Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Reviews

We have warehouse management systems (WMSs) where we run Oracle as our database. The app tier is basically Java. We are using a vendor-supplied Java, and the application itself is managed by the vendor. There are just one-offs here and there, such as utility boxes, but the majority is Oracle and the application that connects to Oracle.

On larger systems, like HANA, we have it deployed physically. On everything else, we have deployed it in a VMware environment. It is all on-premises. While there is some cloud, that is being done by contractors. 

We are on versions 6 through 8. As soon as version 9 gets released to GA, I am going to start working on getting that image ready. Currently, about half our images are on version 8, two-fifths are on version 6, and then version 7 is squeezed in-between.

The solution provides features that help me tweak or configure the operating system for optimal use, such as Insights Client, which I have used quite a bit to help me.

Our users are removed from the environment. They don't really know that they are running on RHEL. There have been very few complaints about speeds, application, or stability on RHEL platforms. Whereas, on Windows platforms, there are a lot of complaints.

Satellite 6.10 and RHEL integrate with each other perfectly. This integrated approach enables me to be a single person managing my images since it does a lot of the manual labor that I used to do, such as building patches, doing system maintenance, and keeping systems consistent. It does all that stuff for me. So, it has offloaded those responsibilities, giving me more work-life balance.

It is a bit on the pricier side. However, due to the stability and support that they provide to my management and me, we really don't see a reason to choose another way to go. Red Hat offers excellent support in a sphere where it is difficult to find good support.

I have been using RHEL since 2013.

It is a good operating system. It is very stable. It does not take a lot of maintenance. You set it up well and it runs. To give some perspective, we also have Windows admins. That team is about six people and growing. They manage twice as many servers as I manage, keeping them busy all the time. Whereas, I pretty much have a life; the work-life balance is very good.

RHEL is very stable. You build an image and deploy it, then it runs.

As far as the operating system contributing to reliability, it is very stable and has low maintenance. It keeps running.

We found that two of our outages in the past eight years were related to the operating system. All our other outages were related to the application and the use of the application.

I don't find the solution’s tracing and monitoring tools impact performance at all.

We can scale out. When we need more machines, we just build more machines. That is not a problem. We don't do the scale ups or any of the other scaling that is out there. That is partially because of the way our applications work. You need to scale according to the application. If the application requires new nodes, we just spin up another node and it is no problem. I could run 10,000 images, and it is not a problem.

Because we buy companies, we will probably continue to increase the usage of RHEL. I don't think that will be a problem because it is so stable. We are running about 200 images right now and about 60% of those are in production. I can't see it shrinking, but I can see it growing.

I like the fact that they really dig into things and then provide answers. As the single Linux guy, I kind of need that second admin next to me sometimes to say, "Hey, what about this?" and I am able to do that through the portal. I get my questions answered and trouble tickets resolved.

The technical support is superior to many vendors with whom we interact. They pay attention. Rarely will I run into a support person who doesn't seem to know what they are doing, then it doesn't take very long to get the issue escalated to somebody else. Out of a hundred cases, I have probably escalated three times. I would rate the support as 10 out of 10.

Positive

I came from a Unix background. I was on HP-UX on OSS and AIX. So, the transition to Linux was very simple. I am a command line person, so I wasn't scared. I just moved into it and found it to be very attractive. In fact, I don't run GUIs on any of my Linux boxes.

The biggest benefit for me, coming out of the Unix arena, was that it matched Unix very closely. So, I am able to draw on my Unix experience and use that in the RHEL environment. There is almost a non-existent learning curve in my situation.

The initial setup of RHEL is about 10 times easier than Windows. It is literally just click, click, bang. It just installs. If you have a problem with the install, you just reinstall it. It takes very little time to install, about 10 minutes. As a base image, it is very easy to set up. Then, you have post tweaks that you need to do, and I have scripts for that. Since I can script it all, I just run another command, then boom and it is all done.

For my implementation strategy, I build the gold image, which is basically just going through the CD and making my selections for a base image. Then, I freeze that image, which is on VMware, and run my scripts. My scripts basically set up logs for auditing. Whether we are going to ship logs or keep logs locally, it sets up the basic users. For instance, it will set up my account with pseudo access so I can do the remainder of the work using my account with pseudo access. It sets up tracing, the host name, IP addresses, and ESXi host files. It sets up the basic fundamentals of an operating system and gets it ready for deploying the application. 

There are also different kinds of file systems that need to be deployed and additional users that need to be added. Those are all manual processes.

We have one admin who manages all the images. That is the return on investment. The company hasn't had to hire a second admin (FTE) to keep things running.

We have moved to the Simple Content Access (SCA) model. It is much easier to do renewals and see how I am using my licenses. I used to have to do it all by hand. It would take me a good couple of hours every few months to make sure that we were up to snuff on everything. However, with the new model that they have, this is very easy. I just go to cloud.redhat.com to look and see how I am utilizing my licenses. If I am running out of bounds, I can find out why. If it is simply that we have images that need to be removed, we remove those images. If we need to buy more licenses, then we can start the process of purchasing more licenses.

I think it is worth the price. I wish the pricing was a little bit more friendly, so when I go to my boss, he tells me, "That's too much money." I can say, "It's not too much money."

Especially if you are a newbie, buy the support and use the support. Get a couple of images going and really play around with them: crash them, burn them, and figure out how support functions when you have a really gnarly situation. Otherwise, it is just inserting the CD and booting the machine. It is very easy to set up and run.

I have looked at SUSE or Ubuntu. They are so radically different in their total management, e.g., everything from getting packages to configuration and in how that is all done. Therefore, it would be a learning curve to go to another solution. So, there is benefit in staying with RHEL. 

