Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Reviews

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.

I use Red Hat Enterprise Linux for running applications and databases on them.

It has a smaller footprint, so it uses less storage. The product is optimized for resource utilization. Patching is very streamlined for the operating system compared to Windows. We prefer using Red Hat Enterprise Linux over Windows whenever we can. Patching is much easier, and it seems more mature. When we apply a patch, we're less likely to have problems after. It's more stable.

All resources should be available on the website.

I have been using the solution for about three years.

I rate the support a nine or nine and a half out of ten. I am not rating support a ten out of ten because if we were able to receive all of the resources that we could from the website, then we wouldn't need to reach out and contact support. It's a learning curve.

Positive

Previously, we used CentOS. We have also used Oracle Linux, which is based on Red Hat Enterprise Linux's kernel. Now, we're strictly trying to use Red Hat Enterprise Linux. We switched to Red Hat Enterprise Linux because it provides great support.

The products are pretty similar. A lot of the implementations, commands, and updates are very similar. Overall, we've had a more positive experience using Red Hat Enterprise Linux. We have a basic build routine when building new servers, updating, and installing add-ons. When we run those scripts, it seems like it's so much more streamlined with Red Hat Enterprise Linux. It could be because we're converting everything to Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

We're exploring more automation features. Three years is still relatively new for an operating system for our department. As we explore more automation-rich features and tools and subsets of tools, we'll be able to utilize the solution better. Red Hat Enterprise Linux may be very good at it, but our knowledge and experience are still growing. We need to take a deeper dive into implementing automation.

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux with Microsoft Azure. We did not have concerns about using Red Hat Enterprise Linux in the cloud because we had spoken to other customers of Azure that had been running Red Hat Enterprise Linux. We can install Red Hat Enterprise Linux on our own, or we can use the custom-built Red Hat Enterprise Linux images available through Azure. It makes the deployment of a server much quicker and more efficient.

We have been migrating some workloads and applications from on-premise to Azure. However, we do not constantly move workloads back and forth between Azure. It's more of a one-way migration. We're trying to be less on-premise and more in the cloud. There's definitely a learning curve for the migration. There were some hiccups with learning how to do the migrations. We've done a handful of migrations so far, and each time, we learn from our previous experiences and mistakes. We use our lessons learned and have a better experience each time that we do a migration. It's getting smoother each time.

The knowledge base offered by the product is really good. There are a lot of resources available on the website. We have a direct contact for support, which we utilize on a regular basis. We have enterprise licenses, so we pay for support. We get support whenever we need it. I have been involved in Red Hat Enterprise Linux upgrades. It's pretty straightforward. We just convert from different Linux operating systems to Red Hat Enterprise Linux. My technical team has used Red Hat Insights, Image Builder, and Convert2RHEL.

We keep pretty close to the most current versions of Red Hat Enterprise Linux. There are many different versions of the product. Version 9 is the most current. We're trying to stay up with at least one or two versions close to the most current version to stay updated. We don't want to get to a version that would be at the end of its life.

The solution has helped us streamline and optimize our infrastructure for any applications or databases we run on a Linux operating system. They help us save on our physical resources because they're less demanding. Therefore, we don't have to spend as much money on a server that has a lot of CPU and a lot of memory. We can fit many more VMs on a single physical virtualization host because it's optimized. The support is great, and we can find quite a bit of information either directly through the Red Hat website or through the Red Hat community. We're able to do research on our own and find most of the information that we need. If we can't, support will assist us.

Overall, I rate the tool a ten out of ten.

It's pretty much everything that we have. We don't have a lot of Windows in our environment.

I've been using it a lot for several years. In the past, I ran a small web hosting company, and we used it for web servers, mail servers, FTP servers, and other things like that. After that, I was in casinos, and those were mostly Windows, but here, it's a lot of Linux, and it's all Red Hat. In my team, we just build it and make sure it keeps running, and the application teams do what they do.

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux on-premises. We support the in-house server-based things, and we have another team that supports all the cloud-based things, so I don't have a lot of visibility into the cloud.

In terms of the version, we're trying to phase out version 7. We just brought in version 8. Our Satellite is a little bit behind. By the time that gets caught up, our version 8 should be a little bit more solid, and then they can start testing version 9.

