Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Reviews

We use the solution for server operating systems and to automate other systems. We use the tool for Windows automation and Linux automation.

The support we get from Red Hat is really good. When we have questions, there's always somebody we can approach and get an answer from. In my experience, Red Hat Enterprise Linux is more stable than Windows. The solution's ease of management is better, and it's much more powerful when you know the command line.

The most valuable feature of the solution is its stability.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux's built-in security features do a really good job of risk reduction, business continuity, and maintaining compliance.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux, Ubuntu, CentOS, and Fedora are the main Linux systems. Ubuntu is the only enterprise-level OS with paid support because a lot of the work we do requires paid support contracts.

The solution's front-end GUI is not great and could be improved. It needs to be more intuitive if it's meant to be used as a desktop operating system replacement. I don't know how to describe it better, but OS X and Windows feel a lot more polished than Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux in my current organization for two years. However, I have been using the solution in general for ten years.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is an extremely stable solution.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is a scalable solution.

The solution’s technical support is very good.

Positive

The solution's initial setup is seamless and easy. We tried different things, but the easiest way we found to deploy the solution was to use VMware. We had scripts to download and install the tool.

We implemented the solution through an in-house team.

Once everything is set up, the solution is generally very stable. While other operating systems require a lot of maintenance, Red Hat Enterprise Linux is pretty hands-off once you properly set up and configure it.

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

We primarily use RHEL for LAMP stacks. Our deployment is currently on-premises, but if they change their licensing model on the cloud, we might start rolling it out in the GCP. It's used globally in VMware environments. We use it in APAC and AMEA, but the majority of the deployments are in the US. The major platforms that we run on it are PLM environment and digital asset management.

Our shop is what we call out of the box and if it doesn't run on a container out of the box, then we don't run it on a container. So none of our stuff is running containers right now.

RHEL has made our operations more reliable by giving us a more repeatable process. After we've built it once, we know it will work the same way the next time we build it. It has reduced the time I spend training my operations team, and the cost of ownership is low. 

The OSCAP scanner and Ansible help enforce company security standards, decreasing our exposure to attacks, data loss, ransomware, etc. From an operations point of view, managing the environment requires less overhead.

I like the Ansible automation and RHEL's backward compatibility with Script. It's also reliable. I also used the OSCAP stuff for a while for PCI/PI compliance. That was pretty handy and straightforward. I like the SE Linux for the LAMP stacks.

The cost could be lowered. We don't use RHEL in the cloud because Ubuntu is cheaper. Ubuntu factors support costs into the license when you're running it in the cloud, and it's a fraction of the cost of what RHEL is. I'm also not sure if RHEL supports open-source products. If they do, they don't advertise it. Adding stuff like Apache and other open-source tools like Tomcat to their support portfolio would help.

I have been using RHEL for 12 years

Linux is highly scalable in general, especially if you are using the container model, but unfortunately, we're not. I have no problem with scaling Linux or Red Hat's specific implementation of it.

I rate Red Hat support eight out of 10. Most of the support engineers are competent and helpful.

Positive

When I deployed RHEL initially, it was not very straightforward, but it's relatively easy today. The difference is the improvements to Satellite. Satellite Version 5 was kind of clunky. Version 6 seemed a little more straightforward and reliable. We don't use any kickstart, golden image, and roll and update, so there's not much to our strategy. 

The initial deployment took over a week, but it took about two days when we moved to RHEL 6. 

RHEL is competitive on-premises, but it's too expensive in the cloud. There are many cheap solutions for the cloud. In terms of upfront costs, open-source is more affordable and, in many cases, free. The long-term cost of support, staffing, and maintenance make it untenable. 

I have used Ubuntu and CentOS. I'm not a fan of Debian platforms. That's the main difference.

I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux nine out of 10. I've been pretty happy with RHEL over the years. That's 20 years of Unix right there. I tell anybody coming into Linux or Unix to learn the program. Scripting is your best friend, and you can't understand automation if you don't understand basic scripting. 

If you've never seen Unix or RHEL before, go to a class and learn how to do it in a lab so you don't have to screw up your job. Once you're comfortable with that,  start learning containers because I firmly believe containers will replace how we do most of what we do today.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Positive

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I use Red Hat in data routines for web, database, and container servers. Right now, I'm using three primary use cases.

