Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Reviews

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) to run applications and databases related to the European Parliament's business. For example, we use SAP for financial operations. It's not my domain, but I know the leadership plans to implement AI workloads. We translate every document into 27 languages manually, but we plan to use AI and machine language translation. 

Using a Red Hat Enterprise Linux Cluster in the SAP environments gives us high availability and disaster recovery, so our data is safe. I think it's a geo-cluster for the whole SAP environment. Whenever something happens, it almost automatically shifts to the other.

The support for OpenShift and CoreOS is valuable, as we frequently use support services and rely heavily on Red Hat support for assistance.

When we started using Red Hat Enterprise Linux, it was a struggle to install CoreOS because we were used to using a Satellite server with Red Hat. The people in charge of setting up OpenShift and installing Red Hat Enterprise Linux on the nodes had a hard time. I don't know why, but I think it was because the OpenShift cluster included VMs and bare metal machines.

I joined the European Parliament in 2012, and we have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for 12 years. 

We do not have any issues with its performance. The system functions well.

Scaling the operating system is transparent. We work with VMware, so whenever there is a need for more RAM and memory, the process is seamless to the customer.

I rate Red Hat support eight out of 10. Customer service and support are excellent. Support is available depending on the priority and the support package. I am happy with the service. However, navigating through documentation can be challenging.

Positive

We started with Mini Solaris and gradually migrated to Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

Initially, setting up OpenShift and the installation was somewhat complicated, especially when dealing with bare metal machines.

As a nonprofit business, we do not focus on return on investment in monetary terms. However, a big community makes it easy to gather opinions and help from outside sources, which is a return on investment.

We compared Red Hat Enterprise Linux and SUSE. While SUSE is generally the preferred Linux distro for SAP, we chose Red Hat Enterprise Linux because we had more in-house knowledge of the platform and better support. 

I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux eight out of 10. I used to be an AIX system admin, and I still prefer that operating system. I would recommend considering Red Hat's benefits, such as support. I used to work in IBM support, and Red Hat has a significant advantage in this realm. Also, many corporations merge firms and combine workforces, and RHEL can adapt to these changes. 

Most of our tech applications are based on Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

We chose Red Hat Enterprise Linux for most of our workloads and applications because it is an enterprise-grade operating system with regular security patches, reliable support, and a guarantee against hacking. Using a different OS would leave us vulnerable to security risks and complicate upgrades.

Currently, 70 percent of our Red Hat Enterprise Linux environment is deployed on-premises, while the remaining 30 percent resides in the cloud.

We utilize Ansible to automate the deployment of numerous Red Hat Enterprise Linux modules. This centralized approach, managed by a single Ansible engine, streamlines our development process.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux performs well for our business critical applications.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux's built-in security features satisfy our security requirements.

Red Hat mitigates risk by rapidly releasing patches for identified vulnerabilities, which is crucial for mission-critical applications.

It offers stability that enhances business continuity, simplifying upgrades, even for minor releases. Its compatibility with OpenSCAP, which provides profiles for various compliance benchmarks, streamlines compliance testing.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux provides regular security patches and proper support, allowing me to focus more on application management than worrying about the operating system.

It helped us avoid emergencies caused by security issues. The CVE reporting and knowledge base are valuable resources.

Red Hat Insights provides the tools for proactive environment management by identifying potential vulnerabilities, such as CVEs before they become a problem. This allows for advanced knowledge of system vulnerabilities and provides specific remediation guidance, which is more efficient than relying on regular scans.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has helped reduce our total cost of ownership.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is an enterprise-grade solution where we receive regular security patches and proper support.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux was not used for containerization due to its mutable nature, unlike CoreOS, a lightweight and immutable Red Hat Enterprise Linux variant designed explicitly for containerization and optimized for running authorization.

I am testing AI workloads, and I'm not sure if Red Hat Enterprise Linux is fully equipped. It might not accommodate AI workloads as effectively as needed.

Some Red Hat applications, such as Ansible for automation, are considerably more expensive than the average open-source solution.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for 16 years.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is stable, and I have not encountered issues compared to other applications.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is scalable.

Red Hat's stability has meant I haven't needed their support for years, but when I did contact them previously, their response was quite fast. While their support for OpenShift is acceptable, I do have some concerns about it.

Positive

A stable OS allows me to focus more on applications, lowering the cost of managing the infrastructure.

