Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Reviews

The use of the solution keeps varying, considering that we have web apps and a lot of homegrown stuff as we build a lot of our own apps. My company also uses Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for the operating systems for a lot of our other applications that we use for authentication purposes and so on.

I can't really talk much about how the product has benefited the organization since it is not in my wheelhouse, and I mostly deal with the area of configuration management and the automation of configuring it. In my company, we have a Unix team I work with, and when they want to automate processes, then they come to me and I help direct them.

The solution's most valuable feature revolves around its simplicity, especially when maintaining it, which is an easy process.

I have not seen anything in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that causes any queries or doubts in my mind, so I am not really sure if I see any need for improvements in the product at this point, especially when I have good communication with the sales teams and support. I have also recommended the changes I want to see in Ansible, an area where my company sees progress. There is nothing my company is disappointed about regarding Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

I would like to see a better way to organize the jobs within Ansible, specifically with the automation platform. Right now, in Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform, everything is just flat as there are no directory structures or folders and no ways to designate specific jobs for specific things as everything is in one big pile.

With Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), my company has not seen anything requiring improvements. My company is really happy with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). My company is still in the migration process right now since, from all of our seven boxes, we are moving on to the eight and Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 9. The aforementioned process has been really smooth and slick. My company likes the speed and simplicity of the OS.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for twelve years. My company has been using the product since before I joined.

It is a stable solution.

It is a scalable solution.

I went to have dinner with my sales team the previous night, and we just had a chat, after which I got to know some professional services offered by some people willing to come and help our company with the solution if required. Based on the aforementioned area, I can rate support as ten out of ten.

Positive

My company has experience with AIX, Solaris, and Windows. My company switched over to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) because people wanted it, specifically the app developers. My company uses Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) based on supply and demand factors. You just build what is needed for the infrastructure side or when you are in the operations.

The product's deployment phase was simple.

There is a different group in my company that has built up a strategy to deploy the product, so I don't have to do anything in its deployment phase. To request a new system is just a matter of filling out the ticket and submitting it easily, after which the box is built, which is great.

The solution is deployed on an on-premises model.

The deployment phase for the tool was carried out with the help of our company's in-house team. The product was deployed with the help of vRealize Orchestrator Appliance.

In terms of the ROI associated with the product, I would say that with a lot of stuff I do in the company, I also get involved with the patching side, especially the patching of servers. I can patch 1,500 Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) boxes in the time it takes me to patch ten boxes from Windows. Patching in Windows is bad. Being able to patch Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is simple since I think the most I have ever seen it takes is around 35 minutes to patch a box. When our company started to move towards a more containerized approach, we saw that being able to have your container or your OS can open a whole new world. Being able to spin up systems and have multiple systems that are already pre-patched, I don't have to have downtime for the enterprise.

There were a couple of operating systems, including CentOS, which my company looked at before choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as it offered a strong support model. The consistency offered by the Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) was also one of the other reasons why my company chose it over other tools.

Though my company does not currently have a hybrid cloud environment with the tool, we are working on it since regulatory compliances in the banking sector require us to stay compliant. My company is not in a place where we can just jump into cloud infrastructure, but we do hope to do so in the future. Presently, the product is on an on-premises model.

As I am not required to deal with the developers in our company, I don't know if the product has helped centralize developments.

My company uses Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for containerization projects. The product has made dealing with containerization projects easy for my company since we get to use a lot of Kubernetes and Docker platforms that snap right into Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and works.

Considering the built-in security features offered by the tool for risk reduction, business continuity, and maintaining compliance, I prefer Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) over a lot of other products. Our company is like an Active Directory shop, so we are doing a lot of tying to it, which is a little bit disappointing, but it is just business. I like the security end of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). I also like the way the file handling takes place along with its management part, so I have no issues with the tool.

Speaking about the portability of applications and containers built on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) to keep our organization agile, I would say that it is something that will happen in the future as my company is a slow adopter. I am not really sure why it has been slow. My company does have a new organization that is really focusing on opening up new avenues so that we can actually be more agile and have the ability to move to things like OpenShift and having our containers offer more high availability while not having any downtime.

I don't use Red Hat Insights.

If I have to speak to a colleague who is looking at open-source cloud-based operating systems for Linux, I would say that CentOS or Fedora are good options since both products have had an association with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for a long time. I personally like and prefer CentOS.

I would not be able to comment on whether the Red Hat portfolio has affected our total cost of ownership across our enterprise landscape because we just spin them up and keep building them. My company was primarily an AIX house, using Solaris and a lot of Windows boxes from Windows. Right now, my company has gotten rid of the AIX and Solaris systems, and now we are down to about a 50-50 split when it comes to Windows and Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). There have been times when we have had more Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) boxes in our company over the ones from Windows. I can see that in the near future, my company is going to be more of a Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) shop than an organization that has boxes from Windows.

In terms of the deployment model, I would say that my company has three data centers, mostly where VMware is used.

I rate the tool a ten out of ten.

I am a Federal Contractor. Red Hat Enterprise Linux is one of the FedRAMP-approved operating systems, so the government is comfortable with using it. That is why we use it, even though it is a bit outdated. Most of our software runs on Red Hat Enterprise Linux because we work in Identity Access Management. For example, Oracle Identity Stack runs on Linux, so we have to use Red Hat Enterprise Linux. We follow very strict security protocols, and we use Ansible to enforce them. Red Hat Enterprise Linux is the easiest way for us to do this.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is a trustworthy and highly scalable operating system. The federal government needs an operating system that they can rely on, with enterprise support and long-term service. As well as being stable and well-known within the community.

I have not yet experienced a disaster recovery scenario, but resiliency is important, and risk is very reliable. The auto logs are very clear. Additionally, with those support communities, it is straightforward enough to understand what we are looking for and to eventually resolve the issue.

