Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Reviews

I'm working on OpenShift in a Red Hat environment with Red Hat Linux. I'm working on a Linux platform, using the product as Linux, and the product I'm using is OpenShift.

I'm using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL); that's correct.

We are working on microservices, so we are using OpenShift for the deployment of the application's microservices approach. OpenShift provides good features to create Docker files and deployment. It's a unique product where we are not very worried about the Docker file and repository configuration; everything is in one place. We only need to be worried about the source code. It is a good product. Even in the market, people are likely using all solutions from one vendor. The speed of resolution of problems is also very smooth. Sometimes, if there is any technical issue, the Red Hat team also works in parallel and provides a solution very frequently and quickly. Overall, even though there are multiple products for Kubernetes available, like AWS, GKE, and AKS, OpenShift is more user-friendly, and everything is in-house. People are very happy to use it and are adopting it. Support-wise, they are not looking at multiple vendors. Only one vendor will fix all kinds of issues.

Security requirements are useful for me in choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in the cloud; it has also fulfilled security-related use cases. I am very happy, and the features Red Hat provides are very useful for real-time scenarios.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is very easy to use, and the support services are also very good from the Red Hat side. This is why people are moving to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). Upgradation, security, and everything are upgraded from time to time. As a client and as a vendor, we are adopting and using the enhancement approach that Red Hat provides from time to time.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) makes it easier to manage my hybrid cloud environment because it is not much different from what other vendors will provide. It is very useful. From what I know and have observed, for upgradation, security, other patches, or other versions, they are enhancing and providing quick solutions and new features. It is very useful, and this is why we prefer it. They also timely provide us with documentation to upgrade the older version to a new version. The documentation part is also very good, and if we upgrade from a lower version to a higher version, it is very simple and will update the cluster within a second. I feel that OpenShift is better than other vendors.

I'm not feeling much difference with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and any other vendor because Red Hat is OpenShift. Only their security features and new functionality are managed by Red Hat. If we are not aware of something, they will document it and provide guidance and training. It is easy to understand and implement in real-time. This is the difference we are getting with other vendors: training and documentation. But as a production or any implementation, because they are also providing content and documentation, implementation-wise, for a new feature or new technology, if we are looking into it on the Linux platform, we will integrate easily and implement our application easily into Red Hat.

The AI part is coming into the picture as generative AI and agentic AI; multiple parts are there. Security might be the biggest challenge for AI right now. Red Hat needs to enhance for the AI-related applications because sometimes it is an open kind of environment, like ChatGPT. Privacy needs to be maintained. Overall, from a security perspective, whatever they have provided, I'm satisfied with. Going forward, the AI thing is increasing, and data leakage may happen later on. Red Hat needs to consider all the parameters related to AI, and if they are providing any solution, it needs to be very secure because right now, people are creating AI-related applications, but from a security perspective, there is not much. If they consider that and provide a solution, they might get more value.

Functionality-wise, I feel that Red Hat has done a tremendous job. Functionality-wise, I will not suggest anything because they have covered whatever their competitors have. Red Hat also has a similar approach, and they have a solution. The only consideration part right now is the AI security kind of application. No other company is also providing any fixed solution as of now, a generic and fixed solution for it. If people are working with a security perspective, then it is better, and Red Hat might be a leader for the others.

I have been working with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for around three years.

The technical support from Red Hat is the best part, and I am totally satisfied.

I confirm that I have experience with IBM Linux, and it is the same functionality with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

I have worked on IBM Linux with different other vendors, so I feel that documentation, training, and perspective, Red Hat is much better than any other Linux. That is the key. Support-wise also, if anybody is facing a challenge, the support system is very reachable, and they will support immediately.

I confirm that I have experience with IBM Linux, and it is the same functionality with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

The initial setup for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is very simple.