Red Hat is stable, and we always opt for the lower-tier subscription, which is affordable. It doesn't have unexpected issues that require a premium subscription.

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

It is important to assess the risk and use case before choosing a third-party Linux OS. For mission-critical applications, Red Hat Enterprise Linux provides insights and rich features like the patching cycle.

We have a multitude of use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux within our organization. We have machines running this operating system, and in our landscape, we also have combined database services.

We are currently using it on-premises but have a roadmap towards a hybrid cloud solution. Because of the way our business operates, it is something that we utilize only on-prem currently.

They are a technology enabler for us. It is a part of one of the core functions in the organization, where the operating system supports running various services, not just on devices but also SQL-based services and applications. They are definitely a technology-enabling organization for us. 

We have the ability to manage all of our infrastructures in one area. The support is also there. We utilize it in our organization due to the fact that it is very good.

The regular updates and fixes from them for vulnerabilities help with risk reduction. To maintain compliance, we have a relationship with the vendor. They assist us in making sure that we have all our vulnerabilities covered. From a business continuity perspective, we make sure that we use the technology to its best capability.

Red Hat Insights provides vulnerability alerts and targeted guidance. It definitely minimizes your downtime. You have more proactive monitoring than reactive monitoring. A lot of the tools out there only give you the capability to handle something that has already happened. This is something that enables you to be more proactive and do your patch management for security vulnerabilities and so forth.

The high availability capability and the support functions we get from Red Hat Enterprise Linux are among the most valuable features. 

Also, Red Hat Insights is a key feature. You have a central view of all of the infrastructure in the organization. It is definitely something that other organizations need to invest in. It also streamlines things. You have the capability to have reporting, insights, and other things within one space.

One area for improvement could be moving towards a more agile DevOps way of working. Other technologies out there have enabled agile and DevOps practices, and this is something Red Hat Enterprise Linux could focus on. 

Our organization has been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for quite a few years. Following LCM, we always stay up to date with the current version.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is definitely stable.

It definitely has scalability from an up-and-side perspective.

Customer service and support are very good. We can always rely on them to assist when we run into issues. I would rate them a ten out of ten.

Positive

We have multiple operating systems in our landscape, but Red Hat is most likely the leader as an open-source solution. The choice of a solution comes down to fit for purpose. Red Hat Enterprise Linux fits our purpose.

The biggest return on investment is reliable support, as we can always rely on them to assist with any issues.

In terms of total cost of ownership, it is definitely something for which you have to work with the vendor and ensure that you have a cost-effective solution in place.

I work closely with the licensing department in determining licensing costs and requirements. Pricing is something that needs to be worked out with the vendor. The more you have, the less you pay. That is the model nowadays in IT, but it is very cost-effective. You get what you pay for.

When choosing a solution, it is crucial to ensure it is fit for purpose. There is a reason why you pay for support. At the end of the day, it comes down to the support that you get from the vendor.

We do not utilize the containerization part, but definitely, in the future, we will move to a hybrid way of working. Everyone is moving to more of a hybrid cloud solution these days rather than having it only in the cloud or on-prem. Red Hat Enterprise Linux supports working in a hybrid environment. It is definitely an enabler.

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

My company currently uses Red Hat Virtualization to host all our virtual machines, and then we install Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for almost everything we do. My company only has 30 or 40 Windows Servers, while we have over 2,000 Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) machines. In my company, we use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for everything from provisioning systems to Speedtest Servers to whatever we need in the company.

I would like to say Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is much more efficient than Windows, and my employees love the Linux command line. All in all, Linux is what my company has been using since the beginning, so it is imprinted in everyone working in the technology section of our organization.

All Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) features have been valuable.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is a Linux system, and in our company, we could probably use different Linux systems. My company mainly uses Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) because of the kind of security and the patching delivered, including the backporting of patches, instead of actually having to do version upgrades. The product's valuable features include stability and security.

In my company, the solution has helped centralize development in most parts.

The use of the product for containerization projects is an area that my company has been dealing with lately. In our company, we are installing a lot of OpenShift clusters now and moving that way, but if they run on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) or bare-bones or bare-metal OpenShift, the shift needs to be made.

In terms of the impact my company has experienced after making Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a part of our containerization projects, I would say that a different team is handling the development parts for our company. Our company would be happy if the products we use were Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) or OpenShift. My company is very interested in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), even if it will take many years for us to be completely over containers.

