CIS Hardened Image Level 1 on SUSE Linux Enterprise 15

I use it for the corporate SAP landscape.

It provides a stable and reliable OS. I recommended it based on its stability and functionality.

It has a stable and reliable OS. I recommended it based on its stability and functionality.

The functionality is good, but the licensing subscription model needs improvement. The license we subscribed to should carry over within the same instance family. Why are we required to re-subscribe when upgrading within the same family? Why are we effectively paying double fees during an upgrade?

I have been using the solution for three years.

We chose this solution because it was recommended by our managed service provider and it is known to be a good OS for SAP.

We are facing an issue with licensing usage. The subscription does not carry over within the same instance family, so upgrading an instance results in overlapping or double subscription fees.

We did not consider alternate solutions because it was highly recommended by the managed service vendor.

We are facing an issue with licensing usage. The subscription does not carry over within the same instance family, so upgrading an instance results in overlapping or double subscription fees.

I used SUSE Linux personally, not on an admin level or for advanced purposes, but for regular use. I would play around and experiment with different Linux distros, including SUSE Linux, Debian , and Fedora. I also attempted to use it for work purposes in a hospital setting, primarily to see if it could support applications like Teams and Outlook.

SUSE Linux had a clean user interface, which was a valuable feature for me. It allowed me to use the software manager differently compared to Ubuntu . Eventually, I was able to get essential applications like Teams and Outlook running on it. I primarily used it for personal desktop use, and it was solid for that.

The software management side was a bit difficult, especially compared to Ubuntu . The software manager was different, making it challenging to install certain applications. 

Additionally, I encountered issues when setting it up on newer model laptops, possibly due to hardware incompatibility, such as the solid-state drive.

I used SUSE Linux over a number of years as part of my exploration of various Linux distributions.

SUSE Linux was stable for me. I did not experience any problems with its stability.

SUSE Linux was scalable to my needs. I did not encounter any issues with scalability.

I did not reach out to customer service or tech support. I found the needed information easily on community forums and through online research.

Positive

I have used a variety of Linux distributions, including Debian , Fedora, and Ubuntu, but I did not use them specifically as a replacement for SUSE Linux.

The initial setup was straightforward. However, I encountered trouble when reclaiming space on the hard drive later on, which might have been an issue with the computer I used.

I used the open-source version, so there were no setup costs.

I evaluated other Linux distributions like Fedora and Ubuntu. Fedora's ISO is small, but I found the system itself to be annoying after a while.

I would not recommend SUSE Linux in environments where users are not tech-savvy, yet it is solid for workstations. SUSE Linux worked well on older model computers but not as effectively on newer models. 

Overall, I would rate SUSE Linux a solid nine out of ten for my purposes.

We are working with SUSE Enterprise Edition.

It is good for IT teams and business efficiency. For maintainability and all, it is good.

The most important feature is the automatic kernel lifecycle subscription, which is critical for us because the server cannot go down once we start offering any services on the cluster.

Sometimes it is a bit of work for developers to change the configurations. Some kernels will not fit with some packages, and this aspect could be improved. Furthermore, the system's rigidity when updating packages and services needs improvement. Additionally, there should be more loosely bound functionalities to improve developer experience.

We have been using SUSE Linux Enterprise  for more than five years.

SUSE Linux Enterprise  is good for IT and maintainability. However, it can be rigid, especially with kernel and package compatibility.

Some kernel versions do not fit well with certain packages, creating compatibility issues that affect scalability.

The technical support for IT and kernel-level OS issues is very good. However, it is less effective for development-level issues. The IT department handles technical support, and I cannot comment directly on its effectiveness.

Positive

We are considering alternatives for our new machine learning infrastructure and have worked with Ubuntu  in the past.

The pricing is slightly higher than expected, but it is manageable for our current project. For the upcoming projects, we are looking for cost-effective solutions.

We are considering Linux instead of SUSE and want to check some cost-effective measures, like Rocky Linux .

For developers, some flexibility and reducing dependency on specific kernel versions would be better.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.

I've been using SUSE Linux Enterprise for a petroleum company client. They run it as their primary server hosting environment, connected to NAS and various external applications and hardware. We integrate it with Spacewalk for management, which is known by different names on other distributions. 

