Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Reviews

I work in infrastructure. We have various use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux. We use it for the compute feature, which runs on some applications on the front end and databases on the back end.

LVM is a valuable feature. It enables us to dynamically increase the file systems or logical volumes. My journey with this feature started 10 to 12 years ago. 

LVM is the reason why I started using the solution initially. Nowadays, there are a lot of applications. We can use clustering, security, and optimize security.

The product's availability is on the main cloud hyperscalers, like GCP, IBM Cloud, Azure, and AWS. The product should be made available on Oracle Cloud. 

I would like to see Ansible as a default in future releases.

I have been using the solution for 13 to 14 years.

Although some questions are not business-critical and high priority, they are still urgent. The support identifies such questions as P3 or P4 incidents. Although there's no business impact, we depend on the support team for answers.

Neutral

We have used SUSE Linux. We have also used open-source tools like Ubuntu, Fedora, and CentOS. We switched to Red Hat Enterprise Linux due to its vast exposure to security vulnerabilities. Its support model, subscription model, and its support for HANA are valuable.

We use the product on-premise, on IBM Cloud, and on Azure. The subscription model of the solution enables us to use hybrid environments. We can enjoy the benefits of the hybrid environment with the bring-your-own-subscription model.

We have plans for upgrades. We have a legacy Red Hat Enterprise Linux. One of the customers has version 5. We are trying to build an upgrade plan for it. We would like to know whether we can directly land on version 9 or if we should go step by step to each version.

The solution's built-in security features are exciting. I like that the solution covers the recent vulnerabilities in the CVEs. The solution should continue to do that.

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

All of our application services, application databases, and web services run on Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Everything is on there.  

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is certainly more secure than AIX, which is what we had. It's also better than Solaris. It has improved from that perspective. We can handle the vulnerabilities better. It's more secure.

Other than that, some of the products that we are using, we are migrating out of very costly license items. For example, we're using Fusion because we wanted to migrate, and then we started using Vision Manager. We did a POC a few years ago. We started using PAM because we wanted an engine in our workflow management system from that perspective. 

We are still exploring a lot of items, but it's been a decent journey. It has helped to set up modern technologies.

We use a lot of Red Hat products. We use Red Hat PAM, Red Hat Session Manager, and the operating system. 

We use the operating system the most because all our servers are on it.

The support is good. Red Hat provides use with a degree of training.

The adoption was slightly slow because the knowledge in the market is slightly less available. It's hard to find resources to actually support the product.

Some kind of training that can upskill the resource into this technology could certainly help.

I started using Red Hat Enterprise Linux version 6 in 2019. We have our own data center.

We used different solutions. We moved from AIX 7.1 to RHEL 6. Then we moved to 7. Now we're going to 8.

We chose Red Hat Enterprise Linux because we wanted to adopt newer technologies and we wanted to secure our systems. Red Hat Enterprise Linux was a good available option. 

It's on-prem right now. The deployment was straightforward. 

I manage the infrastructure team so all of these things are under my purview. 

We did hit some hiccups, but then RHEL's emergency support was available, and we were able to resolve it. 

We have an engineering team that analyzes different products. During the analysis phase, we look for all vulnerabilities.

Once it passes all of those things, it becomes available in our internal protocol. We have different names where it becomes available in our source space to get deployed.

Migrations and upgrades have been straightforward. For example, OpenSSL has different versions that are not supported on RHEL 7, which we have right now. There is a version that comes built-in. 

We faced some issues, but we worked it out with Red Hat. They gave us a patch. 

We're moving to RHEL 8 now. We moved to RHEL 7 last year; we're going to RHEL 8 now. Next year, in 2024, we plan to move to RHEL 8.

We saw a return on investment. It is helping the business. 

The pricing is competitive. It's not low, but it is in the market. 

Overall, I would rate the solution a nine out of ten. 

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux for our on-prem VM infrastructure. Recently, we got the OpenShift platform to help with containerization on-prem.

Moreover, containerization is one way we're trying to get rid of any legacy. We don't patch. We try to have a fresh build with the newer version of the patch. We try to use those Red Glue deployment strategies and remove whatever we find in misconfiguration or vulnerability instances rather than fixing them. We redeploy it.

In terms of improvement within the Linux environment, especially for a non-IT company like ours, where we have a limited number of Linux administrators and specialists in Linux hardening and security, Red Hat Enterprise Linux plays a significant role. 

It eases the burden by restricting the use of open-source Linux and preventing the development community from obtaining their own images. This is crucial for maintaining a secure supply chain and ensuring the lockdown of live Linux packages.