Price-wise, I feel there is a difference. Red Hat will charge a bit more. But they are providing value, so it is fine if people are using a very secure environment and an in-house solution. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is very useful, but pricing-wise, there is a difference from other vendors. It might be because they are providing an all-in-house solution; that is the reason. I don't know the exact reason, but that is the thing I have considered.

I can provide a rating of ten for the scalability part of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

Price-wise, I feel there is a difference. Red Hat will charge a bit more. But they are providing value, so it is fine if people are using a very secure environment and an in-house solution. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is very useful, but pricing-wise, there is a difference from other vendors. It might be because they are providing an all-in-house solution; that is the reason. I don't know the exact reason, but that is the thing I have considered.

Majorly, the company will provide a portal for Red Hat, and everything is managed by the market portal. The costing part is taken care of, but for estimation, calculation, and suggestion, we are suggesting which one is better and which one is not. The final call depends on the manager and discussions with multiple factors, and even the client, regarding which cloud or which Linux to use.

Majorly, I have worked on the AWS and Azure platforms for deployment with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

It is very simple to migrate from the cloud to on-prem with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). Upgradation has no problem. Even with migration, we need to follow some rules and concepts. In that situation also, they are using Linux. So, we can deploy the same into Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) also. We are not seeing any major changes or differences for the migration from other Linux to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). It is the same. No problem with the migration.

It is not my part, but I participated sometimes in the Red Hat Linux Image Builder. I was not creating any images. But cloud-wise, there are also provisioners which will provide specific services for Red Hat, and in it, it will build the different applications with the Red Hat OS. It is done by the developers, but I feel that it is very simple and is done by the provisioner facility. It will also provide it with the help of Ansible, with the help of Terraform, and multiple other tools.

I don't feel any pain points with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), but it will provide a good support system and whatever functionality is majorly in the market, it will also provide. It is not very far from the market. Whatever the market has, it will provide. I feel that it is a good product.

It is very good with the knowledge base offered by Red Hat; whatever product we are using, they are also well-documented, and they will provide that before using anything. It is fine. There is no need to provide unnecessary documentation. Whatever they are providing is more than sufficient for the implementation. Whenever any developer, support team, or DevOps engineer is facing any challenge, they raise a request with the support team, and they will provide an immediate solution. They will also provide a customized solution. It is better support-wise and document-wise. I feel there are no suggestions for enhancement or anything additional.

I don't see any kind of gap regarding how Red Hat helps to mitigate downtime or lower risk, but I feel some solutions with Terraform or something similar are not providing proper documentation. I have observed that one time. But when we raised a request, they immediately provided a solution. With a new technology, like AI coming into the picture, for the pros and cons and how to implement and what kind of applications it is supporting, they need to provide very crisp and simple documentation. This way, as a support team, DevOps team, or any developers, they will create their applications and deploy them seamlessly into production.

I can consider Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as a rating of nine point five, and zero point five percent is an enhancement that is needed everywhere. I would rate it as nine. My overall review rating is ten.

I work with the on-premises deployment of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

In our organization, we are using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for deployment, scheduling tasks, and automation tasks as part of our day-to-day activities. We find Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) to be a very flexible operating system, meaning we can utilize this machine for years without concerns about it hanging or any issues.

Currently, we have started using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in a hybrid environment, specifically with AWS cloud along with on-premises deployments. We are in the phase of deployment and are just beginning to utilize it on the cloud.

One specific pain point that Red Hat helped us solve is automation, particularly through Ansible. It is a powerful tool that enables us to effectively automate tasks, which is incredibly helpful in our operations.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) does help me save time, especially with automation tools like Ansible. We can execute tasks and then focus on other activities, which significantly enhances our productivity.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped mitigate downtime and lower risks in the banking sector. We previously were not using cloud but have begun transitioning to a hybrid environment to enhance security and productivity, especially given our experiences with on-premises products.

I have previously used Ubuntu and CentOS as different solutions. However, since Ubuntu is not much familiar in our organization, we moved to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). CentOS has already been decommissioned and merged into Red Hat, so for the past seven years, we have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). Before that, we were using Ubuntu, both in college and school days, and I have worked with different flavors and also on Oracle.