As per my assessment of the tool's built-in security features when it comes to areas like risk reduction, business continuity, and compliance, all of the aforementioned functionalities are the main reasons my company stayed with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). My company prefers Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) because of its stability, patch management, and other features that make us feel more secure.

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 my company has done a lot of automation, which helps us keep everything as flexible as we want. One of my team members told me that the product is super when it comes to everything related to automation. The tool allows you to be kind of flexible.

At the moment, I don't use Red Hat Insights even though we have looked at it in our company. In our company, we have put up Red Hat Insights, and we have it on the machines, but it's not that deep in use yet. I believe that Red Hat Insights will be more and more important since the security team wants to use it to get a better overview.

If I have to speak to a colleague who is looking at open-source cloud-based operating systems for Linux, I would say that everyone needs to make a choice when it is not something concerning our company since we are standardized with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) or Red Hat products in our company. My colleagues will have to use Red Hat products if they work in my company.

Speaking of whether the Red Hat portfolio has affected our total cost of ownership across our enterprise landscape, I would say that we have been using virtualization in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for many years, and it has been a very good and cost-effective tool for our company. The product may reach the end of the life phase soon, so we have to migrate to some other solution, though we know that the prices may go up whenever we do it. Up until now, the tool has been very good.

My company deploys Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) from Red Hat Satellite. Red Hat CloudForm is a self-service portal we use in our company but now it is an IBM product. I don't remember the name as it is long and boring. Red Hat CloudForm is a self-service portal that is connected to Red Hat Satellite to provision the machines.

My manager role is the reason why I am not that deep into the technical part anymore. In my company, the IT team is happy with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) since they don't have to use Windows.

Personally, I started using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) around ten years ago. In my company, I have been using the tool for twenty years.

It is a stable solution.

The solution scales up perfectly fine, especially since everything is automated since we have a very small team of 10 people in our company managing everything, including 2,000 servers.

The product's support team was good whenever my company needed support services. Our company also uses some professional services from time to time, especially since Red Hat has a deep knowledge of the tool. If our company faces a problem, we have a very good connection with the tool's team in Norway, and they always help us, even if it's time-critical. The tool's support team manages to get us the consultants our company needs. I rate the technical support a ten out of ten.

Positive

My company has been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) from the beginning.

When I started in the company almost ten years ago, deployment of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) was done with an ISO image, which you mount it up, and you put in the IP addresses and do a lot of manual things. It is a different story today since you just enter how many courses you want and how much disk you want, and the deployment is done in two minutes.

The solution is deployed on an on-premises model, and we don't have a lot in the cloud at the moment in our company. As an ISP, the services we deliver are kind of time-sensitive or latency-sensitive, so as long as we have a data center, it doesn't make that much sense to put stuff in the cloud just because it is the best.

In terms of the prices and license of the product, I feel the solution has been good so far, especially since it has been quite easy to understand compared to a lot of other tools. I have been working with IBM and other vendors, where I have seen how other tools might have a bit more difficult pricing or licensing models compared to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). In terms of pricing, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has been quite okay in general.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) was present ten years ago before I joined my current company, so I don't know if any other products were evaluated against it before my joining.

We have a few applications that we have started developing in the cloud now managed by a different team, but I don't think they use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) specifically.

I rate the tool a ten 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.

Internally, we use Red Hat Enterprise Linux for services and for applications that we run, especially Linux based-applications. We also have SAP solutions, which we sell to the customers as a total solution with Red Hat, SAP HANA, and also for our own cloud-based SAP HANA, which is under Red Hat's operating system.

Red Hat Insights is quite an interesting and valuable feature. Lately, we used the malware scan feature. The Cockpit feature and web interface were quite helpful. We have also begun with OpenSCAP, which used is to harden the operating system's security features.

The first area for improvement is documentation, and I consider it since I have been working in IT for more than twenty-five years. For twenty years, I have been working with open source, and I see that the documentation is lacking, so it needs to do more work on its documentation part. Most open source and upstreams from Red Hat products work from the open source solution and have better documentation than in the actual Red Hat products.

New products need better documentation. The websites also have a single sign-on to get you from one side to the other. As a partner, I had a problem finding out how I needed to connect and to which side of the solution. I consider myself an expert user of the internet and websites, but going from one side to the other, was quite problematic.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux on the cloud for four to five years at least. My company has a partnership with Red Hat, and so we have our own licensing for the product. We have customers whom we manage, and they purchased the licenses on the go from the cloud provider. We just sold them the managed services. But mostly through us, we should be selling the licenses.

