Our primary use case for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is hosting enterprise applications that rely heavily on databases and middleware technologies. 

The platform supports both application hosting and large-scale data collection, enabling us to manage and process significant volumes of data efficiently. RHEL provides the stability and reliability required for running these critical workloads in our environment.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has significantly improved our organization by providing a stable, secure, and standardized operating environment for our applications. 

Its reliability has reduced downtime and improved performance consistency across workloads. 

The strong security features and regular patching process have enhanced our compliance posture and reduced operational risk. 

In addition, the scalability of RHEL allows us to support growing data collection and application hosting needs without major infrastructure challenges. 

Overall, RHEL has helped streamline system management, improve efficiency, and provide a solid foundation for our critical business operations.

The most valuable features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for us are its robust security capabilities, stability, and enterprise-grade support. These features ensure that our production environment remains secure and reliable, which directly reduces operational risks. 

I have been involved in several Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) upgrades and migrations, both on-premises and in the cloud. In my experience, RHEL’s built-in security features greatly simplify risk reduction and compliance management. Our team works closely with the security group on daily scans and vulnerability reports, and RHEL enables us to address findings quickly by streamlining patching and updates. This process has proven reliable, allowing us to remediate vulnerabilities and apply fixes in a timely manner.

RHEL has also helped us mitigate downtime and reduce risks during system changes. While I personally prefer replacing production systems with thoroughly tested builds in lower environments rather than in-place upgrades, RHEL provides the flexibility and stability needed to support both approaches.

One of the key differences compared to other platforms is the reliance on command-line operations. While Windows environments tend to emphasize GUI-based management, RHEL encourages working directly in the CLI. This has been a positive shift for our team, as we continue to expand skills across both Linux commands and PowerShell.

RHEL consistently provides the stability, support, and knowledge base required to keep mission-critical systems running smoothly. With excellent vendor support and strong documentation, it fully meets our enterprise needs.

Additionally, RHEL has addressed key pain points related to security and usability, making it one of the strongest platforms from a service-level perspective. We have also recommended RHEL to clients, particularly in cases where migrations from CentOS are required, as it provides a trusted and stable foundation for critical workloads.

From a hands-on experience perspective, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) could be improved in terms of user experience and ease of adoption, especially for teams that are still building their knowledge of the platform. Enhanced usability tools, more intuitive configuration options, and improved documentation or guided workflows would help reduce the learning curve.

For future releases, additional features such as built-in automation templates, more advanced monitoring dashboards, and tighter integration with hybrid cloud environments would further increase productivity and make system management more efficient.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for approximately two years. Our adoption began with multiple environments, and it has since become the standard platform for our current operations.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is extremely stable and well-suited for production workloads. We have run hundreds of instances across a wide range of applications, and the operating system consistently delivers reliable performance with minimal downtime. Its predictable update and patching process, combined with strong vendor support, ensures that our critical systems remain secure and available. 

Overall, RHEL provides the stability we need to confidently support mission-critical operations.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales very effectively across both on-premises and cloud environments. We run hundreds of instances supporting diverse applications, and the platform has consistently handled growth without major performance issues. 

Its flexibility in supporting small workloads as well as large, mission-critical deployments makes it a reliable choice for enterprise scalability.

Our experience with Red Hat customer service and support has been excellent. Support teams are responsive, knowledgeable, and provide clear guidance for troubleshooting and resolving issues.

The initial setup of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) was moderately complex due to the need to configure multiple services, integrate with existing databases and middleware, and ensure security compliance from the start. However, the clear documentation, enterprise support, and guided best practices provided by Red Hat made the process manageable. 

Once the initial environment was established, ongoing configuration and scaling have been straightforward, allowing us to reliably deploy and manage production workloads.

The implementation of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) was carried out by our in-house team. Our staff handled the installation, configuration, and integration with existing systems, leveraging Red Hat’s documentation and support resources.

The ROI of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is reflected in reduced downtime, improved system security, and streamlined operations. By providing a stable, supported platform, RHEL minimizes operational risks and resource overhead while enabling faster deployments and easier maintenance.

The subscription model is cost-effective, as it provides enterprise licensing and also includes access to Red Hat support and training resources. This combination has improved our team’s knowledge of RHEL features and enabled us to adopt new capabilities with confidence.

I would confidently rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a ten out of ten for its reliability, security, and enterprise support.