The key difference I see between Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and Ubuntu is mainly in the support offered. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) provides 24x7 support for any critical issues we face. As we are working in the banking sector, having that support is crucial. In contrast, with Ubuntu or CentOS, we do not have timely support; we need to raise tickets and face delays in deployment and production, which is a significant drawback.

I assess the knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as very good. The training sessions are beneficial and it is totally open source, allowing us to access official sites for learning and documentation. I continuously learn with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and find plenty of free documents available for study. Compared to other operating systems like Ubuntu, there is not as much documentation, making it easier to learn using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) official resources.

The most important security features in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) stem from its open-source nature, which allows us to easily understand what happens within the system and identify potential loopholes. Additionally, SELinux is a powerful security module we use to block external threats. It also features a firewall, encryption, and uses advanced algorithms like SALT and SH5, making it difficult for malicious entities to crack the system. In essence, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has robust security features.

I have used the Image Builder of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) but not the system roles. Image Builder has proven useful for creating images.

The Image Builder is very easy and simplifies tasks, significantly reducing our workload. It saves us a lot of time compared to what we used to do previously, thereby boosting our productivity.

I have not identified any specific improvements needed in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), but I would recommend reducing the cost of certification training. This would allow more people, including students, to access global certifications and deepen their interaction with the systems. Overall, I am satisfied with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and find it smooth, even as I start using newer versions like Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 10, which features AI functions.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for the last seven years.

I find the stability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) to be very good. Over the years, we have not encountered any significant issues, which is a key reason we have transitioned to using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

I find Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) to be scalable. Since much of it is open-source, we do not incur costs for various functionalities, reducing expenses while still being scalable.

The customer service and technical support provided by Red Hat are very good. They respond promptly, even in off-hours, such as at 3:00 AM. We have no regrets about our decision to shift to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

I would rate the technical support of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as eight out of ten.

Positive

The initial setup of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is very straightforward due to my prior experience. I did not face any issues, and the support from the Red Hat subscription plan has been helpful throughout the process.

I understand the pricing aspect. We are using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as a free-of-cost OS, but we do require a subscription for support. While I am not involved at the management level, I know there is a cost for the subscription plan that provides 24x7 support, though I do not know the exact amount.

The business value of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is significant in comparison to other Linux distributions I have used, particularly because we work with banking clients that operate around the clock. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) provides instant response for support, allowing us to resolve issues quickly, which is crucial for maintaining productivity and operations without downtime.

I definitely recommend Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) to other organizations considering it for their environment. I also suggest students download Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) to learn Linux instead of opting for Ubuntu or CentOS.

Apart from Ansible, I have previously worked with OpenShift from Red Hat. While we are not currently using it, I have found it to be flexible and beneficial. However, we are mainly focused on AWS for now.

I would give Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as a product or solution a rating of 9.5 out of 10.

Our use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) involve a lot of infrastructure; we run Ansible on it, and we run any other containerized utilities we're using on Podman. We run OpenShift as well, so I don't think we have any RHEL workloads on there, but we definitely use RHEL for a lot of our internal infrastructure.

The Podman feature of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is very valuable; that's probably the core of it—just a simple containerized solution that allows us to stand it up in a server really quickly. This feature and other features benefit our company since we are able to quickly deploy containers to support our infrastructure with minimal management needs from our engineering team. 

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps us solve pain points such as automation, as well as supporting other file servers using NFS and other kinds of development workloads we're running on it.

My experience with RHEL has not been too complicated; most of our stuff is on RHEL 9 now. A lot of times, our security team comes to us for some of the patching and upgrades, so we're following their lead, however, it hasn't been too difficult for us. We manage our Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems for provisioning and patching using Ansible and Terraform a lot, so we've been happy with that management experience.

