup of OpenShift were straightforward. We ran into some issues that we were able to work through. The Red Hat team did provide a lot of support to get us there.

We have an O&M contract that helped do the setup, and then we did consult with Red Hat on it. Guidehouse is the contractor that provides support for development in O&M. They've been a great team and partner to us. 

OpenShift being containerized has meant that we've been able to move from the on-prem to the cloud in a much faster time period.

I don't have any issues with the licensing or pricing. In general, OpenShift is a little more expensive. It's a bit expensive to have the number of containers we need and for disaster recovery but it's been worth the money because it's helped us get to the cloud faster.

It is easy to troubleshoot with RHEL. I would rate this solution an eight out of ten. If you are in the government space and you're looking to modernize your systems but you're not quite sure about the cloud, using OpenShift to containerize is a good first step. It will give you that cloud-agnostic capability so that you're more readily able to move to the cloud when you're ready.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten. 

The GUI for network adapters and built-in tools provided by RHEL, such as the Mozilla browser, have been valuable. Since they come built-in, it saves the time of having to install them, and you have everything necessary with the installation itself.

There are several tools which Red Hat provides as add-ons such as ReaR (Relax and Recover) which can be used for disaster recovery.

Improvements are necessary to stay in the market and face the competition. I really think that the upgrade policies between the major versions, like from from RHEL 5 to RHEL 6, should be much easier, similar to what is in place for upgrading from RHEL 6 to RHEL 6.8.

Until now, RHEL has been the most stable OS I have ever seen. Nothing seems to break, with frequent updates. I have been running it 24/7 for the past 18 months and it runs flawlessly.

No issues so far. You can always scale the hard disk as much as you want, add NFS, CIFS disks and still the enterprise solution would run seamlessly.

I would rate technical support at eight out of ten. Though they have some excellent engineers available, the case mostly goes through level-3 support staff and then it moves forward. This can sometimes be a time consuming process and lethal for a company.

No, we did not use a previous solution. We knew about Red Hat from our inception. It was a pretty well-known enterprise platform.

The setup of RHEL is straightforward, there is nothing complex about it. Everything is well documented on their website.

The pricing is a bit on the expensive side, mainly because of the support they provide. However, it is quite affordable if you are an organization. If, as a small company or individual, this is an expensive option, I would recommend CentOS, which is an exact replica of RHEL, minus the customer support.

I have worked on a few Linux platforms, but Red Hat is a different experience. Due to its stability, it makes an excellent choice. It’s so-called invincible security makes sure that your data remains safe. The excellent customer service support agents are ready to get your problem resolved almost within an hour of opening a case (as long as you have the premium license for your servers). Taking all this into consideration, I would say this solution is a nine out of 10.

I have been working on Red-hat for two years and I must say I enjoy working with it. No day is like another, since there will always be something which will enhance your learning curve.

I would say if you are managing high-end servers running complex programs, Red Hat would never do you wrong. It has a lot of built-in tools if you choose the maximalist installation. If you are running a low-end server, you can even go with the minimalist installation which would only cramp a few megabytes of your processor power.

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.