I actually like the in-place upgrade that Red Hat Enterprise Linux offers. It has made our upgrade process from Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 to Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 much easier than we originally thought. 

I know that many people prefer in-house support, but I personally prefer Red Hat's support. It is easy to get in contact with their support team.

Even though it is not directly related, the fact that Red Hat Enterprise Linux and Ansible are closely related makes it easier for us to move forward.

The package management, repository, and satellite repository are easy to use.

I am a bit biased because my client is air-gapped. This means that we cannot connect to the internet, so all of our operations are disconnected. I would like to see better support for disconnected operations. For example, the in-place upgrade from Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 to Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 initially relies on a lot of online resources. This makes sense, but it would be nice for a consumer or integrator like me to be able to say, "Hey, we need an offline solution so we can upgrade our government clients on-premises." Red Hat does provide instructions on how to create a repository, but the instructions are not very clear. This leaves us scrambling to figure out why we are missing a repository in our satellite image. Red Hat should provide a way to mirror repositories or at least provide a solution for us to bubble up packages throughout the entire process.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for four years. We started with Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6, and we upgraded to Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 in an airgap environment. We are currently in the process of upgrading to Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is stable.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is scalable. It is deployed in a 10,000-plus enterprise company.

The support team is always direct and easy to find. Their answers are so helpful that I have not yet had to call them. I also appreciate how they approach troubleshooting. They don't assume that you're doing anything wrong. Instead, they try to educate you on how to fix the problem. In my experience, the support team has always been very positive.

Positive

I have experience with most Linux operating systems, including distributions like Apache, Debian, CentOS, Fedora, and others. From my perspective, Red Hat Enterprise Linux is not necessarily the top standout product, but I know that it is a product that I can rely on. It is the standard image that enterprise users in the community will use. We can rely to a degree on the standardization of how packets are used to support it. However, it does not stand out to us as much as the other products. Nevertheless, I know that it will have a positive partnership with us. Red Hat Enterprise Linux is a more suitable operating system for enterprise environments in terms of stability and reliability.

We are currently in the process of reviewing our initial solution for upgrading from Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 to Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8. The in-place upgrade for the airgap environment is an area where we are still struggling to understand the documentation. However, Red Hat has been very supportive and has offered us pathways to move forward. We do not have much to say at this time, as we are still in the middle of the process.

When we upgraded Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 to Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7, it took us around six months due to external factors not related to Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

Our client has a direct subscription to Red Hat.

I give Red Hat Enterprise Linux an eight out of ten. I am not a firm believer that everything is perfect right out of the gate. Everything can be improved. I am a little biased. I wish there was better support for offline environments. I understand that I am in the minority in this case, as everyone is connected to the internet now. However, as a federal contractor and integrator, we have requirements that we must meet. It is not fun having to download binaries offline and then figure out how to set up our own repository. These are not straightforward tasks like Red Hat telling me what to do. We just wish it was easier to do things like patch management. Perhaps there could be more support for air gap environments. These are not environments where we can temporarily connect to the internet. They have never seen the internet.

Depending on our customer's environment, sometimes they have GovCloud, but we still use Red Hat Enterprise Linux images there. Sometimes the customer can't use that so we use the offering from CentOS. But we still try to match it with CentOS.

The reason why some clients don't use Red Hat Enterprise Linux on the cloud is not because of security concerns. I think it's more about cost and their current contract situation. They need a low-cost, open source alternative, and our recommendation would be CentOS. However, many clients are not ready to pay for the enterprise edition of Red Hat Enterprise Linux, so they may choose to scale back their plans.

I have not used the Red Hat Enterprise Linux knowledge base strictly. I have only used the Red Hat Enterprise Linux support.

Clients who use Red Hat Enterprise Linux on the cloud, typically use AWS GovCloud. As a government integrator, we strive to design our solutions in a way that does not lock our clients into any specific cloud provider. This is why we chose Linux, as it can be run on any cloud platform. This flexibility is important to our clients from a price contract perspective. For example, Amazon provides Kubernetes services, among other things. We try to figure out open source solutions or at least architecturally determine them and provide them to our clients. For example, we can tell them that they can move all of their GovCloud data to Azure or Google Cloud. Government agencies really like Amazon right now because it is FedRAMP. However, for other classes that are not government or commercial, we try to introduce them to the CentOS perspective so that they can get a taste of the upstream.

We do not use the image builder tool provided by Red Hat. Instead, we use the one provided by Amazon. We take a base image, coordinate it with Ansible, and provide it to any environments that have used the cloud. For on-premises solutions, we strictly use manual processes.

I don't have a perspective on the golden image, which is at least with our client. The parts that we use are always evolving, so we don't really maintain the golden image. We do have a relative backup of what we deployed to, but we don't necessarily have a strict golden image.

Migrating workloads between the cloud and the data center using Red Hat Enterprise Linux is not entirely applicable to us. We did migrate from on-premises to the cloud at one point, but migrating from Red Hat Enterprise Linux on-premises to Red Hat Enterprise Linux in the cloud was not a concern for us. We knew it would be stable and fine. The main concern was migrating our customer data from our enterprise to the cloud.

If someone is looking for an open source cloud-based operating system for Linux instead of Red Hat Enterprise Linux, I would like to eventually drive them over to Red Hat Enterprise Linux, but I would recommend starting with CentOS. CentOS is a good gateway OS because it is very similar to Red Hat Enterprise Linux, and the knowledge transfer between the two is very straightforward. This makes it a good choice for users who are new to Linux, or who are looking for an OS that is compatible with Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

I use Red Hat Enterprise Linux to manage pre-configured web servers, troubleshooting issues such as "524 errors" and missing configurations in EMV files. Furthermore, I constructed an on-premises Kubernetes cluster on Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9 and configured it for ELK.

The Red Hat Enterprise Linux knowledge base is excellent. When I encountered an error, they were able to quickly identify the issue and guide me through the necessary steps to resolve it.