Red Hat offers compliance consulting services. If we purchase hardware from companies like HP, Dell, or IBM, which also partner with Red Hat, they often guarantee compliance for their hardware. This compliance can extend to security regulations imposed by certain countries or governments, such as those based on NIST or CSSP standards. Red Hat's focus on compliance seems to center primarily around these hardware-related aspects and associated security requirements.

Red Hat's knowledge base requires an active subscription for full access, but developers can utilize a free, annually renewable option. With an activated developer subscription, users gain access to forums, documentation, the latest news, vulnerability reports, and other resources related to Red Hat Enterprise Linux and its associated packages. The knowledge base is now well-documented, and the active community quickly responds to forum inquiries, often within a few hours.

Leap is a feature designed by Red Hat to migrate its operating systems between versions. Introduced to address the end-of-life issue for distributions like CentOS seven, eight, and RHEL seven, eight, Leap allows users to upgrade from RHEL seven to eight, RHEL eight to nine, CentOS seven to eight, and CentOS eight to nine. However, Leap is specifically designed for Red Hat and works optimally only on Red Hat seven, eight, and nine. It does not function as intended on CentOS, Fedora, Oracle Linux, or other community distributions. Red Hat Insights is a complementary tool that provides valuable information to subscription holders about their licensed servers, including package installations, subscription validation, detected bugs, and vulnerabilities. It also offers alerts about new vulnerabilities and patches and facilitates license management and environment oversight.

I've used Convert2RHEL, a tool that simplifies transitioning from CentOS-based distributions like Leap to Red Hat Enterprise Linux. It supports converting only CentOS to RHEL by replacing binaries and installing Red Hat logos. Underlying Ansible scripts entirely handle this process. While I've had success with it, occasional minor issues arise but are easily resolved.

I have experienced minimal downtime while using RHEL. Some of our RHEL systems have operated uninterrupted for over 600 days. The only necessary reboots occur when applying kernel updates. Overall, RHEL has demonstrated reliable and resilient uptime and security.

Due to its built-in compliance features, RHEL is instrumental in achieving certifications for security standards. The system incorporates policies that align with regulations for governance and public institutions. When installing Red Hat Enterprise Linux in the cloud or on-premises, users must implement security policies that activate specific plugins and APIs to maintain compliance. Given its comprehensive coverage of contemporary compliance standards, Red Hat is the most valuable distribution.

Release updates are the most valued feature because Red Hat's rigorously tested release update pipeline sets it apart from other distributions. While many options are available, none match Red Hat's commitment to thorough package testing. Packages are initially delivered to Fedora, Red Hat's community distribution, for testing and validation. Proven packages then transition to CentOS, and after six months, the most stable and reliable packages are incorporated into the new Red Hat release. This well-defined pipeline ensures that Red Hat packages are stable and long-lasting. However, not all packages released in Fedora make it to Red Hat; some experimental or community-driven packages may not meet enterprise standards. Fedora serves as a testing ground, while Red Hat focuses on delivering a stable operational system.

Red Hat, known for its secure distribution, sometimes delays critical security patches for certain packages compared to other Linux communities like AlmaLinux or Rocky Linux. For instance, AlmaLinux addressed recent vulnerabilities in the SSH package within days, while Red Hat took over a week to release a patch. While Red Hat's rigorous testing ensures high-quality patches, the delay in releasing them can pose security risks.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is a highly regarded but expensive distribution known for its top-notch software. This high cost often precludes smaller companies from adopting it. There is potential to make Red Hat Enterprise Linux more accessible to a wider range of businesses by lowering the price.

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

I previously encountered instability with an assistant. While using a non-Red Hat graphical interface, KDE, I experienced a system crash following a kernel update. This desktop environment proved incompatible with the new kernel. Conversely, servers utilizing only the command line never suffered crashes or downtime. I've observed the opposite trend in my Red Hat infrastructure, demonstrating exceptional resilience. For instance, during a complete data center outage two or three years ago, Red Hat systems recovered within minutes, while Ubuntu servers required significant maintenance. This suggests that Red Hat offers greater stability and reliability in our environment.

Specific features such as path movement and load balancing must be enabled when running routes within a cluster. Pre-installed software simplifies the process for system administrators to implement smart clusters and scale servers. Among various distributions, Red Hat is considered the most proficient in these areas, excelling in scalability and cluster server management.