However, when it comes to security compliance, I have not been exposed to the Red Hat Enterprise Linux security; we got the advanced cluster security from OpenShift, which has some vulnerability tracking within the cluster. Within Red Hat Enterprise Linux, I have not experienced the security console yet.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has affected our systems and our security. It helps us achieve security standards. It's one of the hardening requirements so, it helps with that compliance requirement.

With standardization across the environment, we don't have to generate multiple artifacts for compliance, and having a single Linux platform management like Red Hat Enterprise Linux helps to satisfy auditors a little faster.

From a security perspective, the overall hardening of Red Hat Enterprise Linux is good. It has been effective in enhancing security.

Image management and hardening are essential, so we don't have to procure open-source Linux images that developers can get themselves. It adds a layer of security with signed images.

The knowledge base is pretty good.

From a cloud perspective, I'm looking for more integrations with native cloud services. For example, the ability to use native Azure Key Vault instead of Ansible Key Vault or Red Hat Key Vault. 

Additionally, integrating image services from Red Hat into native image repositories such as Azure, Google, or third-party image repositories like JFrog is crucial. The key focus is on integration. 

Red Hat should not become Microsoft and lock down functionalities within Red Hat. 

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

We have premium support, so it is pretty good.

Positive

We are a mix of some other cloud virtualization technologies. The overall cloud information will define how we look down the road.

With Linux management, the pros are that it makes management a little easier. Overall, it is just a single view of the images we deploy in the organization. 

The cons are that the integrations are a little tricky sometimes, and then we have to make exceptions to our policies. Better integration, more native service using more credentialless authentication, and authorization like using service principles or managing these over-store credentials would make it better.

Currently, the emphasis is on on-premises solutions.

Overall, I would rate the solution a seven out of ten because it needs more integrations.

I'm a consultant, and our customers use this product. I work for a company that works with this product. I mostly work with Red Hat Enterprise Linux. We do designs of infrastructure projects from the bottom to the top. We install Red Hat Enterprise Linux at the system level. Based on the application requirements, we design, configure, and update the systems.

Our customers use it as a basic operating system on which they deploy applications. They have enterprise application servers such as Tomcat or custom applications that need an operating system.

I've worked with it both on-prem and on the cloud. It depends on the client. On the cloud, the cloud providers are both AWS and Azure. This also depends on the clients, but it's mostly AWS and Azure.

Mostly, our customers use Red Hat Enterprise Linux because of its performance and security. They want to have an operating system that is supported and secure because they don't want to spend too much time supporting a Linux version that is not enterprise. They want an enterprise product that is secure so that they don't have to think about it all the time.

It isn't difficult for our customers to move workloads between the cloud and the data center using Red Hat Enterprise Linux. The integration from on-prem to the cloud is quite easy because the operating system is the same. The operating system works the same in both places, so it's easy.

It has helped our customers avoid cloud vendor lock-in because they didn't need to buy a specific subscription from a cloud vendor or use a specific operating system from a cloud vendor and change the code of their application in relation to that. It's important to have a solution that avoids cloud vendor lock-in because they can move freely from one system to another system without any issues.

It has saved costs for our customers because it's a stable operating system, and they have no problem with security, patching, and so on. The operating system and the environment are stable. It works everywhere without any issues, so the development of the applications is not impacted by the system. Red Hat Enterprise Linux is easy to use and well-supported.

Support is most valuable. If a customer has a problem with a feature or a bug, we can open a support case for that, and the issue is resolved or taken care of. That's the main benefit of the product.

The resiliency of Red Hat Enterprise Linux is quite good. 

Some low-level aspects, such as the file system support, can be improved. There are a lot of file systems that are supported by other Linux distributions. Red Hat Enterprise Linux is a little behind those. For example, BTRFS is a file system that is not supported by Red Hat.

Some of our customers use the image builder tool to build the golden image to deploy to the cloud or to build a custom image to deploy on the cloud or on-prem. The golden image created by the image builder tool is good. It's the golden image. It works without any issues. However, the build process of image builder could be improved because it's not up to the standard or at par with other tools that build the golden image. However, it's quite useful and quite easy to use. It's not a big problem, but it could be improved. There is not a lot of information about how to use it. The process is not as well documented as the other parts of Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

The knowledge base offered by Red Hat is very good, but it could be improved and made much easier to search. Currently, the best way to find an article in the knowledge base is by using Google Search. By searching on Google, we can find the right knowledge base article, but it isn't easy to find information by using the search option within the knowledge base.