I do not have a lot of experience with Ubuntu or SUSE. Those would be the bigger contenders. The thing that I keep coming back to though as I'm talking to vendors and VARs is that though SUSE is a contender out there in the SAP landscape, RHEL has the stability. SUSE appears to function more like a desktop operating system ported to a server environment, whereas RHEL is built from the server hub. The management tools show that. It is a mature management infrastructure.

There are some things that are nice about SUSE. People talk about their app configuration wizards, but if you're coming from a Unix background overall, RHEL feels like a real operating system.

My interaction with Ubuntu has been as a desktop. It is very GUI-oriented. In my estimation, it is more like a toy. It is deployed in server environments, but it is more because admins are familiar with the desktop version of it. They just port that over as opposed to having grown up on Unix and moved into Ubuntu.

A Unix admin will prefer to go into something like Red Hat, Rocky Linux, AlmaLinux, or even Oracle Enterprise Linux because they will simply feel much more like a data center operating system than some of these other solutions.

RHEL provides features that help speed deployment. I am currently learning how to take advantage of those features.

As far as deployment goes, I build a golden image VM and just deploy the images themselves. I don't really use any RHEL tools specifically for the deployment portion.

The solution is constantly expanding and moving into new areas, like jumping into the cloud.

I need more experience with their self-monitoring tools. That is the one area where I feel like I am lacking. I am still using a lot of the stuff that I learned in the Unix realm. I haven't really matured into using the specifics that are being supplied. I am a member of the accelerators team and have been exposed to some of these tools through their lectures. I am starting to play with them a little bit, but I have not fully gone into that arena. So, there is improvement needed on my access to RHEL.

I would rate the solution as 10 out of 10.

We are part of the State Department and use the solution to achieve operational excellence and readiness for the cloud. We think about what the next 20 to 30 years of consular systems infrastructure might look like to build and design for the next 40 years. Not many other companies think beyond a decade. 

The solution was implemented in our environment in 2014. The initial mission is still the same but how we go about it is different. For now, the solution is more for application support and making sure we are following State mandates or executive orders. 

For example, one use case involved planning, designing the implementation, and executing a launch of online passport renewals.

Our environment is moving toward tools that provide automation to remove human error. These are tactical operations and use cases. We currently use SaaS, OpenShift, and Ansible to a limited degree.

We had many issues with staff turnover during COVID. Working from home and trying to maintain databases was not ideal. During this time, the solution would have been rated a five out of ten.

Sometimes, vendors provide the government or bigger organizations with band-aids but not solutions. Everything seems to be a problem so many fixes are provided. A fix for this or a fix for that is equivalent to putting a band-aid on a large cut which will not work. Vendors tend to look at the money game because larger companies are their bread and butter. There should be an appreciation for the needs of bigger organizations.

It took some time to get us in a good position with the solution. There is definitely some growth and appreciation. We are at a place now where we can grow our environment. Today, the solution is rated a seven out of ten.

The solution is useful for application support and automations. 

A completely new setup should not be required when upgrading to a new version of the solution. For example, moving from RHEL 7.7 to RHEL 9 requires us to go through every minor version upgrade as well as RHEL 8. We do not have the ability to patch as quickly as we would like, but there are pathways. We got on 6.8 this year and migrated to 6.11 where we are trying to work on the automation portions of deployment. Before, we had variations of versions 7.2, 7.3, and 7.5 in our environment. We have not yet been able to use the supported versions that we are accustomed to with our applications. We are now on 7.9.1 and are trying to implement the minor upgrade versions in our environment. We have not yet experienced a healthy environment or the joy of using RHEL because we keep encountering issues and problems.

There are issues when upgrading or integrating with previous applications or systems such as Satellite, vRA, SaaS, or OpenShift. This is extremely, extremely important because a lot of our infrastructure is on RHEL. We need to have someone onsite to adjudicate our infrastructure's most important applications, when we would rather be able to patch them in a timely manner without having the whole world assist us. 

The solution should be more user-friendly so we better understand how to scale. It is not that we shun professional services, but there is a major knowledge gap in our understanding of the solution. 

I have been using the solution for four years. 

With anything, when you nurture it things work. Now that we are finally on 7.9 and migrated 6.11 we are actively trying to automate. This puts us in a better and more stable position. 

We rely primarily on our contracting staff or professional services for support. We receive onsite support from account engineers who apply critical patches or troubleshoot code that is not cohesive. For the most part, turnaround time is moderate but certain legacy applications are harder to troubleshoot, so they take more time.

Technical support steps in for big issues and provides good help. For example, support assisted with decommissioning 6.2 and 6.5 because they were at end of life with no option for purchasing ongoing support. We had professional services and many different products, so technical support made an exception to help with migrations and that was appreciated. 

Technical support is rated a nine out of ten. 

Positive

I do not know the setup details. The solution was implemented in 2014 and I joined the team in 2018.

We are currently experiencing issues when upgrading or integrating with previous applications and are looking for solutions. We push out patches and look at Tower. We already tried Puppet and it integrates with Satellite, but we prefer to use home-grown products. 

Because we use Satellite, it would be nice if the automation portions come from Tower or others. We have explained this to an account manager but solutions are being presented to us from a sales perspective. For example, we are told that we should ramp up, get other applications, or purchase more licenses.  

Decommissioning is one of our biggest issues. We upgrade and spin it up, but then have problems decommissioning some applications so more user licenses are required. For example, we have an unused server but cannot remove the license because we are either unable to get assistance or do not know how to perform the action.

We used vRA with the solution but it did not work for us.

We also used CloudForm but are attempting without success to decommission because it was not a useful case.

It is important to ensure there is a level of training for implementation. You need to understand compliance for your organization to determine whether vendors can provide appropriate tools. 

Do not be afraid to ask questions once the solution is implemented in your environment to ensure you are where you need to be. 

Stay on top of version or patch releases to prevent bugs or security vulnerabilities to your ISSO or agency. 

