My main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) include everything from file servers to system endpoints, user endpoint devices, system machines, development boxes, and automation with Ansible. The range of applications is quite broad. My primary use case is patching for identified CVEs or risks that need to be mitigated.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps me solve pain points at my company by making it easier to install across a broader range of platforms, whether on-premises or in the cloud. Its customizability is a key advantage, allowing us to tailor it for many different scenarios, making those probably the two main benefits.

The features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that I appreciate most include its customizability and how easy it is to harden from my point of view. It is easier to harden and secure from a customization perspective, and I also find that support is good.

To navigate my security risks, most of it relies on Satellite support for installing packages. I am here to look at some of the other options and security options available.

Satellite helps my company by enabling us to keep updated with patches, allowing us to push updates from various locations in a timely manner to mitigate any CVEs that come out.

From an end-user point of view, I have two recommendations for how Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) can be improved: adding more user-friendliness, particularly for desktop or laptop environments, and incorporating features from Fedora that enable mapping services such as OneDrive. Additionally, from a server-side perspective, having more security tools similar to Hummingbird would be useful to aid in hardening and meeting security requirements.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) since 1999.

Regarding the stability and reliability of the platform, I have not experienced any major downtime, crashes, or performance issues, though occasionally issues occur, usually related to hard drive failure or improper kernel modules. That is one of the key reasons we have always remained with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), as its stability is vital.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped mitigate downtime and lower risks through its uptime, which has been very good from my experience, especially in system engineering roles I have held previously, where we relied on it for mail servers and web servers due to its rock-solid uptime.

I have no complaints regarding scalability, as Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales very well. It works great for lightweight distributions or when scaling across many servers, whether on physical systems, in a box, or in the cloud.

The customer service and technical support of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has always been good, with a solid relationship with Red Hat, including on-site employees who provide support.

Prior to adopting Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) at my company, we were not using another solution to address similar needs, as we have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for a very long time.

The deployment process of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is straightforward. While I am not too involved in that process these days, in the past you would boot up a kickstart file, put it on a USB drive, and install it or spin up a virtual machine in the cloud, making it easy.

As a Satellite user, I would say it has also helped mitigate downtime and risks by allowing us to quickly patch and configure systems and make changes rapidly.

From my point of view, the biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is performance, as you can run it with low resource consumption, which means low impact on hardware and easier specification to hardware requirements. This ultimately saves on resource usage and helps in the long run, as Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is adaptable to various installation scales.

I honestly have no knowledge about the pricing, setup cost, and licensing for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), as someone else handles that for me. I have not heard complaints, so it must not be too bad.

I have not really considered switching to another solution, as we have a diverse environment with Microsoft systems and other Unix systems, but I do not see any appetite for switching away from Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) plays a big role in my company's implementation of the zero-trust model, as zero trust is a significant part of our security hardening strategy. There is a big executive order from a couple of years ago about it, and Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps us meet those STIG and hardening requirements and track identity management for what services have access.

I do use Satellite to help manage and maintain my hybrid cloud environment.

The infrastructure team might use Red Hat Lightspeed, but if we do, I am not currently aware of it.

I have not personally done any AI workloads with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), but I know other teams that have.

I have not tried either Red Hat Enterprise Linux Image Builder or system roles, but that was another thing I wanted to look at, especially since Image Builder is new to me.

I have not personally done a major version upgrade with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and Ansible Automation Platform, but I know our infrastructure team has done many, especially going from Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 to Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9, and pushing out major patches and software upgrades. I have heard no complaints about it.

Managing regulatory compliance is part of my process, and Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) plays a key role in our compliance and auditing workflows, as it meets compliance requirements for the Risk Management Framework and NIST guidelines. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has to meet those standards during hardening, patching, and monitoring, making it a big part of our processes for ATOs.

I find the knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) to be very good, as I can usually find whatever I am looking for if I have a question.