My assessment of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)'s built-in security features is that using SC Linux is helpful for us to lock things down, and our security team is pretty happy with it whenever they're doing their vulnerability scans. From a security standpoint, we're happy with it.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped to mitigate downtime and lower risk. If there ever is a problem, it's quick to stand up a replacement system.

It's pretty lightweight, so I'd much rather deal with a RHEL system any day versus a Windows system. If you compare it to a Windows system, which has a much bigger attack surface, there's a big reduction there.

When it comes to our security team having to scan for vulnerabilities and such, there is a lot less vulnerability scanning that needs to be done, so it's been a better fit for us for our infrastructure.

I am interested to see how Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) can be improved. It can be improved overall. Specifically, I'm interested in seeing some of the image incorporation with RHEL 10, as that might improve some of our upgrades and help in moving to the newer versions. I'm eager to learn more about that.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in my company for ten-plus years.

It has been very reliable and stable; I have not had any major crashes or outages with RHEL.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales very well with the growing needs of our company, as we can spin up instances quickly whenever we add new environments or data centers.

I have been pretty pleased with the customer service and technical support; it's infrequent that we have to engage support, but when we do, they've been responsive and we've gotten some answers, so we've been happy. I would rate the customer service and technical support as eight out of 10.

Positive

We have considered other solutions before or while using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). We've considered other Linux distros in the past, however, the ability to have a fully supported platform allows us to reach out to support from Red Hat if needed, which is the reason why we've stuck with Red Hat versus others.

In terms of deployment, it's been good standing it up and then maintaining it with patching through Satellite. Upgrades have been not time-impacted. They're pretty quick to get patching done. Everything is pretty easy. Migrations aren't too complicated. 

The biggest return on investment for me when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is certainly the ease of use for the engineering team; they can get things done without taking a lot of their time.

My experience with the pricing, setup cost, and licensing of the Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) platform has been pleasing; it's pretty straightforward and we haven't had any major concerns with costs on it compared to others, so we've been happy.

Currently, we don't have any upgrade or migration plans to stay current with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as far as moving to RHEL 10; that's going to be coming, I'm sure. Most of it involves keeping on the latest versions, and sometimes it's just a driver for keeping Podman up to date whenever Ansible needs to run, as Ansible is core for us.

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) an eight out of ten overall. 

What could make it a ten comes down to us being able to have time to dig into some of the features we're not using, so it's probably just on us to get wowed by some of the stuff we're not doing today. 

I am a platform engineer, so I help build out the infrastructure for app owners to use. I manage the OS.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) provides us with a standardized Linux that has controlled package versioning so that there's no scope for issues when we're applying patches. It's pretty stable and gives us stable releases.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) benefits my company overall because compared to other operating systems, it has a lower TCO. It's lighter weight than Microsoft Windows and simpler to use in some aspects, making it easy to use without having to worry about a graphical interface and similar elements.

The features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) I appreciate the most include the management, specifically that Red Hat Satellite is nice. This management feature is great because it centralizes what I need to do to keep an eye on all the systems in the environment. 

There are some features of Red Hat, not just Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), that have a higher cost of entry, which prevents us from trying out things such as Ansible Automation Platform due to its high cost. We are still deciding if we're going to go that route.

There are some positive aspects to the consistent packaging of Red Hat, which is great. However, there are times when the latest and most exciting releases available online are not included in the version of Red Hat that we have. For example, the version included in Red Hat can sometimes feel outdated compared to the open-source versions that are currently available.

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

Its stability and reliability are very good.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped us to mitigate downtime and lower risks, not necessarily due to its nature but because we design our systems to be highly available. We have multiple nodes and we only bring down some nodes, leaving others up, depending on the application, which sometimes dictates how it becomes highly available.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales pretty effectively with the growing needs of my company.

They are pretty knowledgeable. If they don't know it, they know someone who does, so they can always route me and my questions to whomever is able to answer.

I would evaluate the customer service and technical support of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as good, although sometimes opening a case and waiting hours seems excessive, depending on the severity of the issue. It may be a P2 to us, but a P2 with a 4 to 8 hour response seems too long sometimes, and they won't escalate. However, once all that's completed, I would still rate them at least a solid eight.