I haven't been on this team for a very long time. I've only been on this team for a couple of years, and it was already in place. In the past, we used it to get the stability and the support that we needed because, for a web hosting company, it was either IIS or Apache, and that was back in the NT days, so obviously, we went with Apache. I find it a better server operating system, so that's what we use.

I don't use it in a hybrid cloud environment, but my organization does. I like its built-in security features when it comes to simplifying risk reduction and maintaining compliance. All the firewall features and iptables have been fine for me. SELinux has been great for me. With the hosting that we used to do, SELinux was great because we had to share files with customers. It made it easy to make sure that files stayed secure and only changed by whoever needed to touch them.

I just use it. I'm strictly into command lines, and they just do what I need them to do, and I know how to use them. Everything is just stable and works well. 

It works fine for me, and it does what I need already. It does everything I needed to do, and it has for so many years. The only change that stumped me was the networking in version 9. I preferred the ifconfig way of doing things, but the system changes of it have grown on me. I preferred the ifconfig way because of familiarity. I knew how to manipulate things. I knew how to get things running and stay running and script ways to keep them running and notify me if the thing went wrong. My only gripe has been the networking change and the inability to use ifconfig anymore. I talked to some people, and they did point out that it's good if you're moving from one environment to another environment—like a laptop, but for servers, I don't need that. I just put my config file where I can find it and make the changes that I need.

I've been in this organization for a couple of years, but I've been using Red Hat since version 3. It has been a long time.

The stability has been pretty great. There are some things that we're still working on, but once we solve them, I know they'll remain solved.

Scalability has been great too because when we need more, we just add more, and we're good.

They've been great. I've worked with them a lot lately. They've been a ten out of ten. They're always there for us, and they answer us quickly.

Positive

I've personally used everything from Slackware to OpenBSD, FreeBSD, Red Hat, Fedora, and Ubuntu. I've used everything.

I like the way that everything is predictable with Red Hat Enterprise Linux. You know what you're getting. You know where everything is, and you know that you can find support if you need it. When we're upgrading or if we're adding something, I always know where I could find what I need to find.

I would think that we have seen an ROI. Our licensing has been very fair, but I don't have a lot of visibility into that.

I like my developer account. The free sixteen licenses that they give with the developer account are great because that gives me the ability to keep using it at home instead of trying CentOS or something like that. Once CentOS went away or changed, I had the ability to just make a developer account and spin up my entire lab in Red Hat, which made it better anyway because that's what we use at work, and now I have a one-to-one instead of a clone-to-one.

I've been trying to find a reason to use containers, but I just can't. I know our company uses it a lot, and they love it. They love the ability to shift things around and bring down servers when they want, and all of that, but for my own use cases, I haven't had a reason.

Overall, I'd rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux a ten out of ten. Everything is great.

Our clients use it as an operating system. One of the reasons for going for Red Hat Enterprise Linux was to reduce the downtime that a client was having with AIX.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is super fast, and our systems have less downtime. There is about a 60% reduction.

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux both in the cloud and on-premises. We move workloads between the clouds and data center using Red Hat Enterprise Linux. This functionality is very important for us.

They offer support as well as training. Most of our staff is Red Hat certified. They have a good knowledge base with a lot of videos and useful content.

We are very satisfied with the patching and upgrade experience. We moved from Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 to Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8. It was easy. The live patching capability is very useful. It is one of the best features. Provisioning is also simple.

Red Hat Insights helps to identify and address any vulnerability risks. We get to know about any required patches.

Red Hat Console is very helpful for having an overview, patching, and maintenance.

The support is valuable. We get direct support from Red Hat. There is also no downtime. We can sleep better at night knowing that our systems are running.

Live patching should be improved.

I have been using it for three years.

The stability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux is very high. There is no downtime.

The scalability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux is a six out of ten.

It is the base OS. Most client applications run on Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Our clients are big organizations. In our company, we have 15 people working with Red Hat.

I would rate Red Hat's support a nine out of ten. They provide a quick response. 

Positive

Our client moved from AIX to Red Hat Enterprise Linux because they were having downtime issues.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is different from other Linux solutions because they offer support.

We have a hybrid model of deployment with both on-premises and cloud setups. The deployment overall was easy. 

Its maintenance involves patching and upgrades. Patching is easy. The migration to the cloud and upgrades are also simple.

We have seen about 20% ROI.

It is cost-efficient.