I like how the tool handles kernel modules and upgrades - we rarely have issues after upgrades, unlike with other Linux distributions like Oracle Linux or Ubuntu. The kernel module management is excellent. Changes made in one version typically work the same in other versions too, which isn't always the case with other distributions. There's also lots of information and community support available if you run into any problems, both on the official website and in forums and user groups. I know many people who use it specifically, so it's easy to get independent support if needed. I've been working with the tool for a long time, since 2003, before they became SUSE Linux Enterprise. It's always been one of the most admin-friendly Linux versions. 

Depending on the underlying hardware, setting up and running services can sometimes be problematic. It's not always uniform—you can't necessarily move a service from one system to another and have it work seamlessly.

Additionally, error handling needs improvement. The system should be more transparent when there's an error, rather than just declaring a generic error. It would be helpful if it could provide more specific information about the problem on that particular system. As it stands, you can waste a lot of time trying to troubleshoot these vague errors. 

I have been using the product for six years. 

I rate the tool's stability a ten out of ten since we do the regular upgrade cycles. 

The solution is scalable, and I rate its scalability an eight out of ten. Our usage will triple in the coming 18 months. We're pushing our on-premises clients to adopt cloud modules. When they move to the cloud, they can centralize many international and local business systems into one point, which will increase users. We have diverse geographical setups, and moving to the cloud will bring all users onto one or two systems.

Right now, we might have 15 users in one place using one system, not always SUSE Linux Enterprise. We want to consolidate everything because it makes system administration easier. Currently, our technical resources need to know many different products, which is challenging since some of us are experts in certain areas but not others. It's difficult. We're trying to make things easier from an administrator's perspective. 

I've never had problems with SUSE Linux Enterprise's customer support. They're very responsive when we log cases with them. I usually get a response within 24 hours. I work with suppliers like Qualys and Acronis, but SUSE Linux Enterprise is generally the fastest to respond. Their support team is always willing to help, and the engineers are happy to share knowledge. This level of support is very impressive compared to other vendors I work with.

Positive

The initial setup of SUSE Linux Enterprise is very easy. Its GUI-based interface is self-explanatory. Someone with basic IT knowledge who pays attention could set up a system. For higher-end integration, more technical expertise is needed. An entry-level Linux administrator could set it up by receiving a basic document.

On a scale of one to ten, with ten being very easy setup, SUSE Linux Enterprise rates an eight.

Regarding deployment time, it's less than an hour, never more than an hour. However, this can depend on the hardware - if the hardware is slower, the installation and everything will go slower.

There is currently a mix of deployment options. It is deployed both on the cloud and on-premises.

SUSE Linux Enterprise is reasonably priced compared to other operating systems. I find it's a much better option for us than Oracle, for example, because of the pricing structure. The pricing is easier to explain to clients and makes it easier to get clients' commitment. The licensing is also simpler to manage and keep track of. Their responsiveness is great - they give feedback very quickly when we ask questions about licensing or other aspects. This helps ensure we're always at the gold standard regarding licensing and everything related to SUSE Linux Enterprise.

None of our current clients are looking at AI features. We mainly work with traditional clients using custom-built systems developed over the past 20-30 years, so there's limited room for improvement or AI integration. However, we may potentially be involved in an AI-related project in 2025, but that would involve a redesign and isn't confirmed yet. For now, we don't use AI for our client work.

I rate the overall solution a ten out of ten. 

We use the tool for specific application needs where it is developed on the Linux platform. Additionally, we use certain SFTP sites for banking transactions. Although Windows operating systems could also be suitable, we decided to continue with the Linux system for secure communication and file exchanges between the banks and our server. That is the main purpose.

The purpose is to manage interactions with multiple bank accounts for payment transactions. Payment can be made through various modes, such as UPI (Gpay or Paytm), internet banking, and online transactions. 

These transactions are received by the bank and then passed to us through a secured communication channel established between our systems and the banking gateway. The information is exchanged securely, and our accounts team takes the shared information from the bank to perform the necessary postings.

Some of the functionalities I like the most are the security features. This includes security restrictions on specific folders and secure communication for SFTP. These features are more secure and reliable. The tool also makes compliance possible. 

The solution is expensive. 

I have been using the product for 12-15 years. 

I rate SUSE Linux Enterprise's stability as ten out of ten. 

I rate the tool's scalability a nine out of ten. 

In the past, we found the support's response to be good. However, in the last year, we haven't needed to reach out to them much due to a lack of requirements. Overall, our experience with their technical support is good. 

Positive

SUSE Linux Enterprise's installation is easy and can be completed with the help of one engineer. The tool requires monitoring instead of maintenance. 

The tool is expensive compared to Red Hat. I rate its pricing a nine out of ten.