The Red Hat Enterprise Linux Web Console functioned properly throughout the lab courses.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is excellent for commercial use and enterprise tools. It's best to use Red Hat for enterprises because it provides robust support available twenty-four by seven, which I have experienced.

To start working with Red Hat Linux was straightforward and user-friendly. I didn't encounter any complexities.

The most valuable feature of Red Hat Enterprise Linux is its comprehensive ecosystem. The detailed documentation eliminates the need to consult external resources, and the knowledgeable support team provides expert assistance with both technical issues and site navigation.

Improvement is needed for supporting Kubernetes clusters because it is less supported by Red Hat according to my experience. There are also some gaps in documentation which affect configuring Kubernetes clusters.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for four to six months.

I have not faced any downtime or stability issues with Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

I have not encountered any scalability issues with Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

The technical support is excellent. They promptly addressed my concerns regarding permission issues when I contacted them.

Positive

I used CentOS for non-enterprise purposes but switched to Red Hat for enterprise applications due to its superior support and stability. However, Ubuntu is generally preferred for Kubernetes deployments.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is nine out of ten.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux does not require maintenance.

Our mid-size organization has between 20 and 50 employees, including our DevOps team, who use Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

I recommend Red Hat Enterprise Linux due to its support and strategy.

The use case in my very early years was for dedicated servers for doing web applications.

We almost exclusively use Red Hat. The benefits boil down to the support. There is no problem getting support. Whenever we have an issue that we cannot solve, which does not happen often, we have somebody who is there either virtually or physically.

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux on-prem and on the cloud in a hybrid environment. We probably also have edge devices. I am not completely sure about that one. Having it in a hybrid cloud deployment has been no different than having it on-prem. Running it on-prem is just as good as running it on the cloud for us. It simply works.

I appreciate the dashboards that are available online. There has been a lot of feedback on the CVEs. The most recent one that came was probably related to Zutil. Red Hat made an announcement very quickly saying that if you are using only Red Hat features, you do not have to worry about it. It does not run on their operating system. Unless you are custom compiling, it does not work on their system. I greatly appreciate little things like that because they save us a lot of time. If Red Hat is simply saying that it is not a part of their repo, I do not have to look for it.

We use Red Hat Insights but not company-wide. It is one of those things that simply saves you time. I do not want to have myself or anyone on my team go out and check various things. That is the whole purpose of using Red Hat Satellite. The whole purpose of all different dashboards and these websites is to use what you have. Let it report out what you have and not continue to write scripts just to check things.

Their support is valuable. Whenever I had a problem, I could get on a phone call with somebody. I did not have to go to some random forum or send an email and wait forever. I could call somebody.

It does have a workstation option, but you rarely hear anything about it. I would love to see the workstation replace Windows. That is a stretch goal, but it is possible.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux since version 4. It has been a while.

It is stable as long as you do not do something stupid.

Red Hat specifically works hard to make it difficult to not be able to scale it into anything. The only thing that I do not see it being capable of, officially at least, are the IoT devices. Technically, it is possible to get it on those devices, but that is not something Red Hat is focusing on right now. From a scalability standpoint, it comes down to what makes a reasonable profit and what is a good return on investment while choosing how to scale and where to scale. Red Hat is doing it right so far.

Prior to a few months ago, the support that we got from a TAM point of view was next to none. Now that I understand the scenario a little bit more, it was not because Red Hat was not doing its job or did not want to do more support. It was because of how the contracts aligned, and more importantly, who in our organization was handling those contracts. We had a recent change in our organization in terms of who is running what and who is handling what. When that change happened, the doors really burst open. Now that we have a different person he is working with, we are getting incredible support from our TAM. He is in communication with us on a very regular basis. While I have been here at Red Hat Summit, we have gone out to have meetings twice. I cannot speak highly enough. I would rate their support a ten out of ten.

Positive

My current organization has pretty much always used Red Hat, specifically Red Hat Enterprise Linux. There are all sorts of flavors of Unix in our environment. Almost all of them are there because they are managed network devices.

We wanted to stay close to Red Hat Enterprise Linux simply because of the mentality of the business. We have got some people who have been around for 20 years. Things such as switching from YUM update to APT update are easy. People can usually change from one to another pretty quickly, but some of the other commands that you are used to running in Red Hat Enterprise Linux are slightly different for different versions of Unix. It did not make sense.

I have used a lot of different variants through the years. I could be running Raspberry Pi, or I could be using Ubuntu to do a job but not for the production environment. I do not waste my time anymore. I know what works and where support is.

Our setup is a bit of a hybrid. We are streamlining a lot of things and trying to redesign how we are doing things. In terms of the cloud, we are 100% TerraForm. We are building out infrastructure as a code and TerraForm pipelines. On-prem, we have a Jenkins job that runs some TerraForm, which then runs some Ansible and then some Puppet. There is some cleaning up needed there.

Currently, we use all three major cloud providers: Azure, Google Cloud, and AWS. Each has its purpose.

The initial experience of deploying it at the current company was terrible, but it was not a Red Hat issue. It was an internalized issue that took a little bit of time to work out. After that, it was not a problem.

We implement it on our own.

I have not run into a single person who knows about Red Hat Enterprise Linux and is not being helpful. You can get talking with somebody at Red Hat Summit about what you are doing on Red Hat Enterprise Linux, and they will be like, "I did that a couple of days ago. Did you run into this problem too?" There is a community. I am sure there are communities for other variants, but my return on investment is simply community and support. I cannot speak highly enough of these two.