We have plans to increase its usage. I would recommend Red Hat Enterprise Linux. I would rate it a seven out of ten.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux's role-based security model enables us to provide discretionary access levels to users based on their roles and their responsibilities. We can also assign access based on service level to maintain service-level accounts for any purpose. If we need to back up a Red Hat Enterprise Linux box, we can assign a role to access that box only on the backup level. 

Red Hat Insights allows us to find vulnerabilities and conduct assessments from our central portal. It gives us insight into the compliance levels of different boxes and their licenses. Red Hat Insights helps us be proactive by giving us the details of recurring issues and vulnerabilities or zero-day threats. It automatically shows us what needs to be prioritized. It improves operations to have a single pane of glass for all your inventories and business. You can also implement automation and remedy most things from the cloud console. This is very helpful. 

Red Hat Enterprise Linux helps us achieve security standards certification. Most of our customers require compliance with regulations and internal security policy also. We have to be compliant with the profile for each standard based on Red Hat Enterprise Linux profiles or OSCAP integration. Satellite helps us remedy and manage compliance issues in daily operations.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is the most reliable Linux flavor in terms of enterprise governance. I prefer it for its code stability, support, and integration. The lifecycle management features help us maintain compliance and keep the components updated.

The built-in security features simplify risk reduction. For example, Red Hat Enterprise Linux has built-in OSCAP profiles that we can select during implementation based on our industry and compliance needs. Using the OSCAP profile, we can minimize the effort needed to keep the software up to date. We also like the Red Hat Co-Pilot, which allows you to configure most things from the GUI.

We also have OpenShift, which enables elaborate, portable, and reliable ccontainerization. We use the System Roles feature when we have to disable root users and assign the system roles on the application level because some applications do not require root-level access or real group access. The System Role feature allows us to impose level controls and segmentation between the users. We can also automate security configurations to maintain consistency across systems over time.

I would like to use OSCAP profiles without the dependency on Red Hat Insights. If you install the OSCAP profiles from Red Hat Insights, I'm not sure if it is currently available in the cloud console. Most of the time, we manage compliance from Red Hat Satellite, but this feature could also be built into the console. Maybe it's not an issue price-wise most of the time, but it would be easier if we could use the same console and test-level capabilities.

I also want the co-pilot to provide more granular control and more features in the GUI, so we can have one configuration from the GUI itself. It would be helpful to have a feature similar to the one in Windows where we can manage all the net flows from one console in a single pane of glass and install it on-premises like an admin center. It would be great if Red Hat had some kind of admin center to manage all the Red Hat Enterprise Linux boxes without using an additional product like Satellite or something, we could use the co-pilot on all the systems to monitor the dashboard.

We started with Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 in 2015. Now, we are on Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9, so it has been around eight or nine years.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is a robust product. 

The scalability depends on the computing capacity and architecture. It varies based on whether we are replicating boxes or putting the Red Hat Enterprise Linux images into containers. The tool we use for orchestration is also a factor. 

I rate Red Hat support 10 out 10. We are mostly dealing with Level 1 or Level 2 support, and we always get a prompt response. Remote support is also available, which is nice. 

Positive

We used some open-source Linux flavors that are now obsolete and CentOS. Red Hat Enterprise Linux provides excellent support for migrating from CentOS to Red Hat Enterprise Linux at any level, so kudos to Red Hat for that. There is a great tool that enables us to migrate an existing application without any changes, so we can convert CentOS boxes.

There are one or two commercial Linux flavors that can compete with Red Hat, but their based on different architectures. Red Hat has a large portfolio, including OpenShift and SQL automation, offering deep integration between these tools. I don't think there is a competing product that offers a comparable product portfolio because Red Hat is under the umbrella of IBM now and also provides a multi-cloud solution. 

The initial deployment is straightforward. There's no problem. However, it also depends on what we want to achieve. Some of the options add a little complexity. It isn't very complicated, but it requires a different method. Overall, the general installation and configuration are effortless, and we don't have any issues. The initial installation can be done in 15-30 minutes, depending on the computing and storage capacity. 

We have one administrator experienced in Red Hat Enterprise Linux and enterprise Linux for maintence. We prefer a certified person who can understand the data complexities and advanced configuration, but a technician doesn't need to be a specialist to conduct the installation. 

The pricing depends upon the customer's bill of materials and what the customers are planning. Sometimes, a reseller and vendor partners provide a better price. I recommended buying the Red Hat Virtual Data Center instead of buying the Red Hat Enterprise Linux standalone licenses if anyone just wants to run a workload in the cloud environment. Virtual Data Center is the most cost-efficient.