It's a very stable product, and that is actually the reason we are forcing or pushing customers to go with Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

The solution is scalable.

I rate the support a seven out of ten. The support is knowledgeable but slow if we have to get answers.

Neutral

We use Red Hat Satellite for managed services for our customers. And, of course, we use a product of Red Hat Enterprise Linux for servers. We started with OpenShift in the lab at the beginning, but now I'm beginning to produce it for our own services. So, now I can offer these to the customers.

One of the discussions in my company at the beginning of this year was to see if we could test our services on-premises for the virtualization, specifically for the KVM virtualization. But since it was not approved, we'll have to see the next step.

I have worked with other open source distributors. I have worked with SCO-Linux and Unix, which is the base of Linux. I didn't personally make the decision to switch. The company decided to switch since we are partners, and we are focusing on putting in the best efforts in terms of the partnership and customers we have with Red Hat.

The solution is deployed on both on-premises and the cloud. We have customers on the cloud server platform where we run their network, and we manage through Satellite. We also have it on-premises.

I was involved in the deployment of the solution. We created some automation, so the setup phase is straightforward. We use templates for all of those, but to manage the templates, and what it will include, we use external tools to make it easier for the deployment automation.

Regarding deployment time, it can be done in seconds. It also depends on what application we are speaking about since for an OS or more difficult solution, like Red Hat Satellite, you need more time.

I have seen a return on investment, especially considering the time taken to resolve the problem where we bought some support from Red Hat.

Regarding the prices, the new changes are actually not bad as it works for enterprise solutions. But it could have some other options for super solutions for the students in colleges, and they could actually win more customers from that. Of course, we have the test licensing and all that for the partners, where it's very useful for us to be able to test more of the products. But to win more would be much easier for us also if they introduce special pricing for students, universities, governmental institutions and all that. Most probably there is a price for them, but we haven't got that information. Also, Red Hat sometimes goes directly and not through the partner, but I'm not an expert.

I wasn't the one to make a choice, but I think my company evaluated other options, and it was their choice to go with Red Hat.

My company is a private cloud company. Mostly, we have our own private services, providing private cloud services to the customers. But we also provide public clouds like Azure and some Amazon clouds.

Regarding resiliency, it is a good standardized OS with stability. But sometimes, it is a little slow in reaction to problems that might appear. For example, we had this big Java Log4j bug where their reaction was very slow compared to other distributions. Of course, they found the solution when they had it, but it was quite a slow reaction. In general, it's a very stable OS.

Regarding how easy or difficult it is for you to move workloads between the cloud and your data center using Red Hat Enterprise Linux, I don't have any solution for that. I have to migrate it manually right now.

Regarding the cost-saving capability of the solution, I would say that it is possible to save on costs because of the automation we use through Red Hat Satellite for maintenance and how we have managed automation, time to spend on the service, maintenance, test, problems, etc. So, you can say that it's been a cost-saving procedure.

I rate the overall product a seven and a half 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're using it to support security applications. We also use it for various infrastructure aspects, such as hosting Satellite or Ansible Automation or Confluence. We have a mix of different apps running on it.

Our improvement as an organization, from using RHEL, has been the ability to take the stance of an infrastructure-as-code approach. We've seen that with automation of server deployment, getting them spun up a lot faster. Traditionally, the environment was using Satellite and Kickstart. Regardless of whether we were bare metal or virtual, it could take a couple of hours to Kickstart a server. Moving to infrastructure-as-code and deploying a server takes about 10 minutes until it's ready to use. It's a lot faster.

In addition to Satellite, we're using Ansible Tower. Those are the only ones we're paying for. We use other products, like Red Hat IDM for identity management but that's part of RHEL. When it comes to the integration between these products and RHEL, we're able to use Satellite for our dynamic inventory, with Ansible to help deploy new servers or manage servers, and we use Ansible Tower to patch our servers. Everything works pretty well.

That integration has helped to improve things compared to how they were when I got here. For example, we have a more automated process for patching. As we develop it and work through issues, we hope it will be more of a pipeline and a lot easier and faster, compared to how it was done before. Similarly for building servers, now that we're able to use Satellite as our dynamic inventory, we're able to run Ansible, whether it's predefined playbooks or ad hoc, without having to do something manually or maintain an inventory file.

