Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Reviews

It's what we run our primary mission systems on. Our office automation runs on Microsoft, which includes Word, email, etc. For everything that we present to the customers through the agency, the backend is an RHEL platform.

Through the various tools that we've utilized, RHEL was able to help improve our security posture. We run a very tight ship.

We use Satellite to do patch management and limited repository so that we don't have folks going out to the internet to get the repos. You have to get the repos through our Satellite system. We also do patches through that. We use Ansible for our automation to build boxes, to install all the security patches on them, and to run the vulnerability scan against them. It initiates that. Also, implementing IdM on them is done through Ansible. So, we use Ansible quite a bit, and we're just starting with OpenShift.

One benefit of using multiple Red Hat products is compatibility. Compatibility is the most important. We haven't had an issue where the tool doesn't understand the OS or doesn't understand the platform. Ansible written for Red Hat works perfectly. It understands the plugins and satellites, and it's having one ecosystem where it also gives one phone call. If there's a problem, we call Red Hat. That has been very handy.

RHEL’s built-in security features and security profiles are very good for reducing risk and maintaining compliance, but as a government agency, we have to use other baselines. CIS baseline is what we primarily rely on. We also put in a little bit of DISA as a baseline, but they're standard out-of-the-box solutions. It's pretty good. It just has to be tweaked slightly to get it to the level we have to run at.

It's relatively easy to troubleshoot using RHEL. Sometimes, the troubleshooting can take quite a bit of work, but it's an easily understandable OS. If you understand the basic key principles, you can pretty much work it out.

We're very happy with the amount of security customization we've been able to do with RHEL. The fact that Red Hat is really on top of security issues is also valuable. We get daily emails from Red Hat letting us know of possible issues and fixes, which is incredibly helpful for us.

Other than that, we use it as our primary DNS. So, DNS is an important piece of it. 

Compatibility is also extremely important. We get the ability to run as many applications on it. They are widely supported.

There are some things that we've seen from RHEL that have given us a little bit of consternation. Their IdM product could be improved greatly. It would be great if they had some type of application built in that would let you do whitelisting for applications. On the government side, for zero trust, that's becoming very important. We're currently using a third-party solution, and it's tough to get it to match up because anytime the kernel changes, you have to match the software to the kernel. If we get a critical vulnerability on a kernel, we have to roll out the new kernel but then our third-party software isn't cooperating, and it starts breaking down the system. So, it would be great if Red Hat could integrate that type of functionality into the product so that when a new kernel comes out, it includes the updated software to do whitelisting and blacklisting of applications and processes.

At the agency, we have been using it for about 10 years. For me personally, it has been about six years.

It has been relatively stable. The only time we see stability issues is when we introduce new third-party products. We have some mandates as a government agency to do some endpoint security stuff and integrating that in has caused us a few stability issues, but that's not so much the fault of Red Hat. It's a quagmire of the chicken and the egg. You have to run a certain kernel, but that kernel is not compatible with the other software that you are forced to run. So, we've artificially created stability issues.

They eventually work out or work themselves out. When the vendors get on board and update their products to match the kernel, then everything tends to function smoothly at that point until we introduce another hiccup. We're constantly throwing hurdles, but we also have a very good system for bringing stuff back to life after it's dead, and we've done it enough that we're pretty timely. We can get one of our servers up in about 10 minutes.

It has been relatively scalable. We don't have any super large deployments, but we've had some scaling of specific applications, which has worked out great. We're integrating it more into Ansible and using our virtual hypervisor platform to recognize times when it needs to scale, and when we expect a large deluge of customers coming into our website, we have to have the backend expand. We've been doing that manually up to this point, but we're looking forward to being able to automate that.

We wanted an enterprise platform that was going to be supported. So, support from the vendor has been very important to us, and Red Hat has always provided that. When IBM took over Red Hat, we were very afraid that it was going to change our relationship with Red Hat, but it worked out very well. We've got a great sales team that has helped us, and they've always been able to get us the technical support we need when we run into an issue.