To a colleague who is looking at open-source, cloud-based operating systems for Linux instead of Red Hat Enterprise Linux, I would say, "Good Luck!" We looked at a lot of different options to potentially leave Red Hat simply because of the cost. We tried out CentOS. We tried out Rocky. There were even talks about trying out Ubuntu, but there was the hassle of changing all of our mentality and code to work with different systems. It just did not make sense. CentOS worked almost side by side with Red Hat, but certain things that we have specialized with Red Hat were not working on CentOS for some reason.

We chose not to use CentOS because we had a misunderstanding of what AppStream was in terms of end-of-life for CentOS. Rocky was ruled out pretty quickly simply because of a lack of understanding in terms of:

• Where does Rocky come from?
• How reliable is it?
• Where is the support?
  

Red Hat's support model trumps a lot of those other ideas. I tell people that even if they are working in a home lab environment, get a developer license and get a developer account with Red Hat. Use Red Hat because more and more businesses I work with simply use Red Hat. It is great to have Fedora on your laptop as a workstation. It is great to have CentOS as a workstation. That is because those are still a part of Red Hat. You can transition and use Red Hat for a company. I have not been a fan of Ubuntu and some of the other variants because of how easy it is for people to make changes to operating systems that are not fully backed or tested. In my opinion, you do not want to put production on it.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has not enabled us to centralize development. We are moving towards centralized development, but there are still so many different teams, so centralized development is not yet there.

We are partially using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for containerization projects. Within the next year, I hope to bring OpenShift in and replace AKS. I do not have a use case for the portability of applications and containers built on Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Based on what I have seen here at Red Hat Summit, I have a lot of ideas spinning around in my head to make it happen, but I do not yet have anything around containerization.

Red Hat Insights provides vulnerability alerts and targeted guidance, but we are currently not using that side of it. It helps in my limited sandbox environment, but of course, my sandbox is built up and torn down like crazy. It is valuable, but we do not have a great use case yet.

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux a ten out of ten. I have been working with Unix systems for a while now. The first Unix system I touched was in 1992. There were so many variants that were striving to become well-known. You would hear all of these weird names. There were all of these weird animals and all of these different logos through the years. Even before 1992, there were a lot. As things progressed, you quickly saw different ones die out. I do not remember when I truly got onboarded with Red Hat. I know I started with version 4. It is one of those companies when you are looking for a name that sticks around and about which you do not have to question if they are going to be around for a while. You do not have to question that with Red Hat. You do not have to question that with Red Hat Enterprise Linux, whereas a lot of other variants do not even exist anymore, or they exist, but they have not been maintained longer than some people have been alive.

Our primary use case is to develop the servers and production. It's pretty standard usage. We have some Docker running but I haven't been involved in those environments very often. It's a standard server on minimal load and we're not using a full load with our GUI interface.

We have multiple applications running on both Windows and RHEL. The database systems are mostly MySQL. There's some Oracle but most of it is MySQL. Dealing with Red Hat is pretty straightforward. I haven't run into issues with it. 

When we were running multiple versions of Java, if patches came out for both versions, we would apply the patches for both versions and usually, that could be downloaded. It was pretty simple to update those. Those are systems-supported patches. With the specific application patches, it's a little different. Normally the application administrators take care of those themselves.

If Red Hat's system is set up right, it improves the speed and performance reliability of our hardware because it doesn't use as many resources as a Windows system.

I like the fact that most of the system configuration is Namespace so it's easy to get to and easy to configure, and most of it still uses text documents. Not all of it's a menu-driven-type entry. I also like the fact that it's a very standard file system layout so it's easy to navigate.

In some instances, it provides features that help speed development. In other instances, it's standard amongst most Linux groups. You can download the main features. The file system is always a big difference. You go from a Debian-based system to Red Hat, so the file system layout is a little bit different. User-based files are located versus system-based files. RHEL keeps everything in one area and segregates it. It makes it easier to go between different organizations and still have the same policies and structure. I do like the new package manager.

It's all text-based, all command line, whereas the minimal load does not have a GUI on it. If you're used to using Windows core servers, it wouldn't be that big of a deal, but going from a Windows GUI-based system to an RHEL command-line-based system is a learning curve for most Windows administrators. A lot of strictly Windows administrators don't even want to look at a command line from Red Hat because the commands are so different from what they're used to. There is a learning curve between the two major platforms.

The application and user experience are usually pretty consistent, but that really depends on the application developer. If they're developing an application, it'll be consistent costs on infrastructure. That's not an issue between the different platforms. User experience is based on how the application developer built it. They're not all in-house and so they developed across a consistent platform. They keep everything pretty simple from the user perspective.

It enables us to deploy current applications and merging workloads across physical hardware and VMs. Virtualization and physical hardware stay consistent. Going to the cloud depends on the platform we use but it'll mostly be consistent as well. The RHEL distribution has been implemented pretty well amongst most of our cloud providers. It's pretty standard now, whether we go to Rackspace, Amazon, Azure, or even Microsoft supporting RHEL distribution. You can go to a Microsoft Azure cloud and have a Red Hat Enterprise Linux system running there. The user would probably never notice it.

For Red Hat, the bare metal and virtualized environments are pretty reliable. The only thing I don't like about Red Hat is that every time you do an update, there are patches every month and you have to reboot the system. Fortunately, it's a single reboot versus Microsoft, which likes multiple reboots, but still, you have to reboot the system. You have to reboot the server. The newer updates have kernel patches involved in them. To implement that new kernel, you have to reboot the system, and Red Hat's best policy and best practices are to reboot the system after patching.

I used the AppStream feature a couple of times. Not a whole lot because a lot of our environment is specific to what we deploy. Normally I would just deploy the bare system, adding features requested by the application administrator, and they'll download the rest of the things that they need.

We have used the tracing and monitoring tools in certain instances but not consistently. We use them for troubleshooting but not every day. We use other third-party software to monitor the system logs and alert on the issues. They will run tracing analysis of the systems. The reason we don't always use it is because of the number of servers I have to deal with and the low band power.