The Red Hat Enterprise Linux license has a one-time cost, but there is an ongoing subscription for support with various levels. The license is perpetual, but we pay annually for support. Red Hat's support license is robust. You get three levels of professional support plus community support. Our banking, finance, and telecom clients rely on Red Hat Enterprise Linux entirely for their production workloads, so they need to minimize downtime. There is no comparison between professional and open source. We can provide support for some of our clients and set up redundancy, so that's something we can consider when we're looking at licensing or support costs. 

I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10 out of 10. Red Hat Enterprise Linux is an affordable product and a great value. It is constantly evolving and adding capabilities. We can orchestrate a multi-cloud environment for Nutanix under Red Hat Enterprise Linux. It's an excellent product for virtualization.  

We have a lot of Oracle databases, Tomcat, and Java microservices running on Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

A lot of our applications are like Java microservices. Deploying them on a Unix platform is so much easier. It's open-sourced and provides a lot of compatibility. It makes it easier for us to roll out applications. It is compatible with most Java microservices applications.

We like that Red Hat Enterprise Linux is a vendor-supported product. When we have problems, we just call Red Hat Enterprise Linux for support. The product employs a lot of automation tools to manage its OS. We love using Red Hat Satellite. We have close to 5000 servers. Managing individual servers would be a nightmare.

Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform and Red Hat Satellite help us automate our repetitive tasks. Every flavor of Linux distribution has its own specialties. The product offers a lot of integration within the Red Hat products suite. We use Red Hat products mostly, so it works for us.

The vendor keeps rolling out many packets, which complicates our job. We keep patching our servers. CVEs come out all the time. However, having a solid and secure OS will make our life much easier.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux since 2004.

I never had any problem with support. I didn't have any issues that I did not get a resolution for. Sometimes, it takes a little bit of time, but eventually, it gets resolved.

Positive

I was using AIX, which is also an IBM product. IBM bought Red Hat Enterprise Linux. AIX was more expensive and required IBM System p. Moving to Red Hat Enterprise Linux was much easier because it is a lot more compatible with the regular hardware like HP and Dell that we buy on the market.

I have seen an improvement in our deployment. When we have applications running on Windows, it takes longer to get them set up and provisioned, and the security is different compared to Red Hat.

The pricing could be better. The tool is getting expensive. Before, we could license only the hypervisor where Red Hat Enterprise Linux is running. Now, if a customer has a 12-node hypervisor, Red Hat Enterprise Linux forces customers to license all 12, even though they use only six.

We evaluated SUSE. At that time, SUSE did not have good support. We needed good support worldwide.

We use AWS and Microsoft Azure as our cloud providers. We don't use the off-the-shelf product that we get from the cloud. We build around it because we have a standard template. When we deploy our solution in the cloud, all the security features we need are already within the OS, as opposed to using the cloud OS and applying all the changes we need. It's easier to get our template to the cloud and use it.

The licensing for the cloud environment is totally different than the on-premise one. We use the Virtual Datacenter license on-premises. I don't see any difference because Red Hat Enterprise Linux still supports it, whether on-premise or on the cloud.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux knows its product. Whenever I have an issue, an engineer gets assigned to me. I can always escalate if needed. We're not using every host that we license. We ensure that we can fail over smoothly on every single hypervisor. It's fair to license them. We're not using it, but we're still paying for it. I do not like it, but it is a business cost.

We migrate workloads to the cloud. I never upgrade an OS. I usually replace the old OS with a new OS and migrate the application. I use the OS versions 7, 8, and 9. The migration is pretty straightforward. AWS and Azure have a tool that we can use to integrate with our environment. It's a lift and shift. We grab the VM from our on-premise hypervisors and move it to the cloud.

We use Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform mostly for patching and upgrading to the next revisions. We don't upgrade from one OS to another. We build on a new OS and get all the applications running there. Once the application is running, we move all the workload from the old OS to the new OS. There's no impact on the existing system.

I don't do the day-to-day patching because we have a managed service. However, it does create interruption. When we do a patch, we have to reboot, especially when there's a kernel update. It causes an outage. I have used Red Hat Insights. It gives us insight into what's happening on every single Red Hat VM that we have. It tells us if it's behind or has some performance bottlenecks. It gives us visibility on the health of the whole OS.

