My main use case for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is to host applications, and the primary reason is to run web servers and different kinds of applications.

I run Kubernetes clusters and different applications such as financial applications on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

Other types of workloads I run on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) include Kafka, Vault, Jenkins, and various DevOps tools.

The best features Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) offers include the Satellite server, security patches, and upgrades.

Satellite Server and the security patches and upgrades have helped my team significantly because we were able to automate the process, and all our audits were able to clear due to Linux patching. It helped tremendously in terms of providing quick fixes, and performing a simple patch and reboot would resolve the issue. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) also hosted many services such as keepalived and packages such as OpenLDAP, which are very helpful for our day-to-day operations.

The various packages it provides are excellent.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has positively impacted my organization, especially in terms of security and productivity, as it provides quick fixes for zero-day vulnerabilities, CVEs, and configuration updates.

We have different vulnerabilities across multiple Red Hat packages, and Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has been able to provide quick fixes within 24 hours for zero-day vulnerabilities. For high-critical vulnerabilities, it also provides the CVE score, and based on this score, it delivers the patches, positively impacting our auditing requests to the auditing team.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) can definitely improve in several ways. One suggestion I would give is to ensure backward compatibility for services whenever transitioning from Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 7 to 8, 8 to 9, or 9 to 10, as that would be really helpful for us.

During upgrades, maintaining backward compatibility is one of the very important improvements needed on the Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) side.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for around 10 years.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is really scalable, as I can install it wherever I want and with whatever package I need, and I am able to customize it.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) customer support was really good and continues to look good to me.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps solve our pain points, and the knowledge base offered is really helpful. The documentation Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) provides is very clear, understandable, easy to query, and publicly available. Red Hat support is also very helpful for any issues.

I have not used any other RHEL system apart from Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), and it has been really helpful for me over the last 10 years.

I am not aware of us having used a different solution, but over the last 10 years, we have been using the same Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) solution.

I manage my Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems using SaltStack. Earlier, I used Puppet, but now I am using Ansible. It is perfect, as all these tools are really helpful, and currently with Ansible, it looks good, and I do not see any pain points in deploying Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems.

I have been involved in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) upgrades and migrations, and while not straightforward, they are also not that complex. The complexity depends on how critical the application that needs to be migrated is. I recently migrated from Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 7 to 8 and some from 8 to 9, and it really helped significantly, as I participated in those migrations.

I have seen a return on investment, especially in terms of time saved, as I can quickly roll out patches, which has really helped us.

I think the pricing is reasonable and not too high, and the setup cost is also reasonable. Licensing is handled by our enterprise team and is also within the limits. We are in a bundle with IBM, so we receive it for a lower price, which is my understanding.

I have not evaluated any other options, and I am not searching for new alternatives. I am probably going to containerize our applications and migrate to OpenShift, as I already have an OpenShift license and the migration is in progress. The alternate option would be Red Hat CoreOS, which will replace Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) or will be replaced by OpenShift.

If you are a FinTech company, I would recommend choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) because it provides security patches very quickly and is really effective in solving issues.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is a really good operating system and is very helpful in providing patches and upgrading systems. I gave this review a rating of 9 out of 10.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) serves as the base operating system where all applications run. It is the platform I manage, and all applications run on top of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). I run IBM FileNet on top of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) offers excellent security, reliability, and stable security as a secured operating system. Security features have helped my organization because Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is already a locked down version of enterprise Linux distributions and is managed by Red Hat, with timely release of vulnerability fixes and patches that give a lot of security and peace of mind for enterprises.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has positively impacted my organization by ensuring that timely release of vulnerability fixes and patches keeps the system secure. All the latest versions and new features with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as an image and with AI capabilities add more value for enterprises using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

A specific outcome showing how Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has benefited my organization is improved security, and I am not aware of any downtime. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped to mitigate downtime and lower risk, as I have not heard of any server reboot or crash throughout my career when it comes to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), which speaks to its reliability.