I've been working with Red Hat Enterprise Linux for the last four years.

It's very stable. I didn't have any issues with the stability of the product most of the time.

Its scalability is very good. It scales very well in the right infrastructure.

Their support is good. It's one of the best support in the IT world for a product because you always get a response for every bug or issue. Overall, I'd rate their support a nine out of ten.

Positive

They were using Ubuntu.

It's straightforward. It's pretty easy to deploy Red Hat Enterprise Linux. It can be difficult based on the workflow of the client, but overall, it's pretty straightforward to deploy on the cloud environment because all cloud providers support the deployment of Red Hat Enterprise Linux. The golden image of Red Hat Enterprise Linux is compatible with every cloud provider. There is a feature in the cloud console for joining the Red Hat Enterprise Linux account with the cloud account, so you can create cloud images from the console. It's pretty easy from that.

Our customers have seen an ROI because after they choose Red Hat Enterprise Linux, they stay with the product and renew the subscription. It's a good investment for the IT department.

Its licensing is pretty confusing. There are a lot of subscriptions, and it isn't always clear which subscription is the best, but with their support, it's easy to find the right one.

Our customers sometimes buy it directly from the cloud provider, but most of the time, they have a hybrid infrastructure, so they already have some kind of subscription, and they use that subscription on the cloud.

We evaluated other options, but other options don't provide the support and stability that come with Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

To someone who is looking at open source cloud-based operating systems for Linux instead of Red Hat Enterprise Linux, I would say that if they are looking for an enterprise OS on a cloud environment and they want to have some stability and security, Red Hat is the perfect match for that.

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

We use the solution in our company for normal application support and for databases.

In Red Hat Enterprise Linux, we use Red Hat Satellite as part of all the patching and deployment, even from on-premises and AWS, and that's been really helpful since it is one product that can be used in a hybrid environment. It's just one place to manage everything. It's good since you don't have two different products or places to manage, especially if you have a multi-datacenter and not a multi-cloud but a multi-location environment.

The room for improvement depends on how we use it. It's just a normal operating system. Considering an area where the solution lacks, I think we can look into a lot more automation and integrations with Red Hat Enterprise Linux and other products. However, I cannot say specifically where the improvement should be because it mostly depends on how we are using it. It just works the way it's supposed to work.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux on the cloud for six to seven years. Currently, we are using Red Hat Enterprise Linux Versions 7 and 8.

The product's stability is good, with 99.99 percent uptime.

Scalability is something my company hasn't delved into that much. Right now, scalability is mostly on the backend hypervisor or how we leverage AWS.

I would probably rate the support around an eight out of ten.

Positive

We have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux since I've been with the company. Linux is our platform of choice.

I supported those involved in the setup phase peripherally.

The initial setup was straightforward.

Regarding the straightforward setup, building the base image and deploying it with our internal security standards was pretty straightforward.

We used to get our own license model. We purchased a license through Red Hat.

We haven't necessarily evaluated other options, but there are a lot of requests coming from other application developers that want to deploy other operating systems because they are much more common, especially in an open source environment. So we have looked into those options. However, Red Hat Enterprise Linux continues to be the main platform that we support. We are also looking into other solutions just in case a scenario arises where a vendor cannot support Red Hat Enterprise Linux for some reason and we will need a backup.

Regarding the problems we are trying to solve by implementing the solution, I would say that it is our operating system of choice. I think the support is good since we have Red Hat Enterprise Linux subscriptions. We get support for all the operating systems from them. It's great and stable.

Regarding the solution's resiliency, it is good. We've been running, and we have over 99 percent uptime all the time. We also do monthly patching and everything, so it works. Kernel upgrades also work as expected. So it has been pretty good.

Regarding how easy or difficult it is for you to move workloads between the cloud and your data center using Red Hat Enterprise Linux, we don't use relative migrating solutions. It's considered a separate environment, but we use the same base image. 

I consider the solution to be the main OS because going with an open source solution like Red Hat Enterprise Linux, you have better support.

The support is great. We also have integrations with other products, especially with whatever Red Hat releases. We have all those integrations available and we can easily take advantage of it.

I rate the overall solution between seven and eight out of ten.

We are in a closed environment, so submitting a ticket can be painstaking as only a few of us have access to do so. We primarily use Red Hat for its stability, and it's one of the few Linux operating systems that meet our security constraints.

I find the satellite feature the most valuable. It allows us to manage disconnected workstations, keeping their patching, software updates, and bug fixes up to date. We can collect all the necessary updates on a connected system and then transfer them to a disconnected system. Each client thinks it's connected to an external satellite infrastructure, making management very easy.