I rate the solution a seven out of ten. 

Our primary infrastructure operating system is Red Hat Enterprise Linux, predominantly RHEL Eight. While some products utilize RHEL Seven, RHEL Eight point Zero is the standard for most of our operating systems and servers. However, server choices may vary based on specific industry requirements. Our underlying infrastructure relies almost exclusively on Linux distributions.

Our primary Linux installations use Red Hat Enterprise Linux in an on-premises VMware environment, with some instances deployed on AWS.

The built-in security features simplify risk reduction by allowing direct control of the root system's access.

Red Hat's knowledge base is excellent.

While Red Hat Leapp and Insights are helpful tools, they are not part of my daily workflow.

The web console is a good feature.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux enhances uptime and security, boasting faster boot times than other operating systems.

The most valuable feature of Red Hat Enterprise Linux is its security, which is more secure than Windows. 

Integrating certificates from third-party clients into Red Hat Enterprise Linux can be challenging due to the operating system's stringent security policies.

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

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is stable.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is scalable.

The technical support team was professional and quickly resolved our issue.

Positive

We use Oracle for our database, Ubuntu in our testing environment, and Red Hat Enterprise Linux in our production systems due to its increased stability.

The cloud migration from Red Hat Enterprise Linux Seven to Eight was straightforward due to the absence of underlying infrastructure complexities. However, the on-premises migration presented challenges from existing infrastructure dependencies, resulting in numerous errors.

The migration of approximately 200 servers required a team approach to ensure continuous monitoring. Although two people could have completed the migration, a four-person team completed it within two days. 

The migration from Red Hat Enterprise Linux Seven to Eight was done in-house.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux offers a compelling value proposition for corporations due to its robust support infrastructure, which is essential for maintaining enterprise-level systems. However, the pricing model may be less attractive to individuals or small businesses. Compared to cloud-based platforms like AWS or Azure, which offer flexible pay-as-you-go options, RHEL's subscription-based model can become cost-prohibitive for those with limited budgets or smaller-scale projects.

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

We utilize Ansible to provision and patch our extensive server infrastructure. Ansible's automation capabilities enable efficient batching and management of security patches across all servers.

We test all the patches for some time before we add them to our production environment.

We utilize Red Hat Enterprise Linux in our private cloud and on-premises environments, but I've observed better performance in the cloud, likely due to the greater availability of resources.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux does require maintenance.

I provide consultation to clients for their mission-critical applications. Its primary use case is running containers and microservices on Springboard.

My customers use versions 7.2 or 7.3. I have used versions 8.2 and 8.4. I have tried version 9, but I use version 8.4 specifically because it supports HighPoint RAID for storing the data, whereas the client applications run on the much lower version.

There are benefits in terms of price, security, and stability to reduce the risk of applications going down or something like that. A vast majority of systems are on Red Hat Enterprise Linux than on other distributions, which is another benefit.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux helps to achieve security standards certification. They use it in the PCI DSS segment, so it enables the applications to be compliant with all these security aspects.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is very stable. It has been in the market for many years, and it is used by large organizations.

Their documentation and knowledge base are valuable. As an individual developer, whenever I have problems, it is easy to find the information. Their knowledge base is seamlessly integrated with the software. Whenever I have a question, it directly takes me to the knowledge base. It is well documented.

It supports scripting very well. Everything is scripted. A snapshot is taken in the VM, and the script is applied. It lends itself to better security and governance processes.

Its installation on a RAID or cluster system is something difficult. There are specific teams working on that. The GRUB configuration is also a little different from the other Linux distributions. 

In terms of additional features, as technology keeps evolving, the product will also have to evolve. For example, Microsoft Windows has come a long way. In Windows 11, there are so many features that are fundamentally the same as the oldest version, but there are other aspects or processes that have improved. macOS has also evolved over time. Similarly, in the Red Hat Enterprise Linux that I used in 2003 and the one that I am using now, some things are the same and some things have changed. Red Hat can continue to engage clients, understand the use cases, and update them.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux since 2002 or 2003. Red Hat has a vast variety of products. I have only been using Red Hat's operating system. I have not used Red Hat's other products.

It is very stable.

It is scalable, but I do not have experience in building hundreds of systems on a VM.

I have not used their technical support at all. I only use their documentation portal for self-support. Our production support team interacts with Red Hat's support team.

As a developer, I use both SUSE as well as Red Hat Enterprise Linux. My personal preference is Gentoo, but no one runs Gentoo on a production system. Gentoo is better in terms of customization. You can choose what you want.

I am not directly involved in its deployment, but I am planning to build an application. At that time, I will be deploying it myself. In the organization where I work as a consultant, there is a segregation of roles. There is a production support team, there is a development team, and there is a DevOps team. I am a part of the development team.

Its initial setup is straightforward. It is not complex. It also depends on the architecture, high availability, etc.

In terms of deployment, earlier, it was on-prem, but now, it is on the cloud. My client runs about 150 VMs on the cloud in the production, staging, and QA environments. Most of the things have been consolidated into VMs. The migration is complete. It was not that complex.

I have not measured that, but it should pay back for itself easily. The ROI should be reasonable. The cost over a period of time should be minuscule. As compared to other OSs, it is better to go with a big, known, and trusted vendor.

As a developer, I pay around 10,000 Yen, which is around $100 per annum for support. SUSE and Red Hat are typically the same without standard support. The pricing is not a big deal. Enterprise customers will pay for the support. Enterprises have the money for one or two products like this that are reliable and supported.

As a consultant, I advise customers to go for support. You mitigate risks by having support. For your personal usage, you can manage without support, but when it comes to the enterprise level, you need to delegate things to people, and it should be through the proper channel. You need a proper point of contact.