SELinux is the most important security feature in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), as it is the most security-oriented feature. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps me solve pain points such as management of servers with Ansible automation, security capabilities, and timely release of vulnerabilities and security fixes, which combined create great value for enterprises.

An AI assistant specifically for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 10 or the latest version of Red Hat Enterprise, such as an AI-assisted tool to get assistance on commands and syntax, would be beneficial.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for almost 17 years.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is stable.

I have not seen any issues with the scalability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL); it is good or great.

Customer support for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is great.

I have only used Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and did not previously use a different solution.

I have not seen a return on investment, and I do not have that level of management information since I am an individual contributor.

All recent capabilities introduced in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 10, including the AI inference server, are already great. I use Ansible for the management of servers and patching, and I find that management experience quite satisfying. I have not used much of the knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), and I have not used much of the documentation recently, so I cannot speak to that with certainty. I would recommend making use of Ansible automation with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and automating as much as possible. I rate this review a 9.

My main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are patching and automation.

The features of RHEL that I like the most are Satellite and Ansible, as those are the only ones I really work with so far.

They benefit our company by providing solutions that are quicker and save money overall, which reduces time spent overall and saves us resources.

I use Satellite for patch management of our Linux devices, including our Red Hat devices, which helps my company navigate security risks.

I think RHEL could be made faster.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for about a year.

I have not experienced any downtime, crashes, or performance issues with RHEL, as everything runs smoothly, and we do not have many tickets regarding our RHEL products or RHEL VMs.

RHEL scales well with the growing needs of our company, as anything we add automatically gets pulled into Satellite.

I would rate the customer service and technical support a 10, because I have not used it much, but my coworkers who have opened tickets have not reported anything negative about their experience.

Before adopting RHEL, we mainly built the operating systems ourselves with a mixture of different Linux operating systems. For patching, we were using Ivanti before that.

The biggest difference between Ivanti and RHEL is that both have automation, but it is more seamless with Satellite, as it is owned by Red Hat and already integrated. We do not have to build out as many tasks and workflows inside Satellite, as it picks everything up and sends it out automatically.

From a technical point of view, the biggest return on investment when using RHEL is the time spent in work man-hours, as it has reduced our patching time by a very large amount in the Linux environment.

I would estimate that the patching time has been lowered by about 50 percent.

I have not considered switching to another platform that is not RHEL, as I am not part of those discussions.

We are using RHEL in the cloud.

RHEL supports our cloud environment mainly for patching right now, as we have not started using it for migrations yet, but we will probably start doing that eventually.

I have not done any AI workloads through RHEL.

RHEL does not play a role in our company's implementation of Zero Trust; it would be more for workloads and data running on our Linux VMs, as we do not use it for identity or access at this time.

I have used Ansible Automation Platform somewhat and am learning it. My experience with it is good; I do not use it that much, but other people on my team are using it a little more, and we have not used it in production yet, although it is definitely something we will be doing soon.

We do not use RHEL for auditing, as far as I know; my boss sends me a list of things to fix, and I fix them.

RHEL has definitely helped to mitigate downtime and lower risks at my company, especially with patching, as we do not have to manually patch or reboot our VMs as much while managing the patching process.

The knowledge base that RHEL offers is pretty good; I use it personally the most for the training platform while trying to learn all the different systems they have, and I use that a lot.

I would rate this review a 10 overall.

My main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are almost exclusively for developmental VMs where I use it as a launch point for various other software programs that my team uses to develop in some pretty legacy programming languages, such as Ada from 1982. It has been pretty flexible in allowing me to actually utilize that. A lot of modern operating systems do not have that interoperability with something that is that old.

For the most part, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps solve a lot of versioning control. Being a defense contractor, that is something we have to handle all the time. We cannot go too far ahead and we cannot lag too far behind. Versioning control is a pain point that Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped a lot with, especially keeping their older repositories up to date for a lot longer than most operating systems, such as Windows does with theirs.