The Image Builder feature seems very helpful. We currently use Kickstart to build systems.

The support can be lackluster sometimes, especially in our disconnected space where we have specific requirements. Occasionally, we encounter support representatives who are not familiar with our setup. So, in that space, personalized and tailored support based on each use case could be better.

In additional features, I would have said being more on the bleeding edge, but RHEL 9 was released, which is a nice push forward. So right now, I don't think there's anything specific. I find the product stack to be pretty decent.

I have been using this solution for three years. We are using versions 7.9 and 8.7.

It's very stable, but that's also why it falls behind at times. For example, if you have newer hardware like systems A and B that were released within the last year, there might be potential sleep issues, specifically with S3 sleep, that require manual patching and intervention in the kernel. It's because they are trying to support newer systems on a much older framework.

I believe RHEL 9 is supposed to mitigate that a little bit. It aims to provide a balance between the latest stable release and the older version that is, like, five years old. They're trying to meet somewhere in the middle.

We have around 30 workstations and approximately 60 servers.

The customer service and support team depends on the environment you are in. The support can be spotty. The support can be spotty; at least they've tried to be helpful. Sometimes they'll just point you to a documentation link, practically like Googling it for you, and it's like, "No, we've already looked at this. Can you please review the logs further?" And sometimes, I'll have to go and pinpoint specific areas to look at. And then it's like, "Oh, okay." 

It's not always very thorough. But it's hit or miss. So I think it's just a people thing. If you get somebody in support who really likes their job or enjoys fixing things, they're going to go out of their way, as opposed to someone who does the bare minimum.

Neutral

The initial setup is very straightforward. It's pretty easy to enable it. After weeks of setting up a Linux Kickstart, the whole system can be deployed. The whole bare-metal system can be deployed in around thirty minutes. So it's really fast, especially for a bare-metal image with a lot of packages installed.

When it comes to maintaining compliance, I think it's pretty good. However, for risk reduction, we have to rely on other software and tools. So I can't really say that Red Hat provides that specific functionality for us. But I think it's good for maintaining compliance is very easy, especially with satellite. It makes it easy for us to access package and vulnerability information, allowing us to identify and resolve any issues. Overall, it works quite well. If you use the right products, I believe you can have all the necessary components in one place.

The portability of applications and containers is pretty good, although there is one issue. With the transition to Red Hat 8, Docker was removed. As a result, there is an issue with using Podman, specifically related to certain types of authentication in a mixed Windows-Linux environment. Due to the way secrets and related functionalities work, Podman cannot be utilized in that scenario. Therefore, there are some challenges to address in this regard.

I believe Red Hat should have maintained compatibility with Docker or at least their own Red Hat Docker until they could bring their software up to speed.

We did the implementation ourselves. The documentation is pretty good.

I save at least a few hours weekly using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). 

We got the license through a third party. They buy licenses in bulk for us. We pay them, and they handle the licensing.

Moreover, Red Hat's pricing and licensing structure seems fine. There's not a huge separation. The licenses can cover everything without worrying about the core count, socket count, or similar complexities like VMware and other big companies. It's simple enough to figure out which support contract you want based on the level of support you need.

It's an open source product.

Overall, I would rate the product an eight out of ten. The product is good, and the documentation is really comprehensive. The support is satisfactory as well. Based solely on the product itself, without considering support, we find it stable and capable of supporting various architectures. The documentation is particularly good and stands out. It provides valuable resources, including bug fixes, to people with developer accounts, which are free. Having all that information available is very helpful and resourceful, especially when troubleshooting Linux-related issues.

The documentation is very good, making it easier to troubleshoot any peculiar Linux-related problems.

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux to provide a Platform as a Service for our customers in the cloud, upon which we have built additional software. This encompasses Red Hat and Synthos, including all Red Hat derivatives.

We also use it for our security-related applications primarily due to the robust enterprise support and comprehensive security features it offers.

Using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for containerized workloads has increased security, stability, and trust, ultimately simplifying our work.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux enhances the reliability and security of our hybrid cloud environment.

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

We chose Red Hat Enterprise Linux for our environment due to its robust built-in security features, including proactive security fixes and an enterprise-class operating system with reliable support services that enhance security and reduce risk. Furthermore, the secure base OS Docker image strengthens our environment's overall security posture.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux helps reduce our total cost of ownership due to its security, stability, and enterprise support. The tightly integrated Red Hat portfolio simplifies working with their products and achieving the desired return on investment.