I would advise following the best practices recommended by Red Hat. It will minimize the downtime of the application or system. Partner with the vendor and get that support. Know the business case and build a strong relationship with the vendor. Trust them and tell them your use case, and they will come up with the best solution possible.

I am not a big authority on Red Hat or other Linux or Unix products. Only recently, I have been exposed to the concept called hardening and penetration testing. I do not know whether Red Hat provides a hardened version of the OS. My basic distribution is Gentoo which provides a hardened version of Linux. On the client side, the organizations we work with have different departments, such as the security department and the compliance department. For security, they work with various options that are available. For penetration testing, we engage a penetration testing consultancy company once a year.

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

Our primary use case for RHEL is running our front-end web servers. When you visit our site, all of the front-end servers are Red Hat. The databases that are hosted are Oracle and they predominantly sit on Red Hat 7. We're trying to migrate those to version 8.

We also use it for BI.

We have a digital footprint in Azure and AWS, as well as on-premises. Things for us are very fluid. We're always changing and adapting to our environment, based on what the needs of our faculty and students are.

The experience depends on the user and what it is that they are doing. If somebody is a Windows user, they're not comfortable with Linux, even if it has a GUI. The graphic user interface can be off-putting to users that are familiar with Mac or Windows. It's not as fast, snappy, and showy as the Windows or Apple graphical user interface. So, those types of users for office production, probably, will not be happy with the Red Hat product line.

If on the other hand, you're a developer or you're a database administrator (DBA), it is different. My experience with my developers and my DBA is that they love Linux. It's easy for them to use. It's easy for them to deploy things like Oracle databases and web servers. Continuous development integration tools like Maven or Tomcat or any of those frameworks are already put in place.

For all of the backend tools that do the work to build the infrastructure, Red Hat really does a good job to make it easy to deploy those consistently, securely, and upgrade them in the same way. There are a lot of pluses for the developers, the DBAs, and the like. But, if you're a regular office user, Red Hat is probably not the tool or the OS that you want to use.

When using RHEL for tracking or monitoring, they do a very good job with respect to the impact on the performance of existing applications. The nice thing about Red Hat is you can get very granular with your logging. We do log aggregation, we use Elasticsearch, and we use Filebeat. These things are part of our log aggregation applications and services that run on the backend of our Red Hat boxes, and it does a very good job of that. We also add bash logging into our hardened Linux deployments, so we see everything. We want to monitor everything, and Red Hat does a really good job with that.

RHEL has given us the opportunity to accelerate the deployment of our cloud-based workloads, although because my organization is a very small college, and we don't have a lot of funds, we can't afford to have all of our workloads in the cloud. It's actually cheaper for us to run most of our applications and servers on-premises.

The workloads that we have in the cloud are typically mission-critical, like student transcripts and stuff like that. These are the types of things that we need to have backups of, which is something that Azure does with Red Hat very well. We are moving in the direction of using Red Hat in the cloud, with the caveat that we deploy only as we can afford it.

With respect to disaster recovery, Azure and Red Hat are probably one of the best pairings that you can get. It provides a lot of redundancy, it's easy to deploy, and the server support is excellent with Azure. There is also good logging, so if you do have an issue you can troubleshoot rather quickly and resolve the problem.

The integration with other Red Hat products, such as Satellite, is excellent and I haven't had any issues with it at all. Everything works very well together with all of the products that we use. For example, Ansible works very well with Satellite. We also used Salt at one time, and we used Puppet. We've moved away from those and just focused on using Ansible. All of the tools that we've used work very well with Rad Hat. The product is mature enough that there's enough support for it from all of the other vendors that run on the Red Hat platform.

There are lots of good features in this product. Because I am a system admin, I don't tend to use the GUI or end-user features. Everything that I do is executed from the command line, and this includes features like monitoring tools, such as netstat or iostat. These are the tools that are built into RHEL. Their toolboxes are good but I wouldn't consider them a great feature because there are things that they still need to work on.

The feature that I like the most is that we can integrate it easily with our existing infrastructure. We found that it is much easier to deploy RHEL in our environment compared to a competing distribution like Ubuntu. This is because we also use RHEL Satellite, which is the patching and lifecycle management application that binds all of our RHELs and allows us to push out new stuff.

Satellite is an important feature because it helps to speed up deployment. Satellite is Red Hat's solution to Windows, where the Windows equivalent would be Server Center Control Manager (SCCM), which is now Intune. Satellite is the lifecycle management application for deploying, maintaining, and upgrading your Red Hat systems, and it does a very good job of that. Satellite works in tandem with Red Hat, as you use it to deploy your server.

The main point is that Satellite makes it quick and easy to deploy, and it is also easy to automate the process. I'm the only Linux person at my organization, with the rest of the people working with Windows. Using Satellite, a Windows end-user can deploy a Red Hat server without any Linux experience.

The security updates are done very well, so I feel confident that I'm not going to get hit with ransomware or a similar problem. Their security patches are pretty up to date. Also, it's rather easy to harden a Red Hat deployment because they provide tools to help you do that.

Red Hat gives us the ability to run multiple versions of applications on a single operating system, although we only use this functionality for Java. Even then, it's specific to the underlying applications. For example, Oracle uses Java on the backend. Also, we have multiple versions of Java on some of our web servers and it does a good job.

The biggest thing that is crushing RHEL is documentation. Their documentation is haphazard at best. The man pages that you can use locally are pretty good, they've been fleshed out pretty well, but the documentation from Red Hat itself really needs somebody to go through it and review it.

The only real negative that I have with Red Hat is that you can tell that when you look at the documentation, they cut and paste documentation from the previous version. Because they update it that way, what happens is that there's nobody doing Q&A. For example, in Red Hat 7 and Red Hat 8, they changed the way they do deployments. Instead of using YUM, you use DNF but when you read the documentation for Red Hat 8, they intermix the two. This means that if you're a new Linux user, it's very difficult to distinguish between the two commands. The fact of the matter is that one is built on top of the other. DNF is backward compatible on top of YUM, and that can cause confusion with users and system administrators. However, it wouldn't be an issue if there was good documentation.