My main use case for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is for all the tasks, which can be utility services or web services, DNS, NTP, or identity service as well as mail service in my day-to-day work.

The best features Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) offers are that it's a well-managed operating system, and I can use anything regarding the system and other features.

It is good for performance, reliability, and updates.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has positively impacted my organization because its improved security helped our team to maintain compliance issues, even though it's a bit complex.

It's acceptable to work with the current system and current initiation regarding how Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) could be improved; I don't have significant frustrations.

The GUI operation needs to be improved, especially for day-to-day desktop operations.

I'm working about 10 years in my current field.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is stable in my experience.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is a highly scalable solution, and it can handle growth and increased demand well.

The customer support for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is exceptional; I have interacted with their support team, and it's awesome.

I rate the customer support for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a 9 out of 10.

We used Oracle Linux before Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), but I prefer RHEL now.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) saved our money and is good, which indicates we've seen a return on investment.

We have evaluated Ubuntu before choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

I absolutely give others looking into using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) the advice to adopt RHEL for their other production systems. On a scale of 1-10, I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a 10.

I mainly use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as a financial application.

I appreciate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for its stable product and good support. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps me solve pain points through automation with tools such as Ansible. It helps mitigate downtime and lower risk because you can recover.

Regarding security requirements from my side, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is somewhat satisfactory, but in most organizations, they are asking for more enterprise solutions for security. If Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) can invest in monitoring, it would be great. For example, Instana is an IBM product, and since IBM owns Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), if they invest in Instana, it will be a great improvement.

I have been working with Red Hat Enterprise Linux for more than five years.

For Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) stability, I rate it a nine. It is really stable, with no issues. I found one server running for more than two years without any issue.

For scalability, it depends on the hypervisor you're using, and if you have a template, you can clone it. It doesn't matter which OS you are using, even in the cloud, it's the platform that can scale.

I am satisfied with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)'s knowledge base. They have one of the best knowledge bases for their products with good documentation and articles that help solve issues without needing to open a case.

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

I don't think Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is saving money because it is expensive, but saving time is a benefit because they have a lot of automation and good documentation, and it is a stable product.

I can say about pricing for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is maybe a two on a scale where ten is a high price.

I think of Ubuntu and SUSE Linux as the top in my mind competitors to RHEL.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) can run anywhere, everywhere, so it is easy to run on any platform. On RHEL, it is a more general OS, so I don't know if there's a particular feature to consider.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps mitigate downtime and lower risk because you can recover, but upgrades require downtime. We mostly do in-place upgrades and haven't used migration much.

We are involved in upgrading RHEL 7 because it has reached end of life; sometimes we upgrade to eight or nine. I am already a Red Hat Accelerator and a reference.

Overall, I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) eight to nine out of ten.

I am still working with Red Hat. I work with other Red Hat products as well, mainly with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and OpenShift, and I also use Red Hat JBoss, but JBoss is now deprecated. We are moving our applications to OpenShift. I would not improve anything because we are using RHEL mainly for system functions, virtualization of system virtual machines, some system parts of OpenShift for control plane and infrastructure nodes, and some technical virtual machines such as HAProxy, and we are satisfied with it.

I find the most valuable feature to be stability, as it is important for me, and we have all the functionality that we need because we are using mainly the KVM for running the virtual machines, along with other packages that are part of the operating system, such as HAProxy, Nginx, or other modules.

The knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is very good; not only is the knowledge base excellent, but also the documents and the reported issues along with solutions on their website are very helpful.

The technical support could be improved to be quicker and of higher quality. For me, it is better when I can speak in my language, in Czech, and sometimes I need to discuss it with someone who does not speak Czech. However, I understand this is difficult; to have the support only in Czech for such a company as Red Hat is challenging.

I have been working with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for several years, maybe longer than 15 years.

We are using mainly the command line interface, and we do not see any issues regarding the interface or scalability.

I am satisfied with the technical support provided by Red Hat. I would rate their technical support as nine out of ten.

I think it is easy to deploy it in our system; however, it might be difficult for me to answer all of the questions because I am not the only one who works with it. We are a team of several technical people, and I am the team leader, so maybe they would have more information.

I have not seen any return on investment.

I find the pricing reasonable.

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as a product a 10 because I do not know about any issues or problems.

I use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for the web server application. The application I refer to is the web server application. I use this product in the telecommunication industry. We use it mainly for web applications.