The deployment was challenging, not because of Red Enterprise Linux itself but because the application runs within this distribution. Certain legacy software required manual installation on this new system, which complicated the migration process. However, the operating system itself is straightforward and plug-and-play. The difficulties arose from configuring the necessary applications within the distribution. I've had no issues working with or migrating to this distribution.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is only affordable for large organizations.

If I had to choose alternatives to RHEL, I would consider Oracle Linux and AlmaLinux. Oracle Linux is an enterprise distribution based on Red Hat, offering binary compatibility, meaning applications built for Red Hat Linux will run identically on Oracle Linux. It is an enterprise-grade product without the associated costs, as the distribution itself is free, with charges only for optional support. While I believe AlmaLinux is more resilient and reliable than RockyLinux, my preferred alternatives would be Oracle Linux first, followed by AlmaLinux.

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

Cockpit is a technology offering a web-based console for server management. This web console can also perform any action achievable through the command line interface. However, I do not recommend it due to the inherent security risks of running a web server, especially when managing another web server. This introduces additional vulnerabilities and necessitates increased patching efforts. My preference is to maintain a minimalist system that runs only essential services. While Cockpit might be suitable for junior system administrators in the RHEL environment, as a senior administrator, I exclusively utilize the CLI, both on-premises via SSH and in cloud environments. I would only consider implementing Cockpit if we have junior staff and are willing to implement robust security measures such as firewalls, access control lists, and other protective strategies.

We are mostly using it for application servers, infrastructure servers, and database servers.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux lends itself to a lot of automation. We are able to manage many more servers with less staff and by using other Red Hat products such as Ansible. Those are the things that I like.

We are using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for containerization projects. Their Podman product has made it easier. It comes with a lot of security. It is a drop-in product or replacement for Docker. I have used Docker before and switching to Podman was very easy. I just saw the demo for the Podman desktop, and I am looking forward to using that. It will hopefully help me streamline container usage and container deployment in Kubernetes or OpenShift.

It inherently has a lot of functions built in for risk reduction, business continuity, and maintaining compliance. For example, it has SELinux, certain firewalls, logging, and all those things. It has all the built-in features required to meet the needs. We can plug in other third-party tools to have it gather information, or we can send logs to centralized locations to track activity and do audits and things like that.

I use Red Hat Insights for different things. I do not use it much to look at security risks. I know that it has those features, but I use a different tool like a Satellite server to take care of patching and things like that. Red Hat Insights provides us with vulnerability alerts and targeted guidance, but it has not affected our uptime much. It is good to see that information. I can see those vulnerabilities, and I can see action steps or remediation steps that I can take. All my servers are patched on a cycle, so as the cycle goes through, each server gets patched based on its own cycle. It does not really affect the uptime.

I like the stability that comes with Red Hat. That has always been the feature that I like. They do not always have the newest features, but they prioritize stability, which is important in the production environment.

Red Hat should keep doing what they have always done. They should continue to be a leader in the open-source space. They should keep innovating and keep creating great products. They can allow more access to their training and their products' testing. There are ways to do it now. You might have to get a certain type of account to test their products. It might be easier if you can just download the product and test it out.

In a production environment, I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for about five years. I have used Red Hat Enterprise Linux clones such as Fedora and CentOS for about 15 years or maybe longer.

It is absolutely stable. It is 100% stable.

It is good. It scales well. With the tools that Red Hat provides, it does not matter if you have 10 servers, 100 servers, or 1,000 servers. They make it simpler with Ansible. Ansible is your friend.

They are top-tier. Support is probably their number one selling point. As long as you give the Red Hat engineers what they need, they are very good at providing new solutions. I would rate them a ten out of ten.

Positive

I have used Red Hat clones in other positions. I might as well just say it is Red Hat because it is a clone, so I have been using Red Hat all along if we look at different products.

I have worked with CentOS, Rocky Linux, etc. The main difference is that Red Hat's support is top-tier. There is also stability. With the ecosystem that they have built, there are a lot of tools to help me manage. They have Ansible and other great tools to help manage the product. You cannot say the same about Windows. They might have a different way of doing things.

We have deployed Red Hat Enterprise Linux on-premises. We have a hybrid cloud environment, but we run other types of servers there. They are mostly Windows, and they are run on Azure cloud. We do not run Red Hat Enterprise Linux in a hybrid cloud environment, but there is always an opportunity to do that in the future.

The Red Hat servers that we have are on-prem. We use VMware and the tools that they provide to deploy Red Hat.