Until we got our new salesperson, I would have rated them a two out of five. Now that we've gotten our new sales team, we've gotten the right people in the right places, it's definitely a five out of five. We had a salesperson who was more focused on larger agencies, and we're a relatively small agency. So, we weren't getting the amount of focus that we needed, but that changed when our Director and our CIO engaged Red Hat's Enterprise Management. They were able to get us someone who could be more focused on smaller agencies and be a lot more helpful, and he has absolutely done that.

Positive

I was involved in the deployment or setup of RHEL to a degree, but it was mostly during our life cycle refreshes when we moved from RHEL 6 to RHEL 7 to RHEL 8. And now, we're looking at RHEL 9. 

On the backend development of the base image, I'm part of the team that puts together the base design, and then we put the steps into our repository so that we can rebuild the images easier. Right now, it's a manual process. We want to get to the point where we have all of the changes documented in a GitHub solution or something where we can make a change, push a button and have it implement those changes in there by using a script or something else. I'm mostly the one yelling to the Linux developers to get their stuff done because they have a tendency to run multiple instances while they're transitioning. They'll run an RHEL 6 box, an RHEL 7 box, and an RHEL 8 box at the same time when they have to get off of RHEL 6 and RHEL 7. So, I'm more of the management yelling at them to get this stuff done.

I would advise making sure you get a good support contract and you have a very good salesperson to work with.

In terms of RHEL's effect on our organization's management and efficiency, it can always be improved, but we probably are a three out of five on efficiency. As we move into OpenShift and get a lot more automation working, we will move slowly to the five, but that's not the fault of Red Hat. That's the fault of our organization having limited resources, and Red Hat is helping to provide the tools to get us to the next level.

Given that we started running everything on Microsoft, Red Hat is a lot more flexible in giving us the ability to span out specifically as we move into containers. It's going to give us the ability to stand up a lot more resiliency. When we're getting a heavy load, we can expand. Even currently, we have the ability to expand slightly but moving into containers will give us even more capability. We've chosen Red Hat as our platform. Red Hat has done well enough for us, and that's the platform that we're moving to with containers.

At this point, I would rate it an eight out of ten because there's always room for improvement. I don't feel that there's a perfect OS. I would even rate Windows as a seven. There's definitely room for improvement, and with Red Hat being one of the larger targets out there for hackers and people, there are always issues coming up.

Most of our servers are low latency, and it's easier to have low latency applications run on Linux. Red Hat Enterprise Linux's installation is easy. We don't have to reboot Red Hat Enterprise Linux like Windows, where there are a bunch of system updates that you have to do. Red Hat Enterprise Linux is just easier to manage.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux's most valuable feature is its stability.

We would like to have a better understanding of what to expect when we move to a different version of Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

A latency always gets introduced when we move to newer Red Hat versions. I wish we wouldn't see that as often as we do nowadays. It would be nice to know the changes upfront rather than when we have to open a case, go through a couple of months, and then find a good resolution. We want a better understanding of what we will see when we update the kernel from seven to eight.

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

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is a pretty stable solution. Its stability is a lot better than most other operating systems.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux's scalability is better than other competitors.

For the most part, Red Hat Enterprise Linux's support has been really good. Most of the time, we've had to escalate it to get a good response.

Neutral

Red Hat Enterprise Linux’s initial setup is pretty straightforward.

Whenever we see a compliance issue and need a patch, it's been relatively easy to get Red Hat Enterprise Linux to update it.

We have a mix of Windows and Linux. Around 80 percent of our systems are Red Hat, but we also have Windows. So it depends on the application.

Most applications are compatible with Red Hat Enterprise Linux. It's easier to tune on a Red Hat system than on another OS. We could pin applications to a core with Red Hat Enterprise Linux. In terms of tuning, Red Hat Enterprise Linux performs better in the long run.

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

We use the solution for deploying middleware applications and many different applications that we have, like the ones we can use in the marketplace with different users. We use other kinds of solutions in many of the applications we develop. But in general, we use Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

Benefit-wise, the product is very stable. The product is also very compatible, and many people want to use it.

There are a lot of features in the solution. Red Hat Insights is one feature that we rely on currently.

The model, specifically the consumption model, is an area that needs improvement in the solution.