My job is pretty easy, but the documentation would really help me be able to communicate the things that I do to the rest of my team. They're all Windows people and when I go to the Red Hat documentation and tell them that we're migrating to this and we're using this tool, but the documentation is horrible, I get laughed at.

By comparison, Microsoft has its own problems with documentation, but it's a little bit more organized and it's definitely fleshed out a lot better. I commend Microsoft for its documentation. Red Hat may be the better product for the things that we do in our environment, but Microsoft has better documentation.

I have been working with Red Hat Enterprise Linux for the past four years.

This is a very stable product.

In terms of scalability, you can't beat it. It's easy for me to scale up and down, especially with Satellite. I can push out 10, 100, of the same servers for the same configuration and set up with the push of a button.

On the cloud side, Azure also allows us to scale very nicely. This means that we can scale locally if we need to because we use Hyper-V for our VM management and we can spin up 10, 15, or however many servers we need, relatively easy with the push of a button, and you can do the same thing in Azure. We haven't done that in AWS.

Most of the servers that we spin up are proxies. We use a product called HAProxy, and we can deploy those proxies as needed. There are also busy periods where we need to scale. For example, when it's the time of year for students to register for classes, we'll see an increase. 

Another thing that is nice is that Azure will scale as we see more users come online. It will automatically spin up Red Hat boxes to accommodate, and then it'll bring them back down when that surge is over.

Overall, scalability is very nice, either in the cloud or on-premises. As far as setup and configuration, you can make sure that it's consistent across the board, no matter where it is deployed.

I would rate their frontline support, where I submit a ticket, a seven or eight out of ten.

In terms of support that is available through their documentation, I would rate it a three out of ten.

Before I started working for the organization I work for now, I used a product called the FOG Project. At the time, we used Ubuntu Linux. FOG was the equivalent to Satellite and Ubuntu is the equivalent to standard Red Hat.

Comparing the two are apples and oranges. The FOG Project is not as mature as Satellite; it doesn't have the bells and whistles that Satellite does. In general, their lifecycle management tools cannot be compared. Satellite outperforms the FOG project, it's easier to deploy and easier to use.

When comparing Ubuntu and Red Hat, the big difference is that the releases for Red Hat are more stable. They do lag a little behind Ubuntu, as Ubuntu is more bleeding edge. This means that they're pushing out updates a little bit faster, but they're not clean in the sense that they may push out a patch, but then five days later, they have to push out a patch to patch the patch. This is in contrast to Red Hat, which is a little bit more consistent and a little bit more stable. What it comes down to is that Red Hat is much more stable than Ubuntu in terms of patches, updates, and upgrades.

Those are the key differences for somebody who manages that infrastructure. You want something that's easy to diagnose, troubleshoot, and put out solutions. Ubuntu may push out a patch or an update that's so bleeding edge or so out there that vendors haven't had time to come up with solutions on their own, so if it's a driver issue or something like that, with Ubuntu, you may have to wait around as a user for those kinds of solutions.

With Red Hat, they make sure that when the product goes out, that there is some Q&A, and they've done some testing. They make sure that there's compatibility with other products that depend on that particular feature, functionality, or service.

RHEL is very easy to configure and deploy.

When we're talking about RHEL in the cloud, Azure is probably the better platform for RHEL. AWS has some licensing issues. The business end of using RHEL on AWS is not as mature or fleshed out as it is on Azure.

Incidentally, I'm not a big fan of Azure. Rather, I have most of my experience in AWS, but Azure deploys Red Hat without issue. We don't have to worry about licensing and connecting things. Everything is already bound to Azure AD, and that makes it really nice because on-premises, we have to do that manually.

For the on-premises deployment, part of the deployment package requires that we add our Red Hat servers to our local AD. But in Azure, it just does everything for you all within one PowerShell command. Ultimately, deploying Red Hat in Azure is much easier than deploying it either on-premises or on AWS.

We have seen a return on our investment. Our organization is probably going to stick with Red Hat because the licensing fees are low enough to offset the maintenance and support cost of that OS.

Pricing is always a critical factor for all IT departments. The cost of doing business is part of the nature of the job. If you're going to buy a bunch of Dell servers, for example, you have to take into consideration not just the licensing, but the hardware support and other things. The licensing with Red Hat is on par with other organizations like Microsoft.

We buy our licensing in bulk, meaning we buy perhaps 1,500 licenses at a time. They changed their licensing structure over the last couple of years. It used to be per system, whereas now, it's all or nothing. We don't have a subscription, as they used to offer, because they moved away from that. We have a site license, which gives us a certain number of servers, perhaps 25,000, for the type of license that we have. That works really well for us.

The way our structure is set up is that we just buy it by the tier system that they have, so if you have so many servers then you buy that tier and then you get so many licenses as part of that tier or enterprise package.

There are additional fees for using other Red Hat tools, such as Ansible Tower. We use Satellite, and it uses Ansible on the backend. However, we use the vanilla Ansible out of the box, rather than the official Red Hat Ansible Tower, simply because we can't afford the licensing for it. Satellite bundles everything together nicely in their suite of tools but we have moved away from that because of the additional cost.

This is one of the downsides to any operating system, not just Red Hat. Windows, for example, is the same way. They try to bill every organization for every license that they can by adding on different suites of tools that they charge for. A lot of organizations, especially the smaller ones, simply can't afford it, so they create workarounds instead. In our case, Ansible is freely available and we can use it without having to pay the fees for Red Hat's Ansible.