Its initial deployment was done a long time ago. It is a straightforward process to install it as long as you are not trying to do anything complicated.

We do not have a deployment strategy. We install it based on the requirements. If it is a web server or database server, there are different things that you need to do, but it is pretty straightforward. It is a good process.

We took help for deploying Red Hat and purchasing the license and maybe the hardware. We probably used CDW and Advizex. They are probably based in Pittsburgh.

Time savings is the biggest return on investment. I can do more in less or a shorter amount of time. The time savings depend on what you are working on, but you can potentially have about 75% time savings.

I have very little experience with pricing and getting quotes. The whole VMware thing happened, and everybody is looking at different alternatives. At this point, any competitor is probably a good choice based on the cost.

Everyone should evaluate what their needs are, test out different products, and pick the product that is best for their needs. I know that the Red Hat Enterprise Linux is a very good solid product. One thing I would say is that their support is top-tier, so from that aspect, I would recommend Red Hat.

At this time, I am trying to develop a platform that facilitates developer workflows. We may adopt more of a GitHub mindset and use Red Hat tools, such as OpenShift and Ansible.

We are currently not using containers as much as we would like to. We are working on setting standards. That is going to come down the road. Our workloads right now are mostly virtual machines and monolithic applications built on VMs. We will use them more. We will make more microservices and use pods to contain the applications. We will use more Red Hat tools.

Overall, I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux a nine out of ten. There are many things to take into account. From a production perspective, it is a ten out of ten. From the innovation and latest features perspective, it is probably a seven. That is not necessarily a bad thing because that is their unique point. They prioritize stability, but if you want something with your features, you can use Fedora.

I use the solution in the company to build a lot of our software environments, so we keep different baselines on it. Right now, I'm working on setting up and installing Ansible manually, so I haven't used Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform yet, a reason why I have been still using my Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) server.

In terms of features, I found it great when I talked with Linux subject matter experts about Ansible. They further mentioned that it was native to Red Hat, which is why it wasn't going to bring over more packages or modules. The packages or modules in the tool are already there but are just not enabled because they weren't being used before I asked about them. It is super easy to enable the tool's packages or modules when I want to start messing with it.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped me centralize development because it has a standard, which is why my company can't really have the option to mess with its different technologies. Our company's customers don't want to use Ubuntu or any other such operating systems, which is why my company has to use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). I guess the tool is easily centralized because that is its standard, and that is the only option one has unless someone wants Windows, but again, developers don't want Windows, and so there are no other options.

Our organization has a team to take care of the containerization part. I am mostly on the infrastructure side, but my company has started to ask me for Podman Desktop and all these different container platforms, and I haven't used any of them yet.

If I dissect the built-in security features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for risk reduction, business continuity, and compliance, I would say that we use VMware for risk reduction so that we have a high availability. On the top of my head, I think the Linux team probably knows more about reducing risks. Our security team has all these STIGs they want us to apply, so I don't know how much manipulation they actually have to do.

If I dissect the built-in security features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for risk reduction, business continuity, and compliance, I would say that we use VMware for risk reduction so that we have a high availability. On the top of my head, I think the Linux team probably knows more about reducing risks. Our security team has all these STIGs they want us to apply, so I don't know how much manipulation they actually have to do. For business continuity, my company uses VMware, considering the ease of making snapshots of our environments, but I believe we could probably do the same with different operating systems. In our company, we just take lots of snapshots, and then if we have another VMware instance, we could just build it right back. The only compliance I know about was associated with our company's customer and their STIG requirements, but I don't know how Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps with it, especially considering that in our company, we have to manipulate it and how we want to do it.

In terms of the portability of applications and containers built on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) to keep our organization agile, I would say that we have an applications team that would do it in our company. I just make sure that our company's VMs have OS and network connectivity since there is a different team that takes care of the applications.

Right now, since my company is in an air-gapped on-prem network, it is really tough to go through all the RPMs that we have to have based on different STIGs. Whenever in our company, we have to install the tool, we see that something or the other is missing, and so of the hundreds of things mentioned in the list, we have to find whether we need a particular RPM or if we need to take this one out, and that is always a trouble for the team managing Linux in our company.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for more than five years.

When I spoke to one of the speakers the other day, who was a software development manager, I was told how much one could trust Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). I believe that Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is considered a standard for a reason.