In my opinion, the best features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are security, which is the main feature, and stability, as it's a stable product. The security of RHEL is beneficial because it is pretty good, and we get regular patches if there's an issue. The best security feature of RHEL, in my opinion, is the kernel patches.

RHEL helps me save time since if the OS is stable, I spend less time troubleshooting and can focus on my application. It helps mitigate downtime for sure.

It would be nice if they could bring in more features fast enough. More features for Linux in general would be appreciated. I hope they can draw from the upstream Fedora for more features.

We have not switched from a different solution; we have been using it for many years.

We haven't seen downtime yet, as we don't have a comparison against other operating systems. RHEL helps solve pain points such as less outage and less time spent on stability of the operating system, allowing my team more time to work on our applications.

Scalability is not that significant because, nowadays, OS in general doesn't help in distributed computing; that is mainly done by technology like Kubernetes.

I would rate Red Hat's support around an eight; we have never had to call them as we could fix issues ourselves.

The object storage is with another vendor, and I cannot disclose it.

Setting up Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is fairly easy; we have automated that. The setup process is fairly easy. It takes maybe 15-20 minutes to set up RHEL.

I would say Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is definitely expensive. Compared to open-source Enterprise Linux like Rocky Linux or Alma, it's definitely very expensive. We use it mainly for web applications; it is very pricey for us, and I think they will be negotiating with Red Hat to lower the price.

I have experience with Red Hat solutions. I am familiar with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), specifically Enterprise Linux. I have more than 12 years of experience with Red Hat Linux. Currently, I use Red Hat on-premises. I use this product in the telecommunication industry. We use RHEL strictly on-prem. Overall, I would rate my experience with RHEL an eight.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) serves multiple purposes in our enterprise environment. It's used for running containerized workloads, third-party software, and tons of automation. RHEL predominately runs critical production systems because its versatility makes it suitable for various enterprise workloads.

One feature of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that is most valuable is its sophisticated update strategy. The system allows for staged updates rather than requiring all changes to be implemented simultaneously. This approach is crucial for maintaining system stability, ensuring that packages remain compatible during upgrades, and preventing software failures during operating system updates.

The security benefits RHEL provides are particularly significant to most customers. There's a reassuring confidence that comes with Red Hat's support and commitment to system security. What sets RHEL apart is Red Hat's proactive approach to handling vulnerabilities - they not only identify security issues but also provide clear solutions and upgrade paths. This level of support and accountability is unique compared to other operating systems, where such comprehensive security guidance isn't always available. Additionally, RHEL's robust security architecture results in fewer vulnerabilities overall, making it a more reliable choice.

From a technical standpoint, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) performs exceptionally well - it's reliable, straightforward, and functions as intended. The only significant concern isn't about the product itself but rather its pricing structure. Red Hat's recent changes to their pricing model have prompted some customers to question the cost and explore potential alternatives. While I can't speak to the business aspects, the feedback I've received consistently indicates that cost is the only notable concern. The product itself meets or exceeds expectations; it's purely the financial aspect that has raised discussion among users.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the industry standard operating system for businesses. Based on my experience across multiple companies, RHEL is widely adopted because of its long-standing reputation for stability, security, and reliability. Most choose RHEL specifically for those three reasons.

What can I say? Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) just works. The system consistently performs as expected, and on the rare occasions when issues arise, Red Hat's response is swift and effective in both identifying and resolving problems. This reliability stands in stark contrast to other operating systems like Windows, which has experienced high-profile failures - such as airport system outages - due to problematic updates. RHEL's track record of stable performance and minimal disruption makes it a trustworthy platform for critical operations.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)'s scalability is effectively enhanced by the cloud infrastructure running it rather than RHEL itself, but the operating system works seamlessly in the cloud. When additional capacity is needed, new RHEL instances can be automatically provisioned to meet demand. The combination of RHEL's reliability and regular updates, along with cloud platform flexibility, ensures customers can confidently scale their operations as needed.

I would evaluate the customer service and technical support of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as great. I am a former Red Hatter, so I might be a little skewed. But when I talk with customers, they love it. That is never a concern. 

Security requirements were a primary consideration when choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for the cloud. We have Amazon Linux as. Red Hat is often the requirement, so we have to follow this path.