Automation is however you set it up. As for running a cloud-based solution, a lot of it would be automated. Going from prior experience, dealing with it before coming to this company, we did a lot of cloud deployment and it's pretty consistent and reliable and you could automate it pretty easily. 

RHEL accelerated the deployment of cloud-based workloads in my previous experiences. Compared to no other solution at all, it's obviously a vast improvement. You have to worry about Windows. As soon as you bring the server up, it requires numerous patches and it'll take several reboots unless you have an image that is very patched and deployable there. Even then, every month you get new patches. Red Hat patches a lot faster than Windows and requires a single reboot. The speed of deployment is a hazard. It's almost twice as fast deploying an RHEL solution as it is a Windows solution.

I'd like to see more of NCurses type menu systems in some instances. We're dealing with SUSE Enterprise Linux, they have an NCurses menu system. It's a menu system. Even some of the higher-end Unix systems like AIX have some inner menu system where all the configuration tools are right there so your administrator doesn't have to jump through multiple directories to configure files if needed. I like the simplicity of Red Hat because it's pretty easy but having an NCurses menu when you have to get something done quickly would be nice.

I started using Red Hat back in 1996. I've been using it for at least 20 years, off and on. I was hired as a Linux administrator for RHEL 6, 7, and 8, and then I changed my job positions. I'm not actively using RHEL right now.

Unfortunately, we're moving away from RHEL to Oracle Enterprise Linux in the next couple of months.

RHEL is a very stable product. It's been around for a long time now. It's been stable since they brought it out as an enterprise environment. It's usually not the bleeding edge of Linux. That just means it has more stability in the packaging and the repositories. They keep the bleeding edge updates and things out of it most of the time, which means if you have new features that you want to implement, you have to do some finagling to get those features in place. But it does mean the system's more stable, for the most part.

It's very scalable. I haven't seen any issues with the scalability of Red Hat. I've used it in environments where we have a few hundred people to a couple of thousand people. I've never seen any issues with scalability. It's one of the big sell points of RHEL. It's as scalable as Unix.

There are around 500 developers who use it. Web-facing interfaces, it's in the thousands.

If you're using a small environment with no more than around 100 to 200 servers, one or two people can handle most of the RHEL stuff pretty quickly.

If it's a larger environment, then you're looking at staff upwards from six to 15, depending on the environment the product's being used for.

There is a system administrator to perform the initial deployment of a server to the maintenance of the server. Then there are the application developers who develop the application, write the applications, and just manage applications. In our environment, we currently have sysadmins who manage the systems. My job is to manage the actual operating system itself. Then, you have application developers, who develop applications for user-facing systems. The application managers manage those applications, not only the developed applications.

It's being used pretty extensively. It's 1,100 to 1,200 servers on one site. 

We're using at least 85-90% of the features of RHEL but we don't really use Ansible that extensively. Red Hat Satellite server we're using as a primary repository in one site. Based on RHEL, we use most of these features.

We are switching to another solution mainly because a number of databases in use are based on that system. They want to expand that database and some other products that come with switching from RHEL to LEL. That's the main reason. As I understand it, the licensing isn't that different with a more centralized approach, so convenience is a large factor.

We switched to RHEL from AIX because of the developer and the cost. AIX is usually implemented on specific hardware. IBM owned the hardware. So the cost for running AIX is a lot more expensive than running an RHEL solution, which can be run on virtual systems as well as physical systems. And x86 servers are a lot cheaper than a power system.

Open-source was also a factor in our decision to switch to RHEL. Open-source has allowed a lot of development in areas, more ingenuity, innovation, and products than other constricted OSs. My opinion is that when you're dealing with open-source, you have people who are more likely to innovate and create new things. It's easier to develop an open-source platform than it is to use a closed source platform because then you can't get to the APIs, you can't do anything in the system if you want to change things in the system to make your product more available to people.

The initial setup was pretty straightforward. I've even set servers up at home on a pretty regular basis. I have my own lab, so I've deployed it and it's pretty straightforward. With RHEL, the setup is nice because you get a GUI, so any Windows-based user is going to be familiar with the GUI and know what to look at. They can deploy software as needed, right there from the menu. From a TextBase, you can script it to where all you have to do is run a script and it'll deploy the server quickly. It's pretty straightforward.

Personally, I wouldn't be able to speak to the installation. Having a single point is always a benefit because then you don't have to jump around multiple points to download software and to deploy your solution. The only thing about it is with Docker, a lot of times you have to go out to the Docker site to download the newest versions.

If you're running Satellite, it's even easier because all your current patches are downloaded. The iOS is already there and a lot of time is it's a straight script that you can deploy quickly. The single-point install is a good thing.

Depending on what you're running it on and what kind of equipment you're running, it can take anywhere between 20 minutes to an hour. That depends on the equipment.

They had Unix admins on site. They were implemented to bring in the Red Hat environment because of the similarity between Unix and Red Hat.

If you implement Ansible, that's an additional cost. If you implement Satellite, that's an additional cost to your licensing. However, the amount of licensing if you license 100 servers is actually cheaper per server than licensing 50 or 25.

The first one that comes to mind as a real competitor would be SUSE. It's built-in Germany. Ubuntu is a commendable product but I don't find it as reliable or as easy to administer as I do RHEL. A lot of developers like it because it's really easy. It's more geared towards a home-user environment than it is a corporate environment. The support factor for RHEL is good. If you need to call tech support, it's there.

I have used Satellite and Ansible in other environments. Satellite integrates very well. It's built by Red Hat, so it integrates thoroughly and it allows a single point of download for all patches and any software deployments you have. You can automate server builds, if you do it right, and make things a lot easier.

Ansible can tie into Satellite and RHEL fairly easily. It allows you to build multiple types of deployments for multiple solutions, and allows a playbook-type deal. You develop a playbook and send it out and it builds a server for the user. Done.