We had a really big challenge striking a chart between on-premises and the public cloud. The approach is that you pay as you go in Red Hat Enterprise Linux. In general, you pay for whatever you use instead of preparing for a full year.

At times, language is a barrier when it comes to support. That's one of the aspects I would like to improve about the solution.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for six to eight years. My company has a partnership with Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

Red Hat's support is good. Sometimes cases take a little bit longer to resolve. If you are clever enough to upgrade the case and put it at a very high level of priority, then it gets resolved faster. In general, the support is good. I rate the support an eight out of ten.

Sometimes, a customer doesn't speak English or we need people who speak Spanish for the case to be easier to understand. In those cases, we lose time. I can't push all my engineers to learn to speak English. My customers and our engineers speak Spanish.

Positive

We've been working with Red Hat Enterprise Linux since the beginning.

I was involved in the deployment a long time ago. The setup process is easy. The solution is also easy to use.

Regarding the time taken for deployment, we can do it with a machine at this moment using Ansible. In our orchestration, we passed more or less, creating one machine for Red Hat and the entire environment. It took us eight days and an hour. At this moment, we can deploy it on a machine in an hour with all the security. If a developer comes to us and tells us that they need a new machine or new instance, we can provide that in an hour on-premises. In the cloud, we have to use a lot of tools.

I have purchased the license via hyperscalers and transferred it as well. I purchased the license from the marketplace and also from Red Hat.

Pricing is something that can always be better.

We have not evaluated other options since we trust Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

I am running my workloads on-premises and on the cloud. I mainly use AWS.

Resiliency-wise, the solution is very good. It's good because we don't have a problem with our environment at this moment. When we don't have a problem, we don't need to explain what is to be improved in the solution. It is reliable and doesn't break or bring us any problems.

Regarding how easy or difficult it is for me to move workloads between the cloud and my data center using the solution, we don't have problems. In general, it's easy.

We are talking about moving applications from on-premise to the cloud. We need to see if that represents any cost savings. We would need to go through a migration process, and that would be an extra cost.We would need to see if that is beneficial.

I rate the overall solution a nine out of ten.

We need to build a lockdown version of Red Hat Enterprise Linux to build our application on top.

It gives us a stable and secure platform on top of which we can build our applications.

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux for containerization projects. It allows us to do better application isolation using containers. If I want to take a program that runs on my system and put it in its own network namespace, I can put it in a container. I can put a physical interface in with it and run them together in that container.

It definitely makes it easy to go back and look at all the Open CVEs and things like that.

It works well for us in terms of the portability of applications and containers for keeping our organization agile. We are able to do the kind of things we need to do. We are able to modify the system to do whatever we need to do to get where we want to go.

Things like packaging and the stability you get from things being downstream are valuable. A lot of times, upgrades are more security-based and not feature-based, so things do not break API-wise as we go forward a lot of times.

I feel like it is going all over the place now. Sometimes it is hard to figure out what is going on. I would like more guidance.

We definitely spend a lot of time developing on top of things, but I am not sure what on the Red Hat Enterprise Linux side can be better.

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

It is very stable.

It is very scalable. I would rate it a ten out of ten for scalability.

It has been great when we needed it. We have not needed a lot of it, but we have had no problems when we needed it. 

Positive

We did not use a similar solution previously. We have only been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

We use it on-premises. We use the ISO installer. We install it via CD ROM on-site.

I was not involved in its initial deployment.

It is the guarantee that we are getting the updates that we could backport into the system and we have a stable system to build on.

We have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux since I have been with the company. They might have evaluated other solutions before I joined.

To a colleague who is looking at open-source, cloud-based operating systems for Linux instead of Red Hat Enterprise Linux, I would ask, "Why?" We plan to stick with Red Hat as far as we see in the future, and we have no plans to change.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has not helped us to centralize development. It is not something we are looking to use it for.

We use Red Hat Insights very little. We work mostly in an offline environment. It is hard to use Red Hat Insights in an offline environment.

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

We installed the product at a very large hospital as their underlying operating system for Kubernetes, but it is not OpenShift. We use it for one-off servers and lab machines.