For many customers, security requirements drive them to choose Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). For example, while Amazon Linux on AWS is an available option, security policies and third-party software often specifically require RHEL. This compliance requirement effectively determines the path, making RHEL the mandatory choice in some situations.

My management of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems is streamlined through AWS Systems Manager, particularly for provisioning and patching operations. The cloud environment simplifies this process significantly, as I have access to pre-configured Amazon Machine Images (AMIs) and built-in management tools. The system's orchestration and automation capabilities handle most of the work automatically, reducing the manual intervention to mainly scheduling tasks. This cloud-based approach has greatly simplified what was traditionally a complex system administration process, making RHEL management more efficient and less labor-intensive.

The primary return on investment (ROI) from Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) comes from two key areas: robust security and reliable support. The platform's strong security features protect daily operations, while Red Hat's consistent and dependable support ensures expert assistance is available whenever needed. This combination of security and readily available support creates significant value for the investment, providing peace of mind and operational stability.

My experience with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has been largely positive, though there was a significant shift in their pricing structure last year. That change caused considerable discussion among customers. While I'm not familiar with all the specific details, this pricing change became a major talking point, particularly because it resulted in increased costs for many users. What's noteworthy is that customers' concerns were solely focused on the new pricing structure - never about the product's quality or performance. This pricing change led some customers to reevaluate their commitment to RHEL, purely for financial reasons rather than any technical considerations.

We only consider other solutions before or while using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) if it is a requirement, for example, if they have to have Windows, then nothing we can do. If that is the requirement, but other than that, I think it is pretty much the default in most cases. There are other players, Amazon Linux, of course. It just depends on what the use case is and what the requirements are. That dictates which way to go. In most cases, we go with Red Hat because that is what is required.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the default operating system in many cases, but alternates are considered when requirements allow. For instance, if a system explicitly requires Windows, we have no choice but to use that instead. While other options exist, our operating system selection is primarily driven by specific use cases and requirements. Most frequently, customers implement RHEL because it's either mandated by their requirements or is the most suitable choice for their needs. Their decision-making process is straightforward: RHEL is the go-to solution unless project specifications or technical requirements specifically demand an alternative.

Regarding system updates, our approach has evolved away from traditional upgrades. Instead of updating existing instances, we follow a more modern deployment strategy: we create new instances with the desired specifications and simply decommission the old ones. This approach aligns with container methodology and works well with our automated infrastructure. The process is efficient and straightforward, eliminating the complexity of in-place upgrades.

As for rating Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I would give it nearly a perfect 10. Its reliability is exceptional - once deployed, it runs consistently and dependably. RHEL has established itself as a trustworthy platform, similar to IBM's reputation in the mainframe world. Users can count on both the product's performance and Red Hat's ongoing support.

I use it as an EC2 Web Server.

It was needed for FedRAMP Moderate compliance.

The ready-to-go AMI is a valuable feature.

It does not pass the RHEL8 STIG standards without a lot of extra work.

I have used the solution for one year.

I previously used CIS RHEL 8 Level 2.

Check it to verify costs.

I did not consider any alternate solutions.

It does not pass the RHEL8 STIG standards without a lot of extra work.

According to the price and if your use case is more worth saving, you can go with that. I can help determine what use case you want to pursue. If it is a small scale operation, you do not need to choose that option. If it is a huge business, you can definitely invest in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

The system is user-friendly and they have a cloud console for managing all the subscriptions you have purchased. From that perspective, it is very user-friendly to manage your subscription, and you can list out all the systems where you have installed this Linux, managing them from a single console.

We are saving more costs because we are getting immediate support. If any issue arises, we do not have to wait for someone to respond. We can get immediate quick responses from the support team. We are saving lots of time and from the customer side, we have heard that they are achieving significant cost savings from this.

The main disadvantage is that you may find the price is too high.

I have two years of experience with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), and I am currently doing projects with it.

I would rate the customer service nine out of ten.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is basically from Fedora. I worked with Fedora and CentOS. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), Fedora, and CentOS are all from the same Linux family. I have also used Ubuntu.

We are a service-based company delivering services. We provide subscriptions to customers, implement them, and then complete our work.

You definitely need to consider the cost and determine if it is worth the investment. If your use case is larger and you need immediate solutions, then you should consider the cost. Technology-wise, it is very good and reliable.

I am working with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and am certified with the OpenShift platform, which is a Kubernetes platform. The company I currently work for operates both on-premise and in cloud environments.