There is not much else I want to add about my experience using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), but I appreciate the long-term support feature, as it allows me to maintain systems that cannot be upgraded for a long time, ensuring they can be patched and maintained, which is a significant advantage.

To other companies considering Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I would advise evaluating it and giving it a shot, as there is a reason Red Hat became the first billion-dollar open source company. It works well and typically meets your needs. My overall rating for this product is 9 out of 10.

I am currently working on dialing up telecom services that are due to telecommunication needs in Sri Lanka. We are using this for mother data center activities, not only as a solution but for multiple purposes. I am currently handling the data engineering team.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), we are testing. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) ten point one is also there in beta. In that manner, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) does a couple of things. We are the partner of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in our dialogue at the digital lab.

At the moment, we are using ten. Because we use it most of the time for the test bed, which is the development bed, ten is at the moment our version.

The main thing as a cloud-based solution is valuable. Beyond that, it is an on-premises solution. We are also using a stable established version called nine point two from Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). We are supposed to move to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as well.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is paid. When it comes to the total Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) management, they are using project insight for part of the services. We will take that Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Insight.

That is really helpful. It is a kind of dashboard, not only a dashboard. We can get decision-making capabilities going forward when it comes to security.

OpenShift gives a good solution for us on the Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) end. The session, not only the station, has the CI/CD pipeline and operators connecting. That is a really good improvement on the Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) side.

Sometimes we are lagging in the Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) part because we have to deploy in non-straightforward environments. Some environments have third party deployments where party enhancement happened.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is lagging in these scenarios. The main problem we are facing is the cost factor. Because it comes to long and short terms, stakeholders do not want to move to a good business solution because of the cost factor. That is still where we are lagging.

I have been using this solution for more than industrial use, more than fifteen years, almost twenty.

I think that now, as of just now, there is no downside. It is not crashing, basically. The application is rebooting every time because of some kind of bug.

You have to master the tips and then come to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). The knowledge base is actually lagging because most of the people do not want to work with the backend coding and Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). We are commanded to use it to upgrade anything.

Because of that knowledge gap and Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in Manam, but people are not using much more. Even administrators are not using proper principles and guidelines to do so.

When I was in the consumer space, I realized console R is also more toward Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) kernel. Exadata and now Oracle are all moving to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) because of the kernel quality.

It will help a lot. When it comes to big data development, we have twenty servers to deploy with all kinds of packages and modules. Then it will easily deploy using the Ansible playbook to write the code and everything. So it is easier to deploy, actually.

It is an integrator, basically. It is cloud and cloud enablement because I had experiences when we were going to do that Cloudera migration.

That is really helpful now when it comes to the integration point of view. That is Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) too, I believe.

Then we are going to do some implementation. They are aligned with the Dell partners. Those kinds of matters come up because of the cost. This comparison comes to the picture.

When it comes to the backup solution, we are using tune the profile to utilize the backup solution. When we are using performance stack, we have tuned the performance stack to do a couple of testing in production as well. That is the main thing we are basically using most of the time.

Our engineers are supposed to do that base. Now they are implementing that base. I carry it forward to the next level, which is the business solution. When we are seeing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Insight, we can take the next action as much as the next action method allows. For instance, when we say we want to patch the environment, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) we are testing. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) ten point one is also there in beta. In that manner, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) does a couple of things. We are the partner of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in our dialogue at the digital lab.

Next year, I will recommend Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) because they have a lot of features and functions, especially for the enhancements. When it comes to security, now they have a lot of features. For instance, saving us is a really good enhancement way to achieve the environment. When it comes to the use of solution, that is really interesting.

I am using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for almost fifteen years now. I really understand what Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) did then and what kind of solutions they provide. Accordingly, I am aligned and most of the time when I say I am going to do some kind of upgrade, I definitely use that release and knowledge, principle, and guidelines. Otherwise, we cannot do it. I have given this review a rating of ten out of ten.