Copious documentation is probably the best feature of the solution. If you have a lot of high-quality documentation in one location, it is easier to search and get exactly what you need. It's more efficient when I get stuck on a problem or need help configuring something. It saves us time searching through Google or looking through GitHub Issues to solve the problems. It is a top-notch solution.

If the solution were easier to use and understand, it would not get disabled as often as it does. The solution should be made more secure. The changes made to CentOS make it hard for somebody to spin up and test it without having a preexisting relationship and license. 

If somebody wants to get something going quickly and is trying to settle on Red Hat, they don't have a free version to go to. Ubuntu and SUSE provide such platforms to the users. It is one Achilles heel in Red Hat at the moment. 

Even if Red Hat would enable a full version trial for people to test it, it would be less than what others are doing. Others are giving it away for free until you actually need support, and then you can choose if you need to buy it. With SUSE you can install it with SUSE Leap. It's pretty much the same thing. When you want support, you must enable support, and it becomes SLES.

There's nothing in Red Hat where I can run along on the free version for as long as I need to, and then when I want support, activate support on the same product. I have to reinstall it if I want Red Hat. Even with CentOS, it still wasn't possible to just activate it for Red Hat and make it become Red Hat Enterprise Linux. That's been something that's long been lacking in the product.

I have been using the solution since 1996 or 1997.

I have no complaints at all about the stability of the product.

As time goes on, the solution gets better. It adopts new features. I would say that it does a pretty good job.

The few times that I've encountered support, it was great. I don't really go through support channels. However, when I reach out and ask a question to the people I know in support, I get answers pretty quickly. I find that they have a good deal of product knowledge.

Positive

When I first started using the product in the 90s, it was just Red Hat. So I used Red Hat, and I used IBM Slack. I've used quite a number of different Linux distributions. Red Hat Enterprise Linux has been around longer than Ubuntu. I still use other solutions along with Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

Typically, the initial setup is pretty straightforward. If it's virtualization, it is really easy because we have an image already, or we can create one. We can use Kickstart. I used to run a 5000-node HPC cluster in the early 2000s based on Red Hat Enterprise Linux. We used a combination of SystemImager and Kickstart for it.

It's the default posture of a lot of the third-party vendors that you should just disable and leave them off. With containerization being prevalent everywhere, portability is across the board. Red Hat Enterprise Linux adopted Podman as opposed to Docker. Podman is a good tool, and I like it. Red Hat Enterprise Linux is the standard on which many others have based their platforms.

Using SELinux is largely misunderstood. If used properly, it provides a great platform for us. Red Hat is a big corporation, and we have people we can reach out and talk to. The same goes for SUSE. For Ubuntu, I have always gone straight to NVIDIA for support. I personally don't know of any great differentiators between all the products. I know Red Hat. It's been around longer, and I've had a long history that makes me comfortable. 

I wouldn’t recommend one over the other. It would come down to the use case. If someone wants Kubernetes on-prem, I would probably guide them toward OpenShift. I do have customers that don't run OpenShift on-prem. I often find that the customers already have a preference because they already have a license. So it's never really a decision that falls on me.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux uses firewalls, so configuring a firewall is easy. I have deployed the solution in multiple places. Overall, I rate the product an eight out of ten.

One of our use cases is for our in-house applications that the development team builds. We also use it for typical tasks like running Jenkins, GitLab, and other development tools to make them accessible for the developers who write code and do software development.

One of Red Hat Enterprise Linux’s valuable features is its enterprise-level security. We are guaranteed that it's secure, and that's important for us because we need to comply with security regulations. Security always remains a top priority.

We just run Red Hat Enterprise Linux’s built-in security features day in and day out. We know it's secure, and then we just move on to other tasks. It's like a routine where we don't have to think too much because we know it's already integrated into the whole enterprise. It's the next step, and it gives us more time to focus on other tasks.

We are trying to figure out how to enable encryption or just encryption. The last thing we want is to use locks, which are a hassle for encryption. We don't have the personnel to unlock the system every time it gets rebooted. I know there's a way, like on Windows, where they have TPM. I'm not sure how Red Hat Enterprise Linux’s TPM works. That's one of the issues we face—how to utilize TPM effectively.