Positive

My experience with deploying Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) involves lots of scripting and golden images, but there's a newer version of creating the images, and I'm looking forward to using that.

We have a hybrid environment with on-premises and cloud deployments.

We use Red Hat Satellite for provisioning and patching, and I am satisfied with that. 

Upgrading or migrating Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) from on-premises to the cloud went mostly well. However, there were some caveats to consider when moving to the cloud that we hadn't anticipated. For instance, some migration tools had hardcoded values that shouldn't have been fixed in that way. We did encounter some issues that required remediation, but for the most part, the process has gone smoothly.

Our upgrade or migration plans to stay current involve evaluating Red Hat 9 now, and we will be evaluating Red Hat 10 afterwards. I don't think there are any other Red Hat products with a major upgrade upcoming. We are still using Red Hat Satellite, currently at version 6.16, and it needs to get upgraded to the next version pretty soon. The version of Ansible within Red Hat can sometimes feel way behind the version of Ansible that's available open source. Some migration tools hardcoded certain values that shouldn't have been hardcoded.

The biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for me is its consistent nature, as it has stable releases. I don't have worries when patching because everything is backwards and forwards compatible depending on the version.

We don't consider other solutions in our company that do the same thing as Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), nor did we use other solutions before choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). We stick with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), and if anything comes up that looks different from our OS, we heavily push back because we've established a relationship with Red Hat, and we're not looking to introduce a new flavor of Linux and a new support model after all the training we've had already.

My assessment of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)'s built-in security features for simplifying risk reduction and maintaining compliance is that while I haven't used OpenSCAP much, the documentation of their CVEs and vulnerabilities is pretty easy to use through the website. It helps me identify if a CVE is applicable or not applicable, which is useful in case an event occurs and I need to research its impact and remediation.

I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) an eight out of ten. 

My main use case for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) at work involves using the EKS Kubernetes cluster on AWS, which is hosted on managed nodes based on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 9.4.

On a daily basis, I manage these nodes, execute commands to check connectivity, investigate network issues, and gather metrics such as CPU and RAM usage. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is integral to my daily work, as I regularly log into these nodes to execute commands, check network issues, and monitor capacity.

One of the best features Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) offers is the premium support, which is particularly noteworthy in version 9.4. If we encounter an issue, we can contact the support team anytime, and a technical support representative works with us to find the root cause. The support team helps us find and solve issues quickly and effectively.

While many features in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are common to all Linux distributions, RHEL stands out due to its vast community and comprehensive feature set. Red Hat has the largest market share among Linux distributions, and its exceptional support distinguishes it from other distributions. Additionally, it is renowned for its stability, security, ease of use, and community engagement.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has positively impacted our organization by improving our environment, enhancing security, and enabling the implementation of best practices. We chose RHEL 9.4 for its stability, security, and excellent support. When running our Kubernetes cluster on AWS, RHEL proves to be an excellent choice for deploying our applications in a secure environment.

Using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 9.4, we enhance our security through features such as SELinux, which significantly improves our environment's security and stability. We have used RHEL-based nodes since the inception of our organization and the My Vodafone app project in Greece, contributing to improved security, performance, and stability throughout our operations.

The primary area for improvement in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) relates to accessibility and training resources rather than the operating system itself. Red Hat should provide more training opportunities and make learning materials more accessible to users and customers.

Specifically, the documentation should be more accessible, and Red Hat should consider offering free training or virtual machines beyond just ISO files. A free virtual machine on the cloud would be valuable for people to try and become familiar with RHEL, as installing a virtual machine from an ISO can be complex. A pre-installed RHEL virtual machine would make it easier for people to learn and experience the distribution.