Regarding patching, if any issues arise or security issues such as hacking or vulnerability issues occur, they will first address it through engineering and provide patch support to customers as the first priority. After that, they release it to the open source part. This patching process makes it more secure.

The immediate support and response time are good reasons to use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). My overall rating for this solution is 9 out of 10.

The main use cases with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for me are hosting Oracle databases, Oracle server database, and MariaDB. When we need to install Oracle, we put it on Linux, and it usually was Santos in the past. Then we moved to Oracle Enterprise Linux or Red Hat, and when Oracle released the Linux distro, we moved to Oracle because the devices are really open source.

Some of the best features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) include stability; it doesn't break. Stability, along with management tools and users for management tools that they add to the Linux distro, are important. The main reason is stability. In the server area, we don't want change. That's why we're trying to move back to Debian, because Debian is stable—old, but stable. 

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) does help save time because the setup and general installation experience is very optimized and well-established. I made tests installing and setting up radioactive environments for virtual machines, and it was a very good experience, fast.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is for on-premises only; we try to avoid the clouds as much as we can. In Brazil, we are seeing an interesting movement with small cloud providers because Amazon, Google, and Microsoft are too expensive. I am noticing the rise of many small companies that build small data centers and offer cloud services to small companies. They prosper with a better price and a simpler solution—not a fancy data center with sophisticated security. Just a small space with a decent Internet connection and a stable energy source, and they are good to go. People are prospering with this model of small cloud providers.

The main difference between Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and some of the others that I'm evaluating now is that Red Hat tries to use more recent packages. The problem with Debian and some of the stable distributions is that they are too conservative, and they keep the version progress very slow. I sometimes develop and create things that need more recent packages and libraries, and with Debian, I usually struggle with that. Red Hat usually provides the new ones—stable, but new. That's one of the best features of using Red Hat. Ubuntu also upgrades some important libraries from Debian.

I have used Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for more than fifteen years, because we have some infrastructure on it.

I assess the knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as excellent; they have a great technology base on their website, but it requires a subscription. You might think you get free access, but I really don't prefer it. I usually find other sources. I know they have a very good knowledge base with excellent documentation, but I usually don't get access to it. I have not reached out to their support, so I do not have any personal experience with Red Hat support. The support that we really use from time to time is Oracle. My clients use the Oracle database, and they all pay for support. We use it because my partner, who is an Oracle database administrator, frequently deals with problems with Oracle and uses their support, and it works very effectively.

Positive

My thoughts on the deployment with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are that it's easy, there are no problems at all. It's very easy, including in the cloud; they offer many partners, and it's really easy to move your loads to the cloud with Red Hat. I believe it's easier than with Microsoft. However, my clients usually do not get involved with this; most of them are Microsoft-based.

The ROI with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is useful if the company requires accountability or a formal contract, because they usually need someone involved in some kind of accountability process when lawyers get involved. Only in that situation does it make sense to pay that price. Usually, companies that are required by law to have licensed products, such as banks and insurance companies, have obligations by law. This is especially true in Brazil, where the insurance market is very regulated. It makes sense for these companies to have a license contract, particularly in the case of security leaks and similar issues.

My experience with the pricing or licensing for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) indicates that our clients never chose to purchase a license. I watched the prices a few months ago while considering buying one for myself, and they were expensive; it's not a reasonable price, especially for small companies. The business value of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is compatible and on the same level as other Linux distributions I have used. They all charge the same for their products. I usually don't see much difference. When I compare the price of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) to that of Windows, they are basically the same price, just a little cheaper, a small fraction. All of these big corporations try to squeeze the clients as much as they can. The only exception is Broadcom, which seems to try to charge an absurd amount for their products.

My clients all have their own firewall solutions and network security solutions that they purchase. We usually don't deal with that. We just keep the built-in firewall running, and that's all. That's the main feature that we use on Red Hat and other distros, the built-in firewall. 

Security Enhanced Linux (SELinux) is something we do not engage with. Last week, I tried to install a new version of Oracle Enterprise Linux from Red Hat on an old HP server, Gen 5, but it did not work; I needed to go back to Ubuntu. Ubuntu, even in the new version, uses a kernel that works on old hardware, so we have to deal with this situation. If you have old hardware and need to repurpose an old server, you can't use these new distros. Even Oracle does not work with very old equipment, more than ten years old. 