We also use the AppStream feature in some cases. We have a couple of applications that require different versions, and we're able to install it and it makes the requirements for those specific applications.

The most valuable features are

• stability
• supportability.

Those have been the two common and important features over the years. They're pretty equal. You want to have something that's up and running and stable, something that's not going to crash. But if we do have an issue, we can get somebody for technical support who can help us work through the problems.

As for the consistency of application and user experience, we spin it up and almost forget about it. It just does what it's supposed to do, regardless of the underlying infrastructure. It's all good and there are no issues as far as supporting applications or things crashing go. Because it's doing what it's supposed to do, it's not a source of concern.

And similarly, there are no issues when it comes to deploying current applications and emerging workloads across bare metal, virtualized, hybrid cloud, and multi-cloud environments. We just have to take note of whatever the requirements are for the application we're deploying, to make sure requirements are met, and then build a server based on those requirements.

In this environment, I'm not doing any cloud work, but in my last environment we did do a bunch of public and private cloud and we had no issues there. It worked fine and as expected in AWS and OpenStack. We were doing infrastructure-as-code in that environment as well. We would create an image-base, whether for AWS or OpenStack, and then we would automate the deployment again, using Terraform and Ansible for configuration. It made deployment of cloud-based workloads relatively quick.

My biggest issue right now is Red Hat Consulting and trying to use some of their services to help get us going. Technically, they're good, but we seem to have issues with scheduling.

Also, we initially deployed it with Red Hat Satellite. We're now moving more to automation using Terraform within VMware, to automate the clone and then follow up with Ansible to configure. Red Hat's standard deployment is with Satellite and Kickstart, but we're looking at other options to help speed it along. We do have a mix of bare metal and virtualized servers and it's easier to spin up in the virtualized world versus bare metal. That's why we're looking at some options outside of Red Hat, for the bare metal. We'd like something that we can use to build a server a lot faster, as well as address network latency issues.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) since version 4 or even before that, since 2000 or 2001, before it was RHEL.

In the environment I'm in right now, we've never had any issues. It's very stable. 

In another environment that I worked in, we had some Oracle Databases, but that wasn't really an issue with the operating system. It was more an issue with some configuration items between the database and the OS. And that was about four years ago.

In the last company I worked for we were deploying a PasS environment, where we were doing some stuff with containers, and RHEL worked well. In my current environment, it's more of an application base but, again, it seems to scale. Both have worked fine.

Red Hat's tech support has been pretty good. I'll open up a ticket to see if I can get information from Red Hat when I don't have the time to find it on my own. But 99 percent of the time we get great support and we're able to get the answers that we need.

Positive

The pricing is fair. We do a bunch of dev work and there is some free dev licensing out there that's great for doing proof of concept work. When that was brought out a couple of years ago we heard about it, but it didn't seem to have been communicated to our Red Hat representative. We would ask him about it and it seemed that they were confused. 

But the cost has been pretty stable over the years for what you get.

We figure out what we need for servers, make our purchase, and then manage it all in Satellite. We just make sure we're using what we pay for.

In the past, I've used other versions of Unix, such as Solaris and HP-UX, as far as paid versions go. In other environments we also used community versions, like CentOS and Oracle Linux. 

Oracle Linux would probably be the closest thing to a paid solution, although I think it's free. But using Oracle Linux wasn't a good experience. Dealing with Oracle support was not the best. Maybe it has improved, but it just wasn't the same as Red Hat support.

Times have changed from when I first started using it. Back then it was just a matter of putting a CD in and installing it. One of the companies I worked for did a lot of homegrown stuff and I used their tools that were like Kickstart. Now it is all automation with infrastructure-as-code. The complexity of deployment is about the same. Some of what we're doing to deploy stuff is outside of Red Hat and it's a matter of finding what tools are available.

We're in the process of deploying something right now where we have different versions of Python. That's the only use case we have with multiple versions on the same server. I don't expect any issues, but it's still early in that deployment.

We have three people dedicated to maintaining the infrastructure environment that we work in. That includes managing Linux servers, the applications that go with them, and dealing with day-to-day tasks like patching. It's the typical life cycle maintenance functions: break/fix, dealing with hardware issues, deploying new applications, and maintaining a VMware environment.

The reason we're using it is because it's stable and we know we can get support. I know there are other versions of Linux, ones that I've used, but I've never experienced the kind of support with those versions that Red Hat has provided. Red Hat is a stable Linux solution provider.