I am currently working with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as I administer a lot of Kubernetes clusters installed on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

For Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I use it as an operating system for our platform which powers all our company's software, mostly for Kubernetes or for IBM BPM or IBM PEL.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is a robust operating system, and I believe it is much better than Windows. I work with Windows and Ubuntu, but Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the best distribution I have worked with.

The knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is excellent. Red Hat documentation is the most valuable documentation in the market.

For Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I think the most time-saving aspects come from Red Hat Ansible because we use Ansible to automate many tasks and repetitive tasks on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and Windows. Ansible automation and the Ansible automation platform are the most valuable products that save us time and money.

Overall, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps me save time through automation using Ansible. For OpenShift, the core of containers saves time by automating the DevOps processes using the Red Hat pipeline built into OpenShift, Tekton, and source-to-image build. All of this saves us time.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps to mitigate downtime and lower risks for me, as most of my work is with OpenShift which enables us to do a zero downtime deployment. The deployment is done without any downtime. Red Hat OpenShift is a stable system. Red Hat OpenShift and Linux are very stable and the downtimes are very minimal.

I think Red Hat needs to implement more AI features in the operating system or Red Hat OpenShift.

I have been working with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for about 14 years.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is very stable. The product is very stable and very mature. All issues are documented in documentation or in the support portal and support knowledge base. When I have an issue, I primarily search the knowledge base and the support portal and find the solution. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is a very secure operating system, and they provide security patching every month.

I find Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scalable.

We have many cases where Red Hat helped us with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) or OpenShift, and their support is great. On a scale of one to ten, where ten is the best, I would rate the tech support a nine.

Most enterprises work on Linux, and as I am a DevOps and platform engineer, most of our systems run Linux, including Kubernetes, OpenShift, and the DevOps pipeline, all working on Linux. This is why I switched to Linux.

For Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), the setup is very straightforward. OpenShift is a little complex, but once you do it once, you will master it.

I performed the deployment all by myself.

When it comes to our business value, most of our customers are enterprise-grade customers from banking and government sectors, and they prefer to use an enterprise-grade operating system, not Ubuntu or CentOS. Additionally, in many cases, we need enterprise support from Red Hat as Ubuntu does not provide this.

I use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), and we have a couple of customers using OpenShift, the Kubernetes platform based on Red Hat, and also Red Hat Virtualization. My first contact with the Linux platform was with Red Hat.

The best features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are its stability and the RPM, Red Hat Package Manager, which is perfect. They also deliver Satellite, a platform for updates. It is a very robust, excellent platform.

For me, and for every Linux distribution, the most important security feature in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is SELinux. Security is often misunderstood by others. SELinux is very important because it provides security for the kernel. Many people disable SELinux, but it is the most important and most misunderstood feature. People do not understand it. The updates and SELinux are very important to me. SELinux is very good, but it is complex, and I have seen many administrators disable it because instead of helping them, it causes trouble. For example, securing my NGINX configuration is a pain. It is a very good security option, but I would say it is excellent only if one is an expert.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) documentation is very good and very complete. Regardless of my opinion about the IBM acquisition, the documentation is excellent.

IBM committed two major mistakes with Red Hat. The first was destroying the CentOS project, which was a fork of Red Hat. The second was limiting the use of free options and restricting hardware to support Red Hat on just some limited hardware. One can use the system for free, but the statement is not entirely true because it is limited to a couple of virtual processors and I do not remember if it was 24 or 16 GB of RAM. If one goes beyond that configuration, one has to pay, and IBM is IBM. Many companies were in trouble because from one day to the next, IBM said they would no longer support CentOS and told them to move to another distribution. People had to migrate, and for that reason, there are Rocky Linux, AlmaLinux, and other Linux distributions that are trying to rise and taking advantage of that situation. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is just for corporate companies with money to waste on licensing.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is very expensive. In the case of our customers, the couple of customers with OpenShift, they have enough money to license Red Hat. They bundle Red Hat with virtualization and OpenShift packages. However, it is not suitable for an SMB company. It is not payable or affordable. For me, it is very expensive.