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as a seven or eight out of ten.

I set up Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for my customers. The customers either install some middleware on top of it or manage it directly from my company, or the customer will manage the application on top of the server directly.

The most valuable feature is the support. The support from Red Hat is definitely valuable. Having a Technical Account Manager facilitates getting to the core of the issue and eventually tries to correct the behavior of the operating system in case something is not fitting what I expect.

The knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is definitely good. Most of the simple issues can be fixed by going through it, including sometimes third-party issues that happen. I can mention a couple of incidents that occurred, one with CrowdStrike and one with Qualys Cloud Agent. In both cases, the knowledge base was informative about the existing issues. If I was a customer of those partners, then I would have been affected by problems that came from third-party products. Generally speaking, the knowledge base is absolutely good for problems that come from Red Hat itself.

The most important security feature in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the readability and detail of the security report. From a security perspective itself, it is not a game-changer, but when it comes to communicating to the customer that something is not an issue, this is beneficial because I can reference an article that is easily readable by the customer.

Red Hat Insights is definitely helpful, providing information that I would not spot otherwise. However, there is room for improvement. Red Hat Insights needs to be able to manage in a detached environment, which is on the roadmap as far as I know, because we are working with big banks, and therefore, we cannot have too much direct connection, especially from the cloud to the server. Another open point is that from Red Hat Insights, I cannot make use of my own Ansible Automation Platform, unless I'm mistaken. 

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is derived from Fedora. Sometimes, we encounter features in a server environment that are more suitable for desktops, leading to unexpected complications. For instance, networking on a desktop is typically designed with different priorities compared to a server. We often find ourselves forced to use features originally intended for desktop use, even when simpler alternatives would be more effective and manageable. This complexity can be unnecessary, as it adds layers of functionality that do not provide any real value. Ultimately, users should be able to manage their connections without being overwhelmed by features that are irrelevant to their needs.

A downside is that it is sometimes difficult to agree on product modifications. For instance, one issue we encountered was that certain commands were not responding as we expected. Another example, which might be easier to understand, is during upgrades when certain directories are reverted to their original permission settings. This contradicts some hardening recommendations and makes it more difficult to advocate for a change to practices that have been in place for a decade, even when there are valid reasons for the change. It’s important to note that the resistance to change can be attributed to their collaboration with upstream developers, but that’s just our perspective.

I have been working with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for more than 12 years.

It is definitely a stable product. As I shared previously, my main concern is about desktop components that are coming into the newest release. If RHEL 6 was definitely a 10 out of 10, now with RHEL 9, I would rate it a 7 out of 10 because it no longer allows me to have a clear understanding of what is going on and a clear configuration that speaks for itself. The shift towards configuration as code has some drawbacks in this case.

With a Technical Account Manager, we have a very individual approach. I would rate the technical support from Red Hat a ten out of ten.

The support has had a positive impact. I was able to go through a huge incident that required getting to the core of the problem, such as what happened with CrowdStrike. It involved an issue perceived on the LDAP server caused by a change performed in the code of Red Hat. My feedback is that the support is always great when addressing complex analysis, and that's the most important value-added aspect I will mention.

I used different solutions before Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), but not from an enterprise perspective, so without support. I used Debian and Slackware and other similar solutions. I decided to switch mainly because of the support. 

When I switched from my previous job to my current job, they were already using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). I am working with banks, which are highly regulated, and I need backend support from the vendor in order to work with the bank.

We have seen a return on investment from Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) so far. I don't have any specific metrics, but the penalty we would have faced if Red Hat had not helped us in identifying the problem would have been millions of euros.

Red Hat helps to mitigate downtime and lower risks through support, engaging them at the right time to promptly resolve issues. Red Hat Insights also assists in this regard.

I'm the one who's managing that. I find the pricing of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) affordable, but the subscription model is something that the business units of Red Hat need to revisit and fix.

I participated in a review to eventually switch to SUSE and to Oracle Linux as well. Oracle Linux is a definitive no, mainly because of the support. The support from Oracle's side is awful. I don't want to ever have a case with them because it's terrible. For SUSE, it was mainly a matter of cost-benefit since we didn't have the chance to go into depth on that because the cost was not a game-changer, and we would have had to reinstall the whole 7,000 servers, so it was too much to get the benefit from the reduced cost.

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a nine out of ten.