The most valuable aspects of Red Hat Enterprise Linux are the security and stability it provides.

I encountered an issue updating the time zone for one of my assigned countries due to a daylight-saving time change. Although we collaborated with Red Hat to build a package that addressed the issue, it wasn't delivered promptly, necessitating manual workarounds to resolve the problem.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for almost 15 years.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is exceptionally stable, minimizing the risk of outages or issues stemming from the operating system itself. This reliability allows it to run seamlessly in the background, freeing administrators from constantly addressing kernel bugs or faults in core system applications, ultimately saving significant time and manpower.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux offers flexibility to scale as required.

My experiences with Red Hat technical support have been mostly positive, though I've encountered some issues occasionally.

Positive

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is suitably priced with various support tiers to match organizational needs and environments.

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

When considering a Linux operating system, the choice depends on the intended use. For enterprise environments requiring dedicated support, Red Hat Enterprise Linux is recommended. Smaller projects or testing environments may start with a similar option and transition to Red Hat as the business grows.

We have Red Hat Enterprise Linux for our staging and development environments. We are using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for our production servers. It is the only Linux operating system that we are using in our company. I do not think we will change it. We will stay with it.

We started with CentOS, so it is quite similar. We have various features, and it is stable. The updates and upgrades are stable. This is the most important thing for my company. We are a gambling company. Reliability and performance are the most important for us. We like to press the update button and have an updated operating system after one, two, three, or five minutes. The most important thing about Red Hat Enterprise Linux is that it is a stable operating system.

We are using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for containerization projects. Red Hat Enterprise Linux and Docker daemons have been running for years without any problems. It is very stable. We are happy with it.

Every time we did an update or upgrade for the operating system or some dependencies, it worked well. It was very fast and stable. We are not afraid to press the button. We are happy with it.

The portability of applications and containers built on Red Hat Enterprise Linux keeps our organization agile. We are running some Docker applications. They are not our production applications. We are running some containers. It is very quite easy.

We use Red Hat Insights, and we are happy with Red Hat Insights in urgent situations due to security issues, noncompliant settings, or unpatched systems.

Red Hat Insights provides us with vulnerability alerts and targeted guidance. We have not had any problems.

It is a very stable operating system. We are not afraid to upgrade it.

If I want GUI, its GUI is better than other open-source operating systems. I prefer it for package management for sure. I am happy with it.

At the moment, I am happy with it. I cannot think of any areas for improvement. We have everything. The biggest challenge that we had was the migration from CentOS to Red Hat Enterprise Linux, but after some tests, it was easy.

We have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for almost two years.

It is stable.

It is scalable. We plan to increase its usage.

We are partners of Red Hat. We have support, so we are good. 

Positive

We were using CentOS. The architect in my company chose Red Hat Enterprise Linux because we were already partners with Red Hat.

We are mostly on-prem. We are trying to migrate our applications to the cloud. We are using Azure Cloud.

The main data center that we have is in Ireland, but we are serving a lot of countries. We have small data centers for some countries. We have 2,000 VMs in Ireland, and we also have VMs in other countries. We have almost five data centers. We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux in all of them.

Migration from CentOS to Red Hat Enterprise Linux was a big challenge, but Red Hat had software to migrate and convert all CentOS VMs to Red Hat Enterprise Linux. It was an adventure in the beginning, but after some tests, it was easy. We migrated and converted almost 2,000 VMs in two to three months, and we had only ten cases where the migration failed, but it was our fault. We were happy.

For migration to Red Hat Enterprise Linux, we created a template and made the changes that we wanted. We ran some Ansible Playbooks, and we created the VMs.

We used a consultant from Red Hat the first time.

We did not evaluate other solutions.

To a colleague who is looking at open-source, cloud-based operating systems for Linux instead of Red Hat Enterprise Linux, I would advise going for Red Hat Enterprise Linux because of support. There would be someone who already knows about your issue and can help you in a couple of hours. There is no need to spend time fixing the issue by yourself. Imagine running Ubuntu and having a production issue. You need someone to guide you.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has not enabled us to centralize development. Our company is based on the .NET language. Our developers do not care about our infrastructure. They develop their applications, and we deploy them in OpenShift. We are using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for other services, such as MongoDB, Postgres, and our logging infrastructure. We use it for Elasticsearch, Graylog, and Docker services. Our applications do not run on Red Hat Enterprise Linux systems. They are running on CoreOS for OpenShift.

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux a ten out of ten. It is stable. We are not afraid to upgrade it. We are happy to use it. This operating system is for us.