People who are looking into the product must get a good account manager. We must have a good account manager who we can always contact and who gives us all the updates that we need. They keep us in the loop on what is happening in the Red Hat world. We are satisfied with the product.

Overall, I rate the tool a ten out of ten.

We have Ansible deployed on our Red Hat Enterprise Linux servers. We use it to manage the security of our fleet of Ubuntu virtual machines.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is way ahead of Ubuntu in terms of security and compliance. It is mainly the ecosystem of data science tools that our developers want that pushes us in that direction. As a security engineer, I have a lot more peace at night knowing that my Red Hat servers are doing a good job keeping our Ansible infrastructure safe because that has fingers into everything we do. It is pretty critical.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has not affected our system's uptime in any particularly noticeable way.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has not enabled us to achieve security standards certification because we do not have any yet. We will have them hopefully in the future.

There are some nice integrations with scanning for vulnerabilities. That is the feature I have enjoyed the most because I am a security person, and that is my bread and butter.

Ansible has certainly been a game-changer. It is a lot easier to keep a whole bunch of virtual machines consistent with each other and make a change consistently across all of them. We use them for data science activities. Our data scientists are constantly trying out new packages and downloading new tools. We have to enable them to have root access on their machines but also need to ensure that they are not doing anything stupid at the same time. There are competitors to Ansible, but we are a big Python shop, so it is a very comfortable environment for us.

The only issue we have had with it is around the SELinux configuration because the way Ansible installs, it sticks the platform passwords in a flat file. We want that locked down more strongly than what is there currently with SELinux. 

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

I would rate their support an eight out of ten.

Positive

Primarily, we have used Ubuntu. We have had some of our use cases on CentOS, and then, of course, our workstations are all Windows, but I wish they were not.

We chose Ansible, and that chose Red Hat Enterprise Linux for us.

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux in the cloud. We have Azure because it is the corporate standard. We do not have any concerns about using Red Hat Enterprise Linux in the cloud. Obviously, everything in the cloud is more exposed than everything on-prem, but it has got good, sensible, and secure defaults built in, so there are no concerns there.

In terms of Red Hat Enterprise Linux upgrades, when we upgraded Ansible this fall, that pushed us from Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 to Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8. It should be a little easier from now on. Now that we have made the big jump from the older Ansible to AAP, we will probably be upgrading the systems on a quarterly basis.

We probably have not yet seen an ROI. We purchased it a couple of years ago, but we have not had the time to put it to as much use as we wanted to put it to. The cost is low, so it would not take very long to reach a return on investment.

We have not made use of the Committed Spend.

For its use case, I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux a ten out of ten.

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux due to its robust security features, which are essential for securing e-commerce transactions and monitoring our Linux servers. Additionally, its flexibility allows for deployment across a range of devices, including HPE and Dell.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux offers robust provisioning and patching management capabilities, ensuring efficient system administration and security.

I am delighted with Red Hat Insights and recommend this feature to others.

Since using Red Hat Enterprise Linux, I have found it to be very secure.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has reduced our downtime by about 60 percent.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux aids in achieving security standard certifications by providing a secure foundation and tools for compliance with various security frameworks.

The most valuable aspects of Red Hat Enterprise Linux are its flexibility and security. It allows us to manage servers independently and ensures security for any device used.

The system roles feature is good.

While Red Hat Enterprise Linux offers robust security features, continuous improvement is crucial to ensure a secure environment and prevent potential losses.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for about six years.

I rate the stability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux as seven point five because sometimes it takes time to reach support for assistance.

I rate the scalability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux as eight. It is satisfactory in terms of scalability.

The response time could be improved as sometimes it takes too long to reach out to them.

Positive

The complexity of deployment can vary based on familiarity with Red Hat Enterprise Linux. I found it to be complex.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux can be expensive, but its cost is not a deterrent for many organizations willing to invest in its stability, security, and support ecosystem.

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

We have 80 percent of our environment using Red Hat Enterprise Linux. A team of around 40 uses Red Hat Enterprise Linux to manage over 3,000 servers in a big environment.

We perform weekly maintenance on Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

We do updates, upgrades, and migrations on our Red Hat Enterprise Linux servers.

Based on my experience, I recommend Red Hat Enterprise Linux, particularly to those seeking a highly secure operating system.