The features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that I like the most are probably the more automated aspect of management with it. I like being able to use Ansible for a lot of our repository management, keeping our repos up to date, and keeping certain aspects where they are supposed to be, almost like baselining.

The features in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that I use to navigate my security risks include Satellite, which has kept patch management very easy to keep up with. In a traditional aspect, we have people patching manually and burning them to CDs. I have used Satellite to keep our patch baseline really up to date, managing CVEs, vulnerabilities, and things that come out almost on a daily basis, keeping those closed, patched, and up to date.

Honestly, I cannot really think of anything to improve in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). I think at least from my point of view, how I am using it, it is in a very good state. Obviously with AI coming forward and in a place where we cannot really utilize AI, I would prefer to have a more traditional operating system. But from my standpoint, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is in a good spot right now. I cannot really think of anything that I would say should be different, should be changed, or added.

I have been working for about 12 years on and off between Unix and Linux.

I assess the stability and reliability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as very high. I have not experienced any downtime, crashes, or performance issues. Obviously we have had hardware issues, but that is old hardware running new applications, and it does not always work together. But on the operating system side of things, definitely not. It has been a very stable operating system. I have not had performance issues or any sort of latency problems or anything with that.

I think Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales really well, at least to my current needs. Obviously I cannot speak 10 years in the future because I do not know how we are going to go in that direction, but now I would say it scales really well, especially if we can start using applications such as Ansible and Satellite. It would be infinitely easier to scale with it.

I would rate the customer service and technical support a 9 to 10. The level of expertise, the availability of information, and the ease it is to access it are significant.

Prior to adopting Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I used solutions such as Solaris 5, which was a really old operating system. Obviously, I have worked with Windows here and there. The only other one that I have actually used was Ubuntu.

I would describe the experience of deploying Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as straightforward and super smooth. I have not had an issue in the past five to six years. When I was first learning how to deploy it, there were growing pains. Everyone has those issues on their first time, but after that, I have not had any issues with deploying it, whether that would be online, offline, air-gapped, or internet-connected.

I would say the biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) from a technical point of view is the portability and modularity of it. Being able to install a server OS and being able to add piecemeal applications that we need on an individual scale is essential because, obviously if we have a really minimal, small scale, lightweight VM, we cannot install a desktop with a GUI and implement every single repository available and everything in that repository. But being able to piecemeal it and put it together in that way has that modularity and that lightweightness to it.

I cannot really talk about my experience with the pricing, the setup cost, and the licensing of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) because that is handled by our sales people. On my end it is, "I need a license," and they provide it.

I did not really evaluate other solutions while using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). There were talks and questions about possibly reducing overhead costs by swapping to something that is free. But at the same time, with the enterprise support, are you going to end up spending more money on using a free, open-source OS versus Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) over getting support for it, or having to bring in someone specific that charges maybe $200 an hour or something versus having a support contract with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)? I would say not really, just because the enterprise level support is something that is kind of key to our industry.

I assess the knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as almost limitless. The knowledge base ranges everything from someone who worked on a very early version of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) posting in the forum 10 years ago and it is still there versus Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 10 coming out and there being people already talking about how to better optimize it to run on various hardware, how to utilize it better, or other optimization methods. It is almost limitless.

My advice to other companies is that with both the enterprise support, obviously a big thing, because there are companies that are substantially larger than mine that will use hundreds of thousands throughout the year. It is really easy and scalable, especially if you have the management capabilities with Satellite and Ansible, being able to manage mass amounts of applications all at once through automation. It would definitely benefit a lot of companies to go to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), just because of how easy it is to manage once you do have those capabilities in place. I would rate this product an 8 overall.

I use RHEL on-premise for the most part; we have some of the server infrastructure that I work on now in ROSA, OpenShift.

I am starting to work my AI workloads with RHEL.