I use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a lot, though I do not remember the exact frequency.

I have worked with Red Hat support, and it is very good because they have very good engineers. In Latin America, during my time, the support in Spanish was mostly provided by engineers from Argentina. In Colombia, I have worked with a couple of engineers from Colombia, and they were very good. I have not worked with support in English for Red Hat, only in Spanish with those engineers.

My first Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) certification, Red Hat Certified Engineer, was for version 6, which was approximately 12 to 15 years ago.

I have tried Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Image Builder and System Roles, and it is pretty good.

I would rate the support at an eight out of ten. My overall rating for this product is ten out of ten.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is used primarily to build AWS servers. A specific example of how RHEL is used to build AWS servers involves purchasing licenses from third-party vendors like REL and also from AWS. Once an AMI is obtained from the Marketplace, the AMI is customized by injecting all organization standards.

After internal tools have been built on the AMI, that AMI is used to build AWS servers.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has positively impacted the organization by helping track everything, such as how many users have access to the server, which is easy to monitor. RHEL also offers better options for downloading repositories easily, and the ability to stripe the EBS volumes has allowed for pulling more IOPS and throughput.

The impact on the team and organization has been significant, as it has helped improve application performance and backup performance. Since AWS backend is used for backups, RHEL striping has proven very useful.

By using RHEL striping, throughput and IOPS have increased, which reduced the backup completion time from fifteen to sixteen hours to just fifteen to sixteen minutes. The main reason is the backend and the striping implemented for EC2 instances.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) offers several valuable features, including being secure and standard, and making whatever commands are executed easier to manage. When security and standardization are considered, no other person can access those RHEL servers.

Another good aspect is that whatever is downloaded comes from the repository, and every command is tracked, including the person who entered the command. Tracking on RHEL AMIs and OS standardization is very effective.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps mitigate downtime and lower risks by using the Pacemaker role for high availability. The primary and secondary systems are managed by the Pacemaker role, which helps reduce downtime for applications.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) could be improved by including a better app stream module experience or simply phasing out modules in favor of straightforward version repos. Red Hat could also integrate more common tools directly or integrate EPEL more seamlessly. Additionally, enabling AI-based operational tuning for kernel parameters, file system parameters, and network stack optimization could enhance the experience.

Regarding needed improvements, simplifying the subscription and licensing would help reduce complexity in subscription management. Clear visibility of consumption and unused subscriptions and compliance is also important.

Seven years of experience have been accumulated in the current field.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is stable.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) offers great scalability and supports very large memory.

The customer support received is good.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has been the only solution used, and no switch from any other solution has occurred.

In comparing the business value of RHEL to other Linux distributions, no other Linux distributions have been used; only Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has been utilized.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems are managed with a dedicated cloud support team that handles provisioning and monthly patching. Additionally, focus is placed on security hardening and optimizing it with cloud-init, instance tuning, and subscription activation.

Image Builder has been used, but the AMIs are not built personally. A dedicated support team handles the building of the AMIs.

A return on investment has been seen, as it has saved a tremendous amount of time.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps save time; for example, the Pacemaker role facilitates faster task completion, and it optimizes backup processes.

Regarding pricing, setup cost, and licensing, the pricing is good; however, licensing is a bit confusing.

My advice for others looking into using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is to be aware that subscriptions can be challenging to manage. When a server reboots, the subscription goes to open, which can lead to others consuming the subscription, creating a challenge regarding the subscription and licensing part.

Security requirements were a significant consideration in choosing RHEL in the cloud because it is not open source and is highly secure.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is assessed as having a better knowledge base offered through its tuning capabilities. By better tuning, the documentation is referred to, which helps in day-to-day work.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) entitlement management can be confusing, as converting systems between subscription modes is not straightforward.

I would rate this review a nine out of ten.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) basically runs the bank's apps as my main use case.

I like the feature Satellite the most because it has services to manage my multiple Linux servers.