I think in the future, if the company requires us to encrypt everything, it would be a time-consuming process. I'm not sure how long that would take or if it will happen. I just want to understand how Red Hat Enterprise Linux and TPM work or if there's an existing solution that works similarly where I don't necessarily have to be present every time my system reboots and enter a password. At least for Windows, we know that it works, but I'm not familiar with the equivalent functionality in Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

In future releases, I would prefer a Red Hat Enterprise Linux image that fits on a DVD. The Red Hat Enterprise Linux image keeps getting larger and larger. One of the biggest requirements for my company is that it has to fit on a DVD. Now, with Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9 approaching close to ten gigabytes, it won't fit on a DVD anymore. The last thing we want to resort to is using Blu-ray. I prefer not to use Blu-ray. So we need to keep the image size on a DVD smaller. That's one of the main issues. And we can't use USB sticks either, even though they're a new option. Everything needs to be burned on a DVD. So having a Red Hat Enterprise Linux image that fits on a DVD would be beneficial for any future versions or releases.

I have been using this solution for eight years now. Right now, we're migrating. I'm trying to upgrade from Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 to Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7. And that process is painstaking. It's taking a lot of time. I know we want to get that done before October because I think that's when the security support for Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 expires. We need to move everything to Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7.

We have a lot of legacy systems, and it's very time-consuming trying to figure out what will work and which version of Red Hat Enterprise Linux will support all our applications. So it's just a lengthy process to go through.

In terms of stability, there have been some issues, particularly on the workstation side. The workstation tends to freeze up occasionally, requiring a system restart. The server side, on the other hand, works well as intended. Although Red Hat Enterprise Linux is primarily designed for servers, our developers use it as a workstation, and that can sometimes cause issues after a couple of days of continuous use.

They may need to restart their systems when something freezes or stops working. So it's one of those things we encounter.

I don't really use it extensively. I have some knowledge and experience with it, but I don't heavily rely on Red Hat support. Whenever I encounter a problem, I usually turn to Google for solutions.

The knowledge base provided by Red Hat exists, but I find it difficult to navigate. The information seems scattered and hard to find. I tend to prefer searching on Google since I can get immediate answers there compared to the knowledge base, which can be challenging to navigate. It seems like the knowledge base could use some improvement.

One of the main advantages is the level of support. Red Hat Enterprise Linux provides nearly ten years of support, including two years of extended support, whereas other operating systems typically have one or two major versions released within five years. It can be challenging to allocate the budget for frequent updates over such a short period. So I think that's the main appeal of Red Hat Enterprise Linux—its ten-year support with an additional two years.

Since I've been working with Red Hat Enterprise Linux for a long time, it feels easy for me. However, for someone completely new to it, especially coming from a Windows background, it might seem more complicated. But for me, it's second nature and not that difficult. So the initial setup depends on the level of familiarity with the system.

For a brand-new system, it might take around ten minutes.

I have worked with CentOS, Fedora, and Ubuntu. So I have experience with different flavors of Linux, from the Ubuntu side to Fedora. From a developer's point of view, the main difference, if I compare it to Ubuntu, is that they always get the latest packages, which helps them a lot. 

On the other hand, with Red Hat Enterprise Linux, I understand that it's set up to prioritize security. But sometimes, from a development perspective, it's challenging for them to obtain the latest packages. As an assessment, I have to go out there, fetch the package or compile the new package for the new version, and then bring it into Red Hat Enterprise Linux so that developers can use it. I think that's the issue. It's a balancing act between trying to get the latest package versions and ensuring stability and security. It's a problem that I think everyone struggles with.

Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten because there is always room for improvement when it comes to technology.

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

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

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

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

I have been using the solution for five years.

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

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

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

Positive

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We use this solution for disaster assistance. 

This solution has increased the speed of our technology. It is easy to troubleshoot using RHEL. RHEL's built-in security features and security profiles for helping to reduce risk and maintain compliance are good. It has also improved our organization's management and efficiency.

The cost of this solution could be improved. 

I have been using this solution for four years. 

This is a stable solution and we have not had any major issues when using it. 

The customer support team are very responsive and always provide the help we need. I would rate the support a nine out of ten. 

Positive

We used to use JBoss at my previous company.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.