The most valuable feature of RHEL that I have found is the dependency resolving; it is nice not having to worry about the programs interacting with each other for the most part, except for when it has the locking problem, but they improved significantly with that.

The feature in RHEL that I use to navigate my security risks is SELinux, which is the big security mechanism we use to make sure that the contexts are right between the different parts. I am mostly removed from that, and then I use yum for the most part or sometimes I end up using Ansible to do the patching.

Red Hat Satellite helps me manage and maintain my cloud environment by locking the packages to known good states, so that we have infrastructure that we know runs.

The features that I think will help my AI workloads in RHEL include using natural language to determine what to get the system to do to get up to date. I just did a lab the other day, and it was impressive.

RHEL plays a role in my company's implementation of the zero-trust model mostly in the systems themselves; the other aspects are usually pushed out into other departments and groups.

My company's process for managing regulatory compliance has shifted most of that responsibility over to the security teams, and RHEL plays a role in our compliance and auditing workflows.

RHEL has helped to mitigate downtime and lower risk; it is nice coming from Linux from Scratch implementations and having the software and package infrastructure we discussed before, allowing the ability to update and do the dependency resolution so they do not conflict with each other.

I would improve RHEL as a platform by noting that you have significant advantages over the competition that I see; I think being more proactive with emerging issues is important, especially with all the new vulnerabilities that we have been dealing with the past couple of months.

I think they should ensure more security, but if I step back and look, you cannot do anything before you know about it, and there has been a lot of difficulty with all the regulatory requirements that go into that.

My experience with major version upgrades using RHEL and Ansible Automation Platform is that it works well, although sometimes there is a need to get the right software set up in Satellite in the backend at the versions when it is changing for the Red Hat-specific upgrade paths.

From time to time, I experience some downtime, but it is not usually the OS; it is usually the user or the underlying hardware.

I switched to RHEL because we merged with a different part of the university and RHEL came with it.

I looked into Ubuntu, and the reason I always picked RHEL is that the software is supported on RHEL, which is the determining factor.

I have used Red Hat Satellite or Lightspeed.

Overall, I think Ansible Automation Platform is good; it became too expensive at the scale we are at for how we are utilizing it, but it is an awesome product.

I assess the knowledge base of RHEL as pretty good, and I use it when I need it, although I tend to encounter those unusual edge cases a lot.

My overall review rating for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is eight.

My main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) include it being the operating system that runs all our servers that have applications running on them, and it is installed on our VMs as well.

I appreciate several features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), such as Red Hat Insights, which provides updates on vulnerabilities and CVEs. Red Hat subscription is easy to register for each operating system, the support is good, and Bootc is innovative with its new way to install the operating system with a container file.

To navigate our security risks, we use Red Hat Insights, as we have the complete Red Hat Insights portal where we register all our servers and operating systems installed on physical servers. It provides us with updates on security vulnerabilities found and automatic updates that help us maintain our servers.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps us solve pain points by running our operating system that supports our SaaS application.

For the next release of the operating system, I would prefer a comprehensive suite package that combines the operating system and support rather than having to purchase individual packages for KVM, Satellite, and others.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for 10 years.

I have not experienced downtime, crashes, or performance issues with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), thanks to the support available for debugging and crash logs, making it significantly better than Windows.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales exceptionally well with the growing needs of my company, and we use it on everything.

I would rate the customer service and technical support an eight, as they act promptly and provide good feedback, though I have found them quick to detach from application-related issues without comprehensive engagement.

Before adopting Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), we were using CentOS until its upstream support ceased.

We switched because CentOS transitioned into a stream with limited support, prompting a necessary move to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

I would describe the deployment experience of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as straightforward.

I have seen major version upgrades in the class related to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and Ansible Automation Platform, and we regularly deploy Ansible playbooks through a GitLab pipeline using our own runners and Docker images for Ansible controllers. We regularly release upgrades, including going from RHEL 8 to 10 while we skipped 9, after having completed a significant upgrade from RHEL 7 to 8 a couple of years ago without using Ansible.