It would speed up deployment and make it easier to manage. If you had a developer who needed to throw up a box real quick to check something, he could run a playbook, throw up a server and rather quickly do what he needed to do. Then dismiss the server and all resource reviews return back to the YUM. If it was hardware, it would be a little bit different, but if we run a virtualization environment, they return all resources back to the host. So it made matching servers and deployment a lot simpler and less work on the operations environment.

The best advice I could give is if you're going from a Windows environment to an RHEL environment, there's a learning curve that is going to be a factor during implementation management and basic administration. Your company would probably need to hire new people just to support an RHEL environment. Between SUSE and RHEL, the number of people who know SUSE very well in the US is not as high as it is in Europe. RHEL has become more of a global OS than SUSE, though they're both comparable. I would advise looking at what you need it to do and then make sure you have the infrastructure, people, and manpower to support it.

There's a huge number of resources out there. You have sites geared specifically for RHEL administration. I believe IT Central Station has some resources on its site as well. There are Usenet groups and different forums. TechRepublic has a large number of resources as well. There are numerous resources out there to ease the learning curve.

There are a lot of things I've learned over the years using RHEL. Running it as a virtual design environment where you can run multiple servers on a single hardware piece makes it a lot more cost-effective and you don't have the resource depletion as you would have with Windows. Unfortunately, Windows is a resource hog. RHEL can be set up to run very minimally, with virtually no overhead other than the applications you're using to service users. 

I would rate it a nine out of ten.

We are currently using Red Hat Enterprise Linux's versions 6, 7, and 8. We run the OS both on-prem and in the cloud.

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux for web applications, containers, Kubernetes, and simple scripting servers. The scripting servers are used to run scripts on run drops and so on. However, the biggest use cases are containers and web app workloads.

The cloud providers are AWS and Alibaba.

Red Hat helps our organization avoid cloud vendor lock-in because we can run Kubernetes and a few different workloads directly on Red Hat across different cloud providers. Since Red Hat is an operating system, we can migrate our workloads to any cloud provider that supports Red Hat.

Avoiding vendor lock-in and being able to move workflows between cloud providers has saved us hundreds of thousands of dollars per year.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is easy to recover, especially from a backup. I believe this is because of its resilience. If I use an instance, I can go to my backups and restore it without much trouble. I was going to compare it to Windows for a moment, where there might be some additional steps required to clean things up after recovery. However, I haven't had many issues where I needed to do any cleanup afterward.

It is easy to move workloads between the cloud and our data center using Red Hat Enterprise Linux. The ease of migration depends on the cloud provider and what they allow us to do. However, for the most part, replication-based migration between cloud providers or on-premises works well. 

Linux is good for hardening the operating system. Logical volumes allow us to dynamically expand volumes, which is valuable from an operational perspective. This is especially true in cloud environments, where we pay for every kilobyte of storage. By using logical volumes, we can expand the disk on demand without downtime, which can help us keep costs down.

The price has room for improvement.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for three years, but I have known about the OS since version four.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is definitely resilient and easy to recover, especially when compared to Windows. I enjoyed working with Red Hat Enterprise Linux more than Microsoft Windows, especially because of its resilience.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux's scalability is easy to manage. We can simply spin up more instances as needed, and then turn them off when we no longer need them. This means that Red Hat Enterprise Linux's scalability is not as much of an issue with the cloud provider.

We have around 2,500 instances of Red Hat Enterprise Linux in our environment.

Red Hat support is generally good, but it can sometimes take a little longer than we would like to get a response, especially when the issue is through a web-based chat.

Positive

The on-premises deployments are subscription based, and the cloud instances are from the providers which are AWS and Alibaba.

We can always ask for Red Hat Enterprise Linux to be less expensive but when we compare it to other options, there are savings in the long run.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux was our first choice because of its enterprise support. That was the key factor. We do also run other Linux distributions, but Red Hat Enterprise Linux is our primary choice because of the enterprise support. 

The big difference between Red Hat Enterprise Linux and other Linux-based operating systems is the support. There isn't much difference other than the syntax, where the command is "at, get" versus Red Hat using YUM or DNF for installation. So outside of that, the support is the main difference.

I give Red Hat Enterprise Linux a nine out of ten. No solution is perfect, but Red Hat Enterprise Linux is very close.

Our engineering team probably used the image-building tool. I am on the operations side, so I do not see that part of the process. I take the images that are already built and deploy them.

I think it's just a workflow issue. We need to improve our own workflows to be able to manage them better. Red Hat support is already good when we encounter something we're unfamiliar with. So, we need to get Enterprise CoreOS from Red Hat for those cases. I think as we encounter more of our own workloads, we'll need to improve our workflows even further.

I worked with different organizations. So, the use case varies from organization to organization. Right now, some of the teams are using it for applications like BI, and then there are a few others that are using it for Websphere, middleware, etc.

In terms of the version, most of them are on 7.9, but there are a few on 8.2 and 8.4 as well.

It enables us to achieve security compliance. Our security team is quite happy, especially in terms of patching up our servers, etc. It's compliant with our security requirements. With Windows updates, sometimes, there could be errors and the blue screen issue, and it could become hectic for the applications as well. Our security teams struggled a bit to update Windows, but when it comes to Linux, they are quite comfortable because they know that things will go smoothly.

I'm quite new to this organization, but I know that there has been improvement in terms of performance. We're using Red Hat Linux on Power Systems, which is quite different from the Intel platform. So, admins are much happier, and they are using it quite well now. Previously, we were using Windows for our applications, but now, we have made Linux mandatory for being open source and not bound to Windows. Things can be complicated on Windows. Especially when we're installing it, there are a lot of things, such as registries, but Linux is easier for admins. There is DVS as well.