Satellite has no parallel in the Linux distro world, especially for an enterprise, enabling me to manage my servers, patch them, create content, get them binaries, updated security updates, and all that. It makes it easier for admins and reduces the need for a lot of manpower, especially with Ansible that enables me to do configuration management of 20,000 Linux servers.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales with the growing needs of my organization very well as we are expanding ourselves.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped mitigate downtime and lower risk because the servers can run for more than 300 days of uptime. I do have to reboot them for patching, but otherwise, they are a very stable operating system that doesn't crash for no reason. If I experience kernel panics, it often involves EDRs or agents such as CrowdStrike, but otherwise, it's very stable with proactive features. We had issues with CrowdStrike; they identified the issue with their kernel drivers that used to crash my OS and provided a patch to address it, so they take care of us.

The implementation had challenges like whenever we bring out new products, there's always one issue: Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)'s documentation is not complete. I have to really have an enterprise account because I get access to their support, which sorts me out since every environment is unique. It's not a cookie cutter; I would deploy RHEL 8 in a way different compared to a retail store. So when it gets to those niche deployments, they don't have anything documented. I really have to get hold of the support, saying, "Hey, I'm trying to do this. It's not working," and then they will give me a solution, but I would expect that a document would have solved that issue without raising a ticket. That's my only complaint.

The area for improvement in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is documentation. I don't have any other suggestions. I think it's just the documentation that needs improvement. Otherwise, technically, I don't have anything to suggest.

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

I have experienced downtime or security incidents as a result of the solution when proper practices are not followed, especially if I am using any third-party security. You have to manage kernel options; otherwise, the base OS itself is very stable.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales with the growing needs of my organization very well as we are expanding ourselves.

I would evaluate customer service and technical support based on my experience. I felt naive about being a small enterprise versus a big enterprise, but the response time of tickets is consistent. I haven't seen a difference; I thought I would have a slower response being on a small account, but the speed of our calls is the same.

I considered other solutions before choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), but it was a default choice for us. I see that they have expanded; earlier, it was just a bare-metal OS and not an ecosystem, but now they are in OpenShift, providing Kubernetes and everything.

I wasn't using another solution to address my needs prior to adopting it.

The upgrade or migration is straightforward if I have applications that depend less on what the OS is, but in our case, it was not that simple. We had a business requirement, so we had to shut down the older one, provision a new one, and move everything.

I have seen ROI from using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in terms of uptime itself.

My experience with pricing, setup, and cost of the solution is that it's a service based on how many cores, not sockets.

My deployment model for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is on-premises, but I am just starting off with cloud.

For security requirements in the cloud, I don't do SELinux; I just depend on my ACLs because my servers are not internet-facing. We trust Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) with the binaries, with nothing on the base OS such as firewalls or SELinux.

I use AWS and Azure as my cloud providers.

I manage my Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems for security, updates, and patches with Red Hat Satellite, which makes it very easy.

I have been involved in upgrades from RHEL 6 to 7 and from 7 to 8.

My assessment of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)'s FIPS and security compliance features is that it's the best in the industry. They have FIPS, which I think is more for federal clients, and although I haven't used it, I know they offer it by default on their Linux.

My upgrade and migration plans are to always try to stay on the current version all the time, unless there's a legacy application. Any apps I manage are always on the latest Red Hat release, and we keep migrating them as Red Hat provides the first-ever release out, which is a requirement for our Satellite to support the latest version.

The area for improvement in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is documentation.

I would assess the knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as paywalled, so if you don't pay for it, you wouldn't be able to access their system. The KB is pretty good, but you need to have a Red Hat account.

My advice to a company considering this solution is to go for it. It is supported by enterprise support from Red Hat, which I don't think any other enterprise can offer. While I know Canonical does it for Ubuntu, SUSE is another good option; however, the adoption is not there, and you don't have a lot of sysadmins. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is a bible due to the abundance of resources in the market. I would rate this solution a 10.