From my point of view, the biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is its status as the industrial standard, which makes it very reliable and dependable.

I am not involved in the actual pricing; however, I know it has influenced our decision on not pursuing Ansible Tower as we did not find the pricing justified for a significant change.

I have not evaluated switching to another Linux distribution. We have experimented with Ubuntu and Fedora, but we would not switch away from Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as it remains the enterprise solution.

I do not currently use Red Hat Satellite or LightSpeed, but I have used them in the past. Red Hat Satellite is similar to Splunk, enabling server management through the UI to automatically update, which we have not actually done because we have our own patch management cycle built in-house.

In our company's implementation of the Zero Trust model, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) plays a crucial role, as we register many things with it and depend on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) to function properly for us to manage our operations.

We used to use AWX and considered implementing Ansible Tower; however, we decided against it probably due to the paid subscription costs and opted for a different deployment method.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped mitigate downtime and lower risk by allowing us to patch sooner and faster, which we base on the vulnerabilities found.

I would assess the knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as good, as it provides substantial feedback when creating tickets and often allows for direct knowledge base access that avoids the need to open a ticket.

I rate this product an overall eight out of ten.

My main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) include supporting engineering desktops, and when I was working in the healthcare industry, we also used it for picture archiving, such as when cardiologists would take chest x-rays. I have been supporting it in many different ways, including working on the program where we are doing Linux desktops for the developers who are writing code for some of the planes that we build.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps me solve pain points by always being consistently good, and the support is really there for us when we need it.

The features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that I value most include its ability to take innovations from upstream, bringing them down and making them stable.

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) features including Satellite and the Ansible Automation Platform to navigate our security risks and deploy patching. We also use OpenSCAP in Satellite for security. Satellite helps us do provisioning to maintain a consistent build across the enterprise.

In my company's implementation of the zero trust model, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) plays a role by ensuring consistency among the groups that we use to control security on the devices.

Things built into the operating system, such as rescue mode, give me the opportunity to fix issues before we spend about two weeks deploying a new machine, since it requires certification before going on the network. If we can save a machine using rescue mode, we save ourselves that two-week hassle. Additionally, if we get locked out of a system, we use a specific remote execution user that allows us to unlock the system or provide any necessary fixes, based on best practices found within the Red Hat community.

From the perspective of versions 8 and 9, one area I think Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) could improve is being careful about ABI, particularly backward compatibility. Some improvements between versions seem to leave people scrambling; for example, the updating of crypto policies has forced some to run in an insecure manner to continue using their authentication systems. While I understand this is not Red Hat's problem, it is something they could consider improving.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for probably about 18 years.

Regarding the stability and reliability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I have not experienced downtime, crashes, or performance issues, except I remember when they went from version 7.5 to 7.6, which broke the ABI; however, I think this issue stemmed more from Intel changing their chipset in the background than from Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) itself.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales well.

I would rate the customer service and technical support a nine or a ten because every time I have not been able to solve something, I usually call them, and we get to the root of the problem. They collaborate well with me, even when some problems are complex.

Prior to using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), we were actually using a plethora of different Linux distributions, and some of them lacked someone to hold accountable for support, leading to more challenges, longer downtimes, and related issues.

I describe the deployment process of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as straightforward.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)'s biggest return on investment, in my view, is when you get on the line with their tech support; when you submit an issue, the folks really know the product, so you get back up and running fast, which is worth its weight in gold.

In my experience with the pricing, setup cost, and licensing of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I have been moved away from the pricing in this organization; at my old organization, we switched to a three-year plan instead of one year, and it improved significantly because we saved some money.

We choose to use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) not only because we believe it is the right choice but also because the federal government expects, especially for the projects I am involved with, that we use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in accordance with customer agreements.