When I worked in the banking sector, the most important part was user administration where you need to keep things under control for a specific user. The auditor usually looks for an agent or something like that, and it has been quite easy to manage things from that perspective. Things are more manageable now than in the past.

Windows operating system is used everywhere. You will find it everywhere, and every user is able to use Windows. If a user is using an operating system from the start, it becomes easier for them to use it when they come to a professional environment. That's an area in which I believe they need to put in extra effort, especially for the students. Currently, for their final projects, most students use Windows, and this is an area where Red Hat needs to put in an effort. They need to give some training to the students so that when they come to the professional environment, they're already used to it. It would then become easier for them to use it in a professional environment.

I'm also using IBM AIX, which supports a tool called Smitty. You just put Smitty, and you can do anything. At the backend, the command will run automatically. It is not exactly like a GUI, but you just give the input and it will give you the output. That is something that Red Hat should work on. That would be an added advantage with Red Hat.

It has been 12 or 13 years.

It is very stable.

We are mostly using VMware and Power Systems. Scalability-wise, they are always the best. We can upgrade to get all the resources on the fly. We never faced any issues. However, if you didn't add the required parameters on your profile on VMware or the Power System, then there is an issue, but that's not related to the OS. That's related to virtualization.

Application-wise, there are multiple teams that are using these systems. We have the database team, the middleware team, the MQ team, etc. There are also system admins. The system admins are the ones who are deploying it, but the owners of the system are different.

We have plans to increase its usage. Two years ago, we had only 60 or 70 servers of Red Hat, but now, we have 400 to 500 servers. Its usage is always increasing. After a year or two, we might end up with about 1000 servers.

We have contacted them a few times. We did ask the support team to get in when the cluster got stuck and let us know what's the issue and what's the solution. Whenever I have asked for support, they have provided the best support. I always count them as the best. We have never faced an issue with them. I would rate them a 10 out of 10.

Positive

We had Windows. The stability was the reason for switching to Red Hat. The stability of Windows varies, but Linux is quite stable now. That was the main part they were looking for.

We are very comfortable with using Linux. We have been using it for 10 to 15 years, and we can't switch to Windows. We can't use Windows even on our laptops. We are not used to using a mouse and GUI. The command prompt is much better for us.

We also use AIX because we have AIX infrastructure, but a few of the applications don't work on AIX, whereas they work with Red Hat Linux. That gives Linux an advantage. So, we use Linux on Power Systems, rather than AIX.

We have been working with different operating systems, and we also know most of the technical requirements, so it is easy for us. Usually, the OS installation takes a maximum of 25 minutes. If you are making extra file systems, such as for Oracle, it takes 10 to 15 minutes extra. A desktop or a single file system doesn't require much time. We already have scripts. We just run the scripts and everything is done by the scripts. Previously, it used to take two or three hours, but now, things have changed, and we're making life easier.

We deploy it ourselves. We don't ask other vendors to deploy it for us. In terms of maintenance, we have already been updating our maintenance contracts, especially the support contract. There are some old systems running in our environment, and we are in the process of upgrading those from version 6.9. We already have the required support.

There are four people on the team, but for Linux especially, there are only two people. We're easily managing 500 to 600 servers for Red Hat.

When you are running your infrastructure on this, you can always find some discounts with local support, etc. There are always some discounts to match your budget. It is definitely affordable. 

When it comes to virtualization, there are different factors. There is not only Red Hat. There is also IBM, VMware, etc. The third-party vendors always manage to come up with a good offer. Our company can't say no to that, and it works out fine.

We also have IBM AIX, and when you compare these two, there's a huge difference because IBM AIX's support is quite higher than Red Hat's.

To anyone interested in using Red Hat for the first time, I would definitely advise starting with the GUI because now, the GUI option is quite good, and you can do all the things. After that, you can slowly start moving to CMD. For learning, there are a lot of resources available online, such as YouTube and LinkedIn Learning, whereas Red Hat Academy is quite expensive.

The biggest lesson I have learned from using this solution is that when you're using the command line, you need to be extra careful. That's because when using the command line, a single slash can make a huge difference. That's what I learned at the start of my career.

I started with Red Hat Version 5. Now they have version 9, which I haven't used, but if I just consider the evolution from version 5 to 8, 8.2, or 8.4, there has been a huge difference because, at that time, people were scared of using Linux, but now, things are different. There has been a revolution in terms of OS. A lot of things are being changed, but in terms of the things that we do, for us, it is the same because we are doing system administration. As a system admin, there is nothing different for us. We are doing the same things again and again because the applications require the addition of storage.

There is also a change in terms of security features. If I compare the old versions with the new versions, in old versions, adding any exception in the host firewall was a real task, but now, things have either become smooth, or we have gotten used to it. Overall, for me, things have become easier. They are getting more and more secure, but with the vulnerabilities and the assessments that have been done, we need to keep updating. Now, everything has caught up with the latest security required in the market.

In our environment, we're using virtual servers. There are no physical ones. We are shifting to containers in my current organization. Most of the applications we are using are containerized, and it has been easy for us to manage those applications. However, we also require some in-built applications, and for that, a change in people's mindset is required. It's not about the OS; it's about the people who do the development. It is becoming a bit hard for them because they were using a different platform previously, and now, they need to move to the Linux platform. It is a little bit different for them.

Overall, I would rate it an eight out of ten. When comparing it with AIX, AIX is a bit easier in terms of use and it also has the Smitty tool.

I use it for almost everything. I run a company in South Texas and Mexico. We are a cloud service provider, and we have implementations for almost everything. We are using it for websites, virtualization, orchestration, and containers, and we are also using it a lot for telecommunications. We use almost all of its features.

We have many versions. We have versions 8, 9, 9, 9.1, 9.2, etc. 