The main use case for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is to manage the database and the server.

The solution helps solve pain points for monitoring servers, for example, databases and servers.

The most valuable feature of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the security and also the performance for scheduling and tasking for the memory.

These features benefit the organization because we have hundreds of servers, databases, and many files, and we have the ability to use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

I am interested in migrating to the cloud platform, so we are trying to implement that in the organization.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for five to seven years.

I have not experienced any downtime, crashes, or performance issues with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales well to meet the growing organizational needs.

We are looking for containerization for scalability, and it is easy to scale out and scale in.

We have expanded usage and tried manually to increase the number of servers, and we see the disk increasing exponentially, which is why we are looking for scaling.

I would evaluate customer service and technical support as quite good, since I technically get 24/7 support if I encounter issues from updates or new features.

I would assess the level of support from Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) team as very informative; we learn a lot from the documentation from the Red Hat support team.

Before selecting Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I considered the availability of resources and security, as we have files and a lot of data with not enough time to handle that from the internet, and distribution is mostly for security.

The experience deploying Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) was easy, as we use different methods, such as installing or using some source files by using some servers to deploy.

The most common challenges faced with the deployment are mostly enterprise related, such as resource compatibility and making automation instead of active compatibility.

The opinion on pricing and its cost-effectiveness for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is that it is quite good for production on-premises.

The advice I would give to other organizations is that they should mostly rely on the Linux operating system; it is quite reliable and easy to use, install, deploy, and manage, so I would advise them to use it.

I would rate this product a 10.

My main use cases include running our application in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) since all our applications are based on a Red Hat server. Everything we use is Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

As SecDevOps Lead, I drove the adoption of Red Hat’s Ansible Automation Platform, which transformed our deployment process. Previously, manual scripts led to inconsistencies and delays; now, we achieve consistent, error-free deployments in under 10 minutes. Weekly RHEL patching, integrated into our CI/CD pipeline, has strengthened our security posture—critical for meeting regulatory requirements. These improvements have directly supported our business goals of agility and reliability.

A key area for improvement is the ability to apply patches without requiring a full server reboot. This would minimize downtime for mission-critical applications. I’m actively evaluating Red Hat’s live kernel patching solutions and advocating for their adoption to further enhance our uptime and operational efficiency.

I've been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for almost seven years.

I assess the stability and reliability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as good since I didn't see much downtime with the servers or any random problems coming up with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). I would say it's good in terms of stability.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales well with the growing needs of my organization because whatever solutions we are trying, we are able to do in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). It's coming along well.

I evaluate customer service and technical support as something I'm not sure about because I didn't directly work with them.

I didn't consider any other solutions before Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), and I haven't used any other solution to address similar needs.

My experience with deploying Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is nice, but I didn't deploy anything from a Linux perspective. Overall, I think it's a nice experience that I have with Red Hat.

When it comes to managing my Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems for provisioning and patching, it has come up well over the years. Before, I think it took a lot of time to provision a server and patch it, including securing and hardening the server. Nowadays, it's very easy. I didn't work directly, but I have provisioned.

I feel that we've seen ROI since I'm not involved in purchasing, but I can feel that it's a good ROI.

My experience with pricing, including cost and licensing, is that I'm not sure.

I haven't expanded any usage of it, apart from using Ansible and Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

My assessment of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)'s built-in security features when it comes to simplifying risk reduction and maintaining compliance is that it's pretty good from what I've heard when I talk with the team, even though I'm not directly working on that.As for my upgrade and migration plans to stay current, we recently upgraded to Red Hat 8. If we want to do another Red Hat 10, it's good.Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped to mitigate downtime and lower risk as it allows provisioning servers very easily. In case the servers go down, it comes up very fast as well.I assess the knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as very good. Recently, I had a walkthrough of a trial, and it's pretty much simplified and whatever we need is there.My advice to other organizations considering Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is to just use it. It's easy. I gave this review a rating of 10.