I believe that if you have enough license to support the product in your environment, then you can scale the product depending on how big your license is, and it is a super easy process where one can roll out a whole bunch of VMs and VMware.

As my signature block comes with Lockheed Martin, I think the tool's support team has been pretty attentive. If I go to a wide-scale service and once Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) sees what kind of a customer I am, I get to go to their specialized sectors, and the support has been pretty fast. I have had no issues with the product's support team. I don't use the product's support services very often. I have mainly dealt with Red Hat's support team for Ansible. I rate the technical support a seven out of ten. When I was asking the tool's support team questions when I was off the internet, I just kind of felt weird about it. For any service I ask for from the support team, I have to manipulate it depending on what we need for our company.

Neutral

I have not previously used any other product, and I have worked for the government for the past twelve years using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

The deployment of the product has been super easy, but when we do it through VMware, I just make a VM, and then load an ISO image, after which the deployment is done. The tool's deployment is super easy, and I am pretty much a novice when it comes to Linux.

The solution is deployed on an on-premises model.

My company did not seek the help of a third party to depot the product. The deployment was carried out by our company's employees, who have been around for decades.

The government buys the product for our company and provides us with the license for the solution.

For a colleague who is looking at open-source cloud-based operating systems for Linux, I would say that Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is a cool product for small businesses outside of the government. I work for the government, where Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the standard, so if my colleagues are in the government, I would tell them they have no other options.

I am not sure about the product's deployment model since it is kind of ad hoc in nature. If a developer needs another VM, our company just provisions it through VMware, so we don't have a large-scale deployment model across different availability zones. We have our program, after which we wrap it all up and then ship it out to the customer.

As I have not compared Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) to any other operating systems in the market, I rate the tool a nine out of ten.

We first used it for application installation to run applications on Windows. We had it running on Windows. We then upgraded it. It was still on the IBM platform, but it was still x86. We have now updated it, and it is now running on IBM Linux Z.

We use it for Internet banking, core banking applications, and other peripheral applications.

It has helped with consolidation. When we first started to do clusters, we were using Oracle cluster and Red Hat cluster. The Red Hat cluster was more stable than the Oracle cluster, so we had to uninstall the Oracle cluster and just use the Red Hat feature to have floating IP addresses between two cluster nodes. Having it in a cluster was the single most useful application of Red Hat in the environment.

We use Red Hat Insights, Ansible, and Satellite. Red Hat Insights is helping us big time. A year ago, I was looking at bolstering my team to about five or so administrators. With Red Hat Insights and other tools, I am satisfied with just two administrators. They are there just to manage the system and not necessarily go down into the trenches.

It seems that Red Hat Insights provides vulnerability alerts and targeted guidance, but my team would know that better. I manage a team that does that.

Its stability is most valuable. Its administrative aspect is also good. It is relatively easy to administer. I am familiar with AIX. AIX is super easy. I did not have to struggle much to adapt to Red Hat.

They can make the extended file system dynamic. Currently, we have to bring down the server to add an Hdisk. We cannot extend the database on the fly. We have to have downtime. We want to ensure that we make the blackout periods as minimal as possible. Currently, there is a gap in the file system management. I want to be able to expand the file system in a simpler way and have the application or the database use that expansion without any downtime.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux since 2004. It has been 20 years.

There is no problem with stability. It is stable. We have a couple of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4 still running. We also have Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 systems. The hardware is functional, but the application was retired. We cannot get an update for it. It has been running since 2008.

Its scalability is fine. There is no problem with scalability. We can do it in real-time. Now with containers and other things, we can scale on the fly without much downtime. We can build a small system and scale it. We can start at a much lower level than several others.

It has improved tremendously. I remember when it used to be centralized. I have been to North Carolina to get training, but now they can come to us for the training. The whole support architecture has improved. We can reserve hours for calls when the need arises. If we do not use it, it is reallocated the next month to some other project. They are doing well. I am impressed.

Positive

We were using and still are using AIX, but most of the applications have been imported, so we are between AIX and Red Hat. We are also using Windows, but Red Hat has stood out. It is not yet there with AIX, but it is getting there.

We were using Ubuntu and a few other flavors, but they were not organized. They were still too open. The support and the training for Red Hat Enterprise Linux was spot on. It was exemplary. We could find support easily.

We have them in clusters, and we also have standalone ones. We have DR where we synchronize with DR. We synchronize at the file system level with DR, which eliminates some of the application limitations.