I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) eight out of ten because while it's an excellent score, there is room for improvement in accessibility. Unlike other distributions such as Ubuntu or Arch Linux that are readily available, Red Hat should create more opportunities for users to try their system through easily accessible virtual machines on their website or other public platforms.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for eight years, starting before my career as a DevOps and system admin engineer.

The scalability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for my organization is exceptional, and it handles growth and increased demand effectively. The support system particularly enhances its scalability capabilities.

The customer support of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) deserves a perfect 10 out of 10, as it is one of the most valuable aspects of the system.

Positive

I did not use a different solution before Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). We started with RHEL 7, upgraded to 8, and are now using version 9.4.

The pricing, setup cost, and licensing process for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is straightforward, and I have not encountered any challenges in conducting these operations.

My advice for others considering Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is to strongly consider it as one of the most secure, stable, and efficient options compared to other distributions. I have always chosen RHEL as my first choice without evaluating other options. I rate this solution 8 out of 10.

We run all of our servers on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), specifically RHEL 8, and that's the production OS for all the servers in our farm.

The features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) streamline many things for us. Everything feels streamlined, smooth to use, and easy to operate, making it almost invisible without stressing about issues on the OS level. As essentially a sysadmin level engineer, I really appreciate the package manager. It's simple and easy to use, being the most straightforward part of using Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

I don't know how Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) can be improved. As a sysadmin level worker, everything I need to do, RHEL has been able to perform for me. I don't have a specific use case where I wish I had additional features, so I can't provide feedback on that. I'm not sure about how Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) could maximize or enhance any features. I don't really know anything Red Hat specific that's positive or negative that I can speak on. I'm not certain if Red Hat could smooth out the migration process from CentOS to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). I think it's more internal stuff that needs to be ironed out rather than Red Hat having issues.

I've been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for around three to four years now.

There have been no issues with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) stability and reliability. We haven't experienced any OS level reliability issues.

The scalability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has been excellent. Our recent hurdle was getting off of CentOS, but the scalability hasn't been an issue for us. It's been smooth sailing, just requiring the bulk work of migrating thousands of servers.

I haven't engaged with customer support at Red Hat for any help.

Positive

I did not consider another solution before choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

I'm not entirely sure at the moment about Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) upgrade or migration plans for what's ahead of us. We're just looking into the short term right now.

Once our team got comfortable with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), we purchased Red Hat Learning on the side. After our team was trained on Red Hat through the Red Hat Learning subscription, the combined learning experience provided by Red Hat delivered many technical skills needed to be a comfortable sysadmin.

Everything has been running smoothly with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). I don't have any previous criticisms that RHEL specifically has solved in our use case. I'm not well-versed in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) built-in security features, so I can't comment on that aspect. I can't say if it has helped to mitigate downtime or lower risks specifically. Everything's so smooth with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that it's not something we really think about. We worry about other things rather than the OS level. I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 10 out of 10. I have not purchased Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) on the AWS marketplace.

My main use cases involve using it to run our Ansible automation platform and various workloads, depending on what Development decides based on the project. We also use it for our Kubernetes clusters.

The features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that I appreciate the most are focused on stability. It is a reliable system that I can depend on more than anything else. That stability benefits my company by providing more uptime and more satisfied gamers.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps us solve pain points related to stability and documentation. It is very easy to find solutions to problems or access official documentation, whereas with other Debian-based distributions, one often finds themselves searching through random forums.

Regarding built-in security features for risk reduction and compliance maintenance, some features are straightforward when following standards and installation profiles. However, the development side frequently mentions challenges with SELinux, as it is more difficult to understand and somewhat esoteric. Some features are very well-developed and easily understood, while others are more complex to implement.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped to mitigate downtime and lower risks. While there is not much technical difference between RHEL and Oracle Linux, compared to other alternatives, it provides benefits.

We manage our systems for provisioning and patching using Ansible automation controller for patches and mirror repositories as needed.

What is lacking is better FS support natively in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). It has many nice features, however, XFS is becoming outdated. That is the major improvement that would be relatively easy to implement, perhaps around version 11. Fedora has already introduced it, so it is in the pipeline.

