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.

I use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for its specific security features.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has specific security checks that are beneficial. We follow its support and it helps with security verification.

The security features are the most valuable. The long-term support for weekends is also beneficial.

Risks, for example, specific to Linux, need improvements.

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

We use this solution for different projects. It's great as a realistic training platform and we've also used it for humanoid robots. We are platinum partners of Red Hat and I'm a digital solutions architect. 

We chose to go with this solution because it's easier to use than other operating systems. It provides illustration ability and better permissions. It has good compatibility which is an issue I have with other operating systems. I find it to be a more flexible product.

Most of the complaints people have about this solution revolve around security. It's not easy to increase that. 

I've used this solution for almost a year. 

The solution is stable. 

The solution is scalable. 

We use the online community for our support and it's great. I can find the answers to all my questions there. 

I previously used CentOS, which is related to Red Hat. It was our client who decided to switch to Red Hat. I've also used Ubuntu which is an open-source solution with low security and therefore not suitable for enterprise-size organizations.  

The initial setup was straightforward because I'd already had some experience with Linux. Even without experience implementation is relatively easy. Deployment time depends on the project and usually takes longer with android applications because the deployment is not one process. We usually deploy on cloud, sometimes private and sometimes public. 

I think the licensing costs are reasonable. 

I recommend RHEL because although there's not much difference between it and CentOS, it does provide full support. If you have any issues you know where to turn and they can be solved. 

I rate RHEL nine out of 10. 

We deploy front-end and back-end software applications on RHEL, and it's our app server. Most of our app servers and our production servers are on RHEL. They're running on RHEL, and that's why they are profiting from it. I2C is the issuer in the processing payment industry. Basically, we do the issuer processing for credit cards, and all the bank magic that happens when you swipe a credit card is handled by us. We're also using RHEL servers for processing debit card payments.

Customer support is valuable. Because most of the Linux distros are open source, most of them don't have customer support. RHEL isn't open source, and that's why I prefer it more than other distros.

Their pricing and documentation can be improved. They need to have developer variance that's more developer-friendly and less costly. They have a free developer version, but that's very limited in terms of features from RHEL. They also need to build their own open source community.

I've been using RHEL for about four months.

RHEL is very stable. Unlike Kali-Linux or Solaris, RHEL solutions are very stable. We have licensed projects, and they must be stable to provide all customers with instructions. They're stable, compared to other Linux options too.

It's very scalable. When you're using the right machine and the right settings or right parameters, it's highly scalable

Technical support from their customer service team is very good. They give responses unlike other Linux distros, and I think RHEL has better customer support.

My current company was using Solaris before. I was using Core Linux for three to four years. From Ubuntu, I shifted to RHEL and Solaris because I changed companies and jobs. We are using RHEL and Solaris in my current job, and I had to shift to these operating systems.

I have used the Ubuntu Linux base, I have used Kali-Linux and Debian. Of all those Linux systems, I think RHEL is much better, but I find Ubuntu much easier to use than RHEL.

Ubuntu is Debian-based, and Red Hat is, I think VM based. Another difference is open source systems have less support. Still, the community of Ubuntu is very strong and answers your query very promptly. But Red Hat is a certified, licensed product, and customer support from them is very good.

RHEL is expensive. The servers or cloud images are quite expensive. But I guess the client groups they target can afford that kind of a license. If you're a small business owner or a student and want to shift to RHEL, you must spend a lot of dollars. The developer version of RHEL has minimal functionality, but it's given away for free.

I would tell potential customers that they should go for the latest releases. If they want to buy it, they should get a developer account from RHEL first and use that dev account before buying it. They might have some hands-on experience before spending too much money on Red Hat.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) an eight.

We are internet service providers in Bangladesh and resellers of this product to our customers to manage their network infrastructure. 

I think this solution is more secure than others because it's not open source. Red Hat will ensure the details when you purchase the package. Having a certification will offer value. 

We've found that there is a huge demand for it. 

Although the security features are good, I'd like to see more added in the security sphere.

I've been using this solution for just three months and still not completely familiar with it. 

The solution is stable. 

The documentation is sufficient for my needs. 

The initial setup is easy, it takes around 10-15 minutes. 

I rate this solution eight out of 10. 

We use Red Hate Enterprise Linux in our infrastructure, which consists of VM and Linux. We use it to create clusters. 

I would like to see the GNOME system monitor feature, which shows CPU usage and other aspects. It will help to save time. 

I have been working with Red Hate Enterprise Linux for eight years. 

We have a separate team that handles any issues. We inform them whenever we encounter issues. 

I would like to see user training sessions that last about one to two hours on new features and releases. 

We have a separate team that creates dashboards for us. I rate the product a seven out of ten. 

We use this solution as our operating system.

The security, ongoing support, and ease of taking a system and getting authorization from a government agency have helped the way our organization functions.

The built-in security features support certain security standards such as encryption. It is simpler to meet FIPS 140 encryption requirements such as the ATOs.

The ease of use of this solution has been most valuable. 

The cost of this solution could be improved. 

I have been using this solution for two years. 

This is a stable solution.

We previously used Linux. Red Hat meets our needs more comprehensively.

Our main ROI is in the ability to readily get ATOs.

For somebody familiar with the Linux platform, it is not difficult to troubleshoot when using this solution.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten. 

The company that I worked for that employed RHEL was a PACS (Picture Archiving and Communication System - think of an image repository for x-ray, CAT scan, MRI, etc., that allowed radiologists to read the images and report on their findings). Our software was a FDA-certified medical "device," based on an open-source DICOM toolkit. We had a custom repository that served up our packages. We needed a stable, supported version of Linux since we would have to get FDA certification for each major version upgrade.

Enterprise support is available for our customers. Pre-RHEL, I used Red Hat desktop for personal PC.

Support.

Rarely were there stability issues. We regularly had servers running for three years without reboot.

Yes, there were scalability issues, but I blame that more on my employer than on Red Hat.

Support seemed to be great for day-to-day issues that our customers would experience (the customer would engage Red Hat support and escalate to me if there was no resolution). I only had to engage support once for an escalated issue and their support team tried to pass the blame onto our Hypervisor vendor, when it was indeed an issue with a Red Hat package.

I have used lots of flavors of Linux going back to 1995. Enterprise support was the reason Red Hat was selected.

Easy. Used Kickstart to automate installation and post install config.

 I was an engineer, never discussed pricing.

CentOS, Slack, Ubuntu, Arch, LFS.

My advice: Kickstart is your friend.