I would advise other companies considering Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) to invest in the open source community, especially if they are paying a lot of money to other operating system vendors such as Microsoft. I believe that more workloads are running on Linux, and unlike Windows, which often runs one application per server, Linux allows multiple applications to run on one server, so they could save money in the long run by investing with Red Hat.

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a strong eight or nine; while they are not perfect, they are better than most.

As the DevOps engineer, my main use case for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) today is as our OS. All our runners run on that, as well as Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) UBI containers, which is what we deliver to our customers. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) runs our infrastructure and is what we deliver to the customers as well.

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) all on-premises on Dell servers.

I have not tried doing AI workloads with any Red Hat AI product specifically, but we are running our AI model server with VLLM on Red Hat systems. We are using it on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), but not with any Red Hat AI.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps us solve pain points by giving us security and trust. When we tell our customers we are using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) images, it helps them trust us that we are using the security and we have all these controls. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) gives us trust and security.

I value the management features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) the most, such as Red Hat Satellite, which allows us to tell and monitor our whole fleet about the status of every system and keep it up to date. The management interfaces are really effective.

For navigating our security risks in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), it would probably be mostly Satellite. With Satellite, you can determine which of your systems are out of date. Containers might also show outdated packages. Satellite helps you find systems that have not been updated or systems with old packages.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps mitigate downtime and lower risks. Since Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has all these Ansible and Kickstart and Satellite features, we have a good process of redeploying systems. If something did go down or break, we have all the automation to be able to bring it back up, and we have all that as code. This has been helpful.

I am not certain how Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) can be improved. We are still on Red Hat 8 mostly, and so I am not really certain about what features have already been released.

From a Red Hat 8 perspective, I think perhaps better container support for running them as services would be beneficial. Maybe Kubernetes support, such as something built-in for if you just want to use the system for running containers and keep them online as services would be valuable.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for the whole time, since 2021, which is approximately five years.

I have not experienced any downtime, crashes, or performance issues with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). We have had servers that are very stable for many years.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has definitely scaled with the growing needs of my company. As we have grown as a company, we have expanded how many servers we have. It has been pretty smooth with Satellite managing it all. You can keep track of everything, so it has been good.

I would rate customer service and technical support of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) an eight. It is really helpful to be able to open up tickets and get a technical person that can walk you through getting the logs and getting the information. In an ideal ten out of ten, it would be instantaneous support or much faster response times, but we do have a good response time and good support.

I am not certain if my company was using another solution to address our needs prior to using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). There may have been some CentOS or Ubuntu used way back, but I am not certain.

I think we have seen a return on investment with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) from a technical point of view. The investment comes from when we can deliver our software to customers and they can start immediately using it versus if we are delivering a different OS that someone might not be certain is secure. They trust in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and that we are using that. This allows us to keep delivering at a good pace and getting the software into our customers' hands.

My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing has been really good. I am not at the level to buy it, but I think we have a company-wide Red Hat license. We can have as many Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) machines as we want, including all the packages and the containers. It has been positive and good.

We have also looked at Ubuntu while using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). Their management platform is Landscape, and it just does not seem as reliable for us. We have had much more issues with Ubuntu from deploying it and hardening it. It does not really seem to work the same for us as Red Hat.

The business value of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) compares favorably to the other Linux distributions we have evaluated, such as Ubuntu. Red Hat definitely has more value. We invest much more time in that because we have so many more Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems, and it has been a much smoother experience. If any project tries to come to us wanting Ubuntu, we try to steer them away and see if Red Hat will work first, because it seems to work better and is more comfortable.

I have tried Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Image Builder, but only as testing. We are not using that in production, but I have used it and created a few images.

The testing with the Image Builder went really well. There were some limitations with what versions of Red Hat the Image Builder supported versus what we were currently using, so I could not really continue testing, but it worked for the walk-through I was following.

I do not