When we implemented all the security frameworks with RHEL three years ago, that was the first time we had a non-issue audit. It was a great implementation.

It helps with the headcount. With the kind of orchestration and automation that we have, we don't need a lot of engineers. We can have fewer engineers on site.

There is reliability. We can rely not only on their operating system but also on their server. Red Hat not only has operating systems; it also has many different servers.

It helps to achieve security standards certification. It is one of the most important things that I do every single day. We need to comply with a lot of frameworks of security, such as ISO2701, ISO2717, ISO2721, PCI compliance, and HIPAA for the health sector. We also have some local compliance requirements. For example, in Texas, there is one for financial entities, and in Mexico, there are several based on GDPR. It is very important for us.

It is helpful when it comes to building with confidence and ensuring availability across physical, virtual, and cloud infrastructures. There are many features to ensure or enforce high availability.

It helps us to centralize development with OpenShift. We don't do a lot of DevOps, but we have a supply chain where everything goes to the on-premises cloud, and then it is pulled to the public cloud.

The Red Hat support is most valuable. My team and I are really good at Linux, and we can do almost everything in any kind of Linux solution, but sometimes, we have a really nasty problem, and the Red Hat engineering support at the third level has been fantastic. They know how to fix almost everything. The reason why I pay so much money to them is to have this kind of service and assurance.

Containers are the strongest feature that they have. In terms of the quality, between VMs and containers, Red Hat with OpenShift is fantastic. I have more than a million containers right now in my cloud, and it works fantastically.

Network virtualization resources could be better. When you have any kind of trouble with network virtualization, such as with OVS, which is like a switch in a virtual environment, it takes many hours to find what is happening. Other vendors, such as VMware, and even other Linux implementations for network virtualization have better resources. It is much easier to escalate, and there is better documentation.

I don't use Ceph, which is their software-defined storage, because they don't have the best price. It doesn't make sense when you compare it in terms of the hardware cost, better performance, and better capabilities. That's my main complaint at any meeting with Red Hat. I want to use Red Hat Ceph, but it costs so much money.

I have been using it for about 20 years.

If you have the correct hardware, it is stable, but if you do not, you will have a problem any time soon.

It is reliable. If you don't know how to secure your Linux implementation, Red Hat can do it for you with two or three simple clicks, and you will be very secure without any kind of knowledge.

It is scalable. It is not the most scalable in the Linux area, but for 99% of the companies, it is scalable enough for any kind of workload.

We have plenty of clusters, and we probably have more than 400 servers. We are a private cloud solution provider. We don't have anything in the hyper-scale, such as AWS, Azure, etc. We own everything: the data center servers, racks, networking, and storage. That's our competency, and this way, we can provide a better solution to the kind of customers we are focused on.

We have three different locations: one in the states and two in Mexico. At each location, we have at least three different clusters for three different market verticals. We have one for the financial, one for the healthcare system, which has a lot of compliance requirements, and one for the general public, which doesn't have too much sophistication.

We plan to increase its usage, but it is not my decision. If I sell more, I will buy more.

They are exceptional. We have a lot of experience in these matters. Usually, when we have any kind of issue, it is a really difficult one, and I need to talk to somebody at level two or three in the support area. They skip the line for us because we send everything perfectly documented to open the PR. They put us in touch with the best engineer to solve the issue. If the engineer isn't able to understand what is happening, usually, he calls the RHEL developer or engineer that handles that part of the code. They are usually able to fix a complex problem in less than eight hours.

Their support is fantastic. I have dealt with many different vendors, but Red Hat is the only one that does it in this way. They do it in a simple and fast way. They understand you, and they are willing to help you and fix everything. If you have a problem or situation that is causing downtime for the customer, they understand that it has an impact on your business, and they are affecting the revenue of the company. They are really committed to fixing it as soon as possible. I would rate them a 10 out of 10.

Positive

We use RHEL and Canonical. We have some SUSE implementation in the Linux area. In hypervisors, we use VMware and Hyper-V. So, we are in many different technologies, and we are not always on RHEL. RHEL has almost 45% of all our hardware. It is the biggest one, but we use almost all the solutions. In terms of security, Red Hat and Canonical have almost the same level of security.

I am no longer involved in its deployment. I last deployed it about four years ago.

In terms of maintenance, every server requires some kind of maintenance, but we have everything automated. We don't put any effort into it. 

We have 8 to 12 people for deployment and maintenance. They handle the deployment and change of the environment in the data center. For DevOps, I have another team of probably 30 people. They develop solutions for customers.

We have definitely seen an ROI. The return on investments comes in the 14th or 15th month.

For the basic operating system, its price is fair. It is not cheap, and it is also not expensive. For the OpenShift or OpenStack implementation, the cost is a little higher than what I would expect, but it is doable. For a storage solution, it is almost impossible to pay.

In comparison to open-source competitors, RHEL has the most cost-effective open-source subscription model. The way I pay for everything, such as Ubuntu or RHEL, is very similar. When you compare how much money I put in for a customer, in terms of licensing, or even support, my margins with RHEL are really good. If I compare it with VMware or Hyper-V, which are not open source, the difference is totally insane.

I am a vendor-agnostic solution provider. If my customer needs something with RHEL or something that's specifically with another vendor, I use that. If they don't know, or there is a new implementation, I surely send everything to the RHEL implementation. In the end, this is not my decision. It is a market decision. If my customer is telling me that they should be on RHEL, I will bring in RHEL for them.

I would advise paying for the enterprise-level support at least for the first year.
For sure, it is expensive, but it would be helpful. With experience, you can downgrade to the second level.

We have had some issues with container compression that broke everything. So, I don't recommend using it if you don't know how to fix everything.

The biggest lesson that I've learned from using this solution is to read before starting the implementation.

I would rate it a 9 out of 10 because there is nothing perfect.