We are using it on-prem, but we have applications to be upgraded in another 18 months, which would be a hybrid cloud.

Its installation the first time was overwhelming. Once you get used to it, the team settles down, and you have knowledgeable people, it is a breeze.

We have an integrator, a reseller, and a consultant. Somebody would come in and help us connect the dots. I guess that is their reseller, and then the integrator helps us properly connect the dots.

Pedro is our accounts manager. He probably comes from Puerto Rico, and then there is Lincoln Walters from Jamaica. Together, they help us identify the resources we need for the things that we want to do.

The biggest ROI is in terms of the reduction of human resources required to manage and maintain it. The administrative duties have been vastly reduced. You can even have resources from Red Hat. They have something where you can block certain hours a month and you can just use them as needed. If you do not use them entirely, you can reallocate them. That means you can reallocate unused resources. There are savings on investment.

We are still learning about it, but our TCO has reduced because we do not have to have as much manpower, hardware, and processes to manage and operate.

Licensing is the most attractive part of it. With Red Hat Insights and Ansible, we now know that it was done with the intention of simplifying the licensing so that you get the support for what you have and not necessarily what you want to have.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has not helped us to centralize development. We have not capitalized on that as yet. I am here at the Red Hat Summit to learn about Kubernetes and containers. It is all new to me, and at this point, I do not know from where to start. I am getting exposed to so many things, but I still need to understand from where to start. I need to know the foundations. In about 18 months, we will be going to containers. We have people developing Dockers, Kubernetes, and other things, but we need to find a way to integrate them. We will have containers running on OpenShift, but we need to know how to secure, store, and manage those containers.

I have participated in a few presentations, and I see that there are prescribed ways to ensure that you maintain compliance by upgrading. In one of the presentations, one of the presenters said to not expand or scale too quickly because some of the applications get left behind. That is something that I am taking away.

The portability of applications and containers built on Red Hat Enterprise Linux will be good for keeping our organization agile. It is flexible. They say, "Build once and run anywhere." That is the buzzword for me.

To a colleague who is looking at open-source, cloud-based operating systems for Linux instead of Red Hat Enterprise Linux, I would say that Linux is for beginners, whereas Red Hat Enterprise Linux comes with the bells and whistles and the stability for business. It is an enterprise-grade software.

Overall, I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux a nine out of ten. There is innovation and adaptability. Ten years ago, it was unheard of. It has grown, and it has been growing tremendously.

We are deploying Red Hat Enterprise Linux as our primary Linux OS, and we are using Ansible for some automation initiatives. Our use cases are around centralization.

We have a supported product. We are at the beginning of building a relationship with Red Hat similar to the one we have with Microsoft, Cisco, and others. It is to standardize the quality, supported version, and company. I am leading this project, and I believe Red Hat is the one.

We have built a hybrid environment. Most of it is on-prem, but we also have Azure, so we have both cloud and on-prem environments. Red Hat Enterprise Linux is helpful for patch and vulnerability management. There have been a lot of security initiatives around Windows and tightening it up, but our Linux environment was not standardized. Red Hat Enterprise Linux standardizes it. With the combination of Insights, it aligns with Windows and other security initiatives.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has not yet enabled us to centralize development. It is too early for that. I am not very familiar with OpenShift, but with OpenShift, Kubernetes containers, and some of those capabilities, DevOps will become more integrated with Red Hat and its products in the future.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux’s built-in security features seem very good when it comes to risk reduction, business continuity, and maintaining compliance. One thing that helps is the catalog of preexisting playbooks provided by Red Hat around security. It helps you ramp up on security. It aligns it with what an IT person on the Windows side already knows to look for, such as firewalls, setting up permissions, etc. They have playbooks for Active Directory integration, security initiatives, and limiting the firewall. Building out some of the playbooks that Red Hat has in those areas was helpful in getting a good security posture for those systems.

Ansible is going to make the portability of applications and containers happen for us. The OS is important, but our ability to use Ansible and deploy via a cloud or automate via a cloud or on-prem would accomplish that.

Red Hat Insights is valuable. There is patch and vulnerability management. It is similar to what you would see with SCCM. I have a single pane of glass interface. I can approve the patches and vulnerabilities, and hopefully, between Satellite and Ansible, we can automate that process.