The nice thing though, is that they give you the choice. Red Hat doesn't force you to buy the entire product. They still have Ansible entwined with their Satellite product. The point is that if you want the additional features and functionality then you have to buy their Ansible Tower product, but you can still use the basic product regardless.

The fact that RHEL is open-source was a factor in us implementing it. This is an interesting time for Red Hat. The great thing about Red Hat for us was that we could use Red Hat and then we could use their free, commercial version, which is CentOS. It stands for Community Enterprise OS. Unfortunately, they are no longer going to push out CentOS and I think that 8.4 is the latest version of their free Red Hat distribution.

When we first went to Red Hat, in all the organizations I've ever worked at, being able to test things was one of the key factors. We could spin up a CentOS, implement a proof of concept and do some testing before we actually went to use RHEL, which is a licensed version. The real plus was that we could do testing and we could do all these things on the free version without having to eat up a license to do a proof of concept before we actually invested money moving in that direction, using that particular product or service.

Now that this ability has gone away, we are going to see how that pans out. I think Rocky Linux, they're hoping that that's going to be the next CentOS or free Red Hat. We'll see if that pans out or not but right now, it's a scary time for people that are dependent on CentOS for their free development environments, where we can just spin that up and play around. Right now, we're looking at how we're going to resolve that.

It may be that we have to eat up a license so that we can spin up a machine that we just want to do a proof of concept. This is something that we don't know yet. I don't have an answer because we simply don't have enough data to make an assessment on that.

Everything considered, having a free commercial version available, in addition to the paid product, is a big lure for us. They worked really well in tandem.

We have approximately 14 servers running Red Hat 6 but we used Red Hat 6 all the way to Red Hat 8.

The AppStream feature is something that we have tried but on a very limited scale. We have had mixed results with it, although it looks promising. At this point, I can't say whether it is a good feature or not.

My advice for anybody considering Red Hat depends on the role of the person that is making the decision. If they're an end-user or their organization is using office productivity software, then they're probably not going to want to use it for the backend. This is because there are not a lot of users that are using Red Hat as their office productivity operating system.

If on the other hand, you're somebody that's looking for servers that just need what they call five nines or high availability, Red Hat is your solution for that. That's what I would say to anybody, any technical person that I've talked to, if you can afford it, definitely get Red Hat for your web development. Your web servers should be either Apache, or NGINX, which is their web server stuff.

Red Hat should also be used to host an Oracle database. We found that that works really well and is very competitive with Microsoft's SQL server. It's about the same cost; the Red Hat product is actually a little cheaper than Microsoft's SQL product.

Considering the cost, ease of deployment, and ease of use, Red Hat is the better product for your main infrastructure. For things that just have to be up and running, Red Hat is the product that you want to use.

I can't be strong enough in my opinion that Red Hat does what it does very well for the mundane tasks of infrastructure. For instance, when it comes to web servers, no other OS does a better job than Red Hat for web servers or databases. Similarly, it does a very good job for proxies. For things that just need to run and have very little human interaction, Red Hat's your solution. If you're looking for something that's for an office, such as for accounting, then Red Hat is not the solution to choose.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux servers and Satellite for patch management. We're also using Ansible for automation and hardening. Additionally, I'm doing a migration project from RHEL 7 to RHEL 9. Our environment is a mixture of on-prem and cloud systems. We are a hospital, so we can't keep some information on the cloud for compliance reasons. 

We have a separate team for the hybrid, and I'm part of that team. We've been migrating a few servers from on-prem to the cloud. Everything used to be on a hardware server, but now we use the cloud for the storage network. We share workloads between the cloud and the physical data center. Our Rubrik data backup archives to the cloud with Microsoft Azure. We also partner with Pure Storage, which we use for on-prem storage.

We have physical Red Hat Enterprise Linux servers for the Splunk environment, which is the security solution we use. Hadoop went to the cloud, but it used to be on Red Hat Enterprise Linux. We have VMware, and our VMs are reserved for Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

We have been using Red Hat since I was hired. All the app owners want Red Hat. Red Hat Enterprise Linux supports SQL and Oracle databases, which is helpful.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has made significant improvements in terms of storage. You can mount an 18 terabyte file system. It also supports NFS shares and the SIP share for the photos. There have been many features added since RHEL 6. It's more user-friendly and graphical. 

We use Ansible as a go-to for provisioning and hardening the servers. It's so much easier with Ansible because we used scripts in the past. We had to log into each server as such, and it took a long time. With Ansible, we just run one playbook, and it takes care of everything. 

I used Leapp for my upgrade from RHEL 7 to 8. It's an excellent utility tool. When I run the Leapp script, it tells me everything I need to take care of before I run a migration. Red Hat Insight is good because it tells you about the future patches available. 

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux image builder. Our golden image is a real image. We harden it, and it's our golden server. When we need a new VM, we can just make a snapshot of that. If it's a physical server, then I have to do it manually.

AIX will be out of support in the next few years, so that is a problem because a lot of the clinical apps use AIX. 

I have used Red Hat Enterprise Linux since I started working at this hospital six years ago.  

I rate Red Hat support eight out of 10. It's helpful when we face hardware issues, kernel panics, or the server is hanging. We always open a support case with Red Hat, and they're helpful at every level. It used to be in the United States, but now they outsource everything to India, so there is a big time difference. That's the only issue. 

Positive

We have always used Red Hat, but they use CentOS for a few applications. Most are using Red Hat. Another team uses Microsoft Windows 2016. It's a different team. The application team decides which one they prefer, but most clinicians use Red Hat Enterprise Linux servers.

The application owners like Red Hat instead of CentOS or another flavor of Linux because the support is reliable. If something breaks, they can call Red Hat support. It's the enterprise standard Linux.

I do the Red Hat Enterprise Linux upgrades. It's straightforward because I can just run Leapp to upgrade it

I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux nine out of 10. 