When it comes to its stability and reliability, it is great.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales fine with the growing needs of my company. I do not see much difference between RHEL and any other real distribution in those terms. 

As far as scalability, it is all Linux at the end of the day and will scale equally. The management tools and features on top of it provide the value-add, but regarding the base operating system, I do not see much difference.

We do not use customer service and technical support frequently. It is more about getting that checkbox for insurance, compliance, or whatever regulation we need to follow. 

If I had to rate the customer support, I would give it an eight as it is quite good. 

Positive

My experience deploying Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has evolved. In the past, it used to be more complicated, however, with current development tools and methodologies, it is far easier. Using Packer and initialization files that build every time, it functions smoothly.

My team deploys the solution on-premise, and we have varying departments and organizations for on-prem.

From my perspective, I have seen a return on investment while using this platform. It is beneficial to have that stability and reliable package repositories that we depend on, rather than using something more open-source and community-driven. There is definitely a good return.

My experience with the pricing, setup costs, and licensing has been satisfactory. It aligns with business expectations.

I consider all distributions before or while using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), however, the application team ultimately decides what fits their development cycle and needs best. For our on-premise workloads that need to be stable and operate over years, it is our default choice.

For upgrades or migrations, I recommend building new and migrating. My team operates both on-premise and in the cloud, and we have purchased Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) through AWS Marketplace. 

Overall rating: nine out of ten. To make it a ten, I would want to see more features. As someone who considers themselves an open-source zealot, the locking down of package repositories behind subscription paywalls was upsetting. It used to be a ten out of ten before that change.

My main use case for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is application hosting.

The feature of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that I appreciate the most is the stability. 

I used to use Ubuntu quite a bit, however, the stability of RHEL is the main thing that I enjoy about it. 

RHEL benefits my company by providing a stable platform and strong support behind it, which are the motivating factors of using it in general.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps me solve pain points such as support stability, so maintenance and operations are much easier. I manage my Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems for provisioning and patching using Ansible, Satellite, and Puppet, and I am satisfied with that management experience.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) supports my hybrid cloud strategy by looking into Openshift. Currently, we are independently deploying between the two environments because we do not yet have a platform to bridge those into a true hybrid.

Security requirements were not necessarily a consideration in choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in the cloud since we have our security team for all of our security compliance, so it is just our standard that we use.

The solution can be improved, especially for user-provided solutions; they could be vetted more thoroughly by Red Hat. I cannot think of anything specific that could improve Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), aside from my thoughts on support, particularly since I have not yet tried version nine. Better support would make it a ten.

At this company, I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for two and a half years.

The stability and reliability of the Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) platform are great.

I do not know if we have run into scaling problems with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). Typically, our app people work directly with the vendor and request a few VMs, so we do not really have issues with running out of compute resources.

The customer service and technical support I receive are mostly good; sometimes it is hit or miss, but mostly good. If I had to rate them from one to ten, I would give them a nine.

Positive

Before I came to the company, they were using Ubuntu, and I tried to convince them to switch over to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). While I am using it today, we still support Ubuntu because there are certain researchers that prefer it, but for the operations of the hospital, it is all Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

I have been involved in updates for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), going from version eight to nine. I typically just deploy the next version and migrate whatever application or system may be to that instead of jumping to another version. It is more about deploying a new system and migrating the old system over, to avoid any dependency issues.

The biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) from my perspective is probably security and performance. We run a lot of Windows, which comes with costs to keep it constantly updated, while RHEL seems to have fewer vulnerabilities and is one of the more performant platforms among Linux distributions.

My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing has been fair. I have looked for virtual data center licenses and it seems fairly priced compared to alternatives such as Windows.

The knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is hit or miss. Sometimes people provide answers that exactly solve the problem, and sometimes it is for older versions that are not applicable.

I have not purchased Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) through AWS Marketplace. We are looking into that option.

On a scale of one to ten, I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a nine.