I am looking for training. I am a Windows guy who accidentally became a Linux guy. You volunteer a few times, and you are the guy. Right now, I am looking for training and ramping up to be able to support their products, so professional services are key. There are things like Lightspeed with IBM Watson. I do not know YAML very well, so it is going to be integral for me to create playbooks at the very beginning and be able to use the AI tools. If I say, "How do I open a port on this Cisco router?", the AI tools are going to give me the YAML code. In spite of not being a Linux guy or a great coder, I can use those tools to ramp up very quickly. Making Lightspeed a part of Red Hat deployment initiatives tremendously helps with customers' success. It gives them that extra tool. Right now, it is being sold separately as a subscription. If they could integrate that capability, people would not have to go use ChatGPT and other tools. They could use that as a part of it. It would just align things with Red Hat, so one area they can improve on is the approach to customer success for new deployments.

Red Hat Insights are instrumental in identifying vulnerabilities. I am still learning, but my understanding is that it is not directly connected to your environment to deploy a patch or vulnerability fix. It is going to give a YAML playbook to do that. It does not actually execute it. On the Windows side, I have an approval process on the server where I can say, "Deploy this patch." I thought of Insights along the same lines where I can just approve things, and then based on some backend configuration, it will implement them using Ansible, Satellite, and on-premises Ansible. It seems disconnected right now. It might not be, but to me, there seems to be a gap there. I love Insights, and I want to fully automate that approval process. This could be a point for improvement if it does not already do that.

Another area of improvement is Red Hat expressing a return on investment better. I do not know if they have determined a lot of that. I have always assumed that I could go with an open-source OS in a less expensive manner than Windows or something else. My impression is that there would be less cost, but I do not know that for certain. Red Hat building out some of that ROI on different products would be beneficial to their sales effort.

We are a brand new customer.

It is more stable than the wild west environment that I have been in. There is standardization. It is stable by standardizing.

So far, its scalability has been good. Once I get a good image built, I will get some workflows built into Ansible. I will have that process all the way down to the help desk. We will be entering variables and kicking out systems all day.

We have been using it minimally. We have about 15% Linux environment with lots of flavors. Red Hat Enterprise Linux is what we are centralizing on from now on, so we are going to do a conversion of all those. We have a new standard going forward. We have about 15% Linux systems, which would amount to about 150 systems throughout North America. It is a small footprint.

I have not had to call them much, so I do not have a good handle on support from Red Hat. Everybody gets at least a C or a five, but I am optimistic. It is going to be good. I would give them at least a seven out of ten.

Neutral

Prior to Red Hat Enterprise Linux, it was CentOS and others. CentOS was free. It was whatever was available or the developers or applications guys were familiar with.

We switched to Red Hat Enterprise Linux for centralization, to be supported, and for patching and vulnerabilities.

Most of the things that I am deploying or replacing are on-prem and on Azure cloud. It is 50/50.

The deployment was very easy. They have a great and user-friendly installation process with 9.x and above. However, just being new to it and having a security hat on, I still struggle with what should and should not be installed on the base image. It is a learning curve for me, but using the interface has been great. I was able to join Active Directory and all those things.

CDW is handling our professional services and our training, which is a separate purchase. Its initial rollout is with CDW.

We have not yet seen an ROI.

It is expensive. Everything is. I was happy to get a three-year Red Hat Enterprise Linux contract for our initial rollout. 

It is less expensive than other solutions. It is a growing company.

It is called Microsoft ARC. It now facilitates patches for Linux, but it did not include certain things. For me, there was much more benefit outside of just patching by going with Red Hat Enterprise Linux and Ansible.

I am not yet certain about Red Hat Insights' vulnerability alerts and targeted guidance. We are at the beginning. We are just adding systems. I have not set those alerts up if they exist. I assume there are some. I am also going to evaluate how accurate the vulnerability and patching information is because we have other security products that are looking at the same things on the Windows side, and they have already identified many of the vulnerabilities. As a new customer, I want to make sure that if our other system says something is a vulnerability, Red Hat Insights also says that it is a vulnerability. I want to feel confident in the vulnerabilities that I am getting from Red Hat Insights. I want to make sure that other products are also scanning for the same thing. I suspect it is.

To a colleague who is looking at open-source, cloud-based operating systems for Linux instead of Red Hat Enterprise Linux, I would recommend going for Red Hat Enterprise Linux. I cannot think of another OS that can match this.

I will start off with an optimistic ten, and I will rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux a ten out of ten.