Red Hat Enterprise Linux serves various functions, including operating system tasks, satellite management, and OpenShift deployments. Additionally, we utilize Red Hat's Insight and Subscription Manager products.

Our organization utilizes Red Hat Enterprise Linux, both on-premises and in the cloud. While we maintain on-premises systems, certain departments also leverage Red Hat Enterprise Linux in a cloud environment. As the license manager for Red Hat in our organization, I can confirm that we have a substantial number of Enterprise systems operating in the cloud.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux offers key benefits for enterprise management, including features such as patch management, resource isolation, enhanced stability, and improved performance through automation. Unlike its earlier versions, Red Hat now provides these functionalities out-of-the-box, eliminating the need for extensive scripting and streamlining administrative tasks. Red Hat introduced an online patch management system in Red Hat nine, similar to what AIX offered years ago. This system, which likely will be included in Red Hat ten and eleven, allows for online patching without requiring a reboot. This is a significant advantage for enterprise companies who cannot afford downtime, making Red Hat an even more attractive option for them.

Looking beyond a Red Hat-centric view, hybrid cloud computing significantly enhances customer service. Whether through new service offerings, modernized workflows, or improved scalability, automation, and high availability inherent in cloud solutions, the benefits are clear. Furthermore, Red Hat Enterprise Linux provides stability, avoiding the reboots and challenges often associated with Windows environments. Therefore, hybrid cloud adoption is a strong strategy for enterprise companies, offering substantial advantages.

To enhance future development centralization, our development teams are transitioning to Red Hat Enterprise Linux on our development servers.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has robust built-in security features that effectively contribute to risk reduction, business continuity, and compliance maintenance. Red Hat demonstrates a solid commitment to security by providing timely updates and fixes to its customers. While the operating system itself is secure, it's important to note that Red Hat Enterprise Linux provides a foundational image that requires further hardening through the implementation of security controls. Red Hat empowers users with a platform and a range of hardening options, enabling them to tailor security measures to their specific application needs. Furthermore, Red Hat's rapid release of fixes and updates, often within a day or two of a vulnerability discovery, ensures that customers have access to the latest security enhancements.

The portability of applications and containers built on Red Hat Enterprise Linux fosters organizational agility by enabling a continuous cycle of learning, trying, adapting, and iterating. Containers offer a streamlined approach to development, allowing for rapid deployment and effortless updates. If a containerized application doesn't work, it can be quickly destroyed and recreated with updated components, significantly reducing deployment time compared to traditional methods. This rapid iteration aligns perfectly with agile principles, enabling organizations to respond swiftly to changing needs and requirements.

Red Hat Satellite provides patching information and compliance percentages for our systems, but in a multi-departmental enterprise environment, Red Hat Insights offers a more comprehensive view. Insights synchronizes data from Satellite and provides a centralized platform to monitor compliance across different application sectors. This addresses the limitation of Satellite, which may not be accessible to all stakeholders. Insights' API-based functionality allows integration with ServiceNow, creating a single pane of glass view of compliance for various teams. Furthermore, the Insights client provides granular visibility into vulnerabilities, further enhancing transparency and management capabilities. This integration streamlines compliance monitoring and improves overall efficiency.

Red Hat Insights provides vulnerability alerts and guidance. While it doesn't necessarily affect uptime, the severity of the vulnerability determines the response. High-severity vulnerabilities require immediate evaluation to assess their impact. Multiple security layers within the environment may mitigate immediate risks. However, vulnerabilities should be addressed promptly. Insights enhance transparency and provide detailed information for timely action.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux offers many features I appreciate, especially the increasing maturity of the operating system and its automation platform. The automation platform, in particular, has significantly evolved over the past three years. Satellite, now known as Insight, is another excellent product, providing easy and convenient patch management for both managed and unmanaged systems. Its reporting on users, vulnerabilities, and other key information is also quite valuable. Having used Red Hat since version three and now working with versions eight and nine, I'm consistently impressed by its progress. The preview of Red Hat ten looks amazing, and I plan to implement it soon after its release.

The area of improvement is patch management, specifically isolating kernel and operating system patching to prevent downtime for enterprise applications.

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

Red Hat Enterprises Linux is stable, and improvements are constantly made.

We are not extensively using the scalability features, but the documentation and technology are growing.

I am generally happy with Red Hat's customer service and technical support. There are challenges with different time zones, but overall, the service is satisfactory.

Positive

Red Hat Enterprise Linux offers a straightforward pricing and licensing model. The subscription manager provides clear visibility into license usage and facilitates tracking usage growth over time. Although the tool is still under development, Red Hat is actively collaborating with customers to improve its features and functionality. The subscription manager enhances transparency by enabling accurate tracking of license consumption and ensuring alignment with customer needs. Red Hat Insights, working with the satellite, further strengthens transparency by automatically calculating and reporting license usage. This comprehensive approach simplifies customer license management and promotes clarity in supplier relationships.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is a solid operating system, earning an 8 out of 10 rating. While no OS is perfect, and there's always room for improvement, Red Hat effectively meets the evolving demands of the business market.

While numerous open-source operating systems are available for development, enterprise-class companies require the stability and support of enterprise-level solutions. Red Hat Enterprise Linux bridges this gap by offering a forum for feedback and collaboration, allowing users to directly influence feature improvements and updates. Red Hat Enterprise Linux effectively combines the flexibility of open source with the robust support and reliability required by enterprise-class customers, unlike many other open-source operating systems that lack this level of responsiveness.

Our focus is on the enterprise support and open mindset Red Hat provides, looking to customer benefits and services.

We use it for SAP applications. We use it for web hosting, and then we use it for clustering.

We were previously using Windows Servers, but we had challenges with the compatibility with SAP applications, the support, and the frequency of patches. We had compatibility challenges when we wanted to go for an upgrade. We use the SAP HANA database for SAP applications, and the migration process from Windows to Linux was easy. We also got better support. While troubleshooting issues and doing RCA on unplanned events, the support we received from Red Hat was good.

Because of the reduction in compatibility issues, the number of downtimes was reduced. The escalations were reduced from the application side. The frequency of the patching was reduced, so such planned activities were reduced. With Windows, we were forced to go for patching even if the application was not ready for patching. Red Hat Enterprise Linux is a good platform for SAP applications and the database in our organization. We prefer Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

Patch management with the Red Hat Satellite server is also good. When it comes to automation, the automation tool for regular tasks on Windows was very backward compared to the Red Hat automation tool that we are now using. Red Hat Ansible is far ahead. We could automate many more tasks on-premises using the Red Hat platform as compared to the Windows platform.

Red Hat Insights helps us understand vulnerabilities and avoid any downtime and risks. If needed, we can easily reach out to the Red Hat support team for any help related to patching or changes.

The knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux is very good. It is easy to understand. It is not too technical to understand. New users and application support teams can easily understand the information given in their knowledge base.

Initially, we used to do installation and patching manually, but we later implemented the Red Hat Satellite server, which was suggested by their team. We started using the Red Hat Satellite server. It has made deployment, patch management, and lifecycle management very easy.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has affected our system's uptime. Earlier, the downtime was around six to eight hours, whereas now, it has come down to one hour. We also need less manpower for upgrades.

The file system is very good. We also have flexibility. We can scale the file system and add the mounts on the go without any downtime.

On Windows, for security, we need to have many applications and supporting tools installed externally whereas we get them with Red Hat Enterprise Linux without any issues. Application management is also easy compared to Windows.

Build management is also easier than Windows. When we had to deploy an application on Windows, the process was difficult compared to the Red Hat build process.

If someone wants to build automation, we can give them access to Red Hat Ansible Tower, which was not possible with Windows.

There can be a faster resolution. When we have production issues, they take around 30 to 60 minutes to come up with a solution. It would be quite helpful if their response is faster. They are also not reachable over the phone, so we need to wait for their callback for the ticket. If they are reachable over the phone, that will be quite good. Our account manager is reachable over the phone but only during certain times. Fast help would be quite helpful in the case of any urgent issues.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for the last nine years.

For reliability, I would rate it a ten out of ten. The downtime that we have is not because of the OS. That is generally because of the dependencies such as the network or VMware infrastructure.

I would rate it an eight out of ten for scalability.

We have around 4,000 users, but the Red Hat boxes that we use are around 2,000. 

In the case of any unplanned events, system crash, or something else, we get proper answers from their team. They help us with RCA, which is helpful in avoiding any such events in the future. We can also approach them when we want to implement something. When we were moving from version 7 to version 8, their support helped us. We could move a bulk of machines with a small downtime. The application team was quite happy because the downtime was for a very short duration.

Their support for urgent or production issues can be faster. I have had all kinds of experiences with their support. I have worked with their support for the last four or five years. We have had scenarios where we had to close a ticket with no resolution. We have also had an awesome and quick response from them. They have also helped us build up a process, which was quite tedious. Overall, I would rate them an eight out of ten.

Positive

We were previously using Windows Servers. We had challenges related to compatibility, support, and patch frequency. We were not very comfortable with Microsoft's support. Whenever we had any issues, they only asked us to reboot or wait for the patch. They kept giving us some patches. We were not comfortable with that because the applications were not ready for those patches, but they forced us to keep updating them with the patches. Red Hat support is better than Microsoft support. They do not just ask to reboot to solve an issue. They help us with a proper RCA.

We have hypervisors in the on-prem environment. We use VMware on that. We are using Red Hat Enterprise Linux on bare metal and hypervisors. It is quite comfortable. We do not see any issue with either of them. Initially, we had some issues implementing the cluster on VMware, but Red Hat along with the VMware team helped us overcome the issues.

Its deployment was quite straightforward. There was no confusion. It took us some time initially but that got reduced with the help of Red Hat Satellite and Ansible Tower. Initially, it took 30 to 40 minutes for deployment. With the help of Red Hat Satellite and Ansible Tower, it came down to 15 to 20 minutes. We also needed less manpower because the process was quite straightforward. Previously, we had a team of four, but the number was reduced afterward. 

Upgrades are generally quite straightforward because we have spent some time with Red Hat support and built a process for easy upgrades.

We had some challenges with the upgrade from Red Hat Enterprise Linux version 7 to version 8 because of certain dependencies, but the Red Hat support helped us build a process and automate it. It took some time, but it got easy.

We have not used Red Hat Enterprise Linux Image Builder. It did not match our requirements. We built our own images. After moving to the Red Hat Satellite server, image building was quite easy.

It is not fairly priced. If they can reduce the price, it would be nice. 

I understand that they do not have any big competition as of now. SUSE Linux is there, but Red Hat Enterprise Linux has overcome all the drawbacks that it had earlier. Initially, SUSE Linux was a quite comfortable platform for SAP applications, but Red Hat has improved in terms of development. Its kernel suits SAP applications very well. If they can also improve the pricing, it would be even better. They generally do not reduce the price, but they give add-ons. We can get licenses for the Satellite server, Ansible, etc.

I would recommend Red Hat Enterprise Linux because of its support and reliability. In my career, I have worked with various Linux flavors such as Red Hat Enterprise Linux, CentOS, or Ubuntu Linux. Overall, the Linux platform is very reliable for most applications. With Red Hat Enterprise Linux, we get support when we need it.

We do not use the web console much on the support side, but the application team does use it once in a while. They find it comfortable because, for application deployment, they require a GUI. We provide them with the console, and they complete their task. We do not use it ourselves. We are quite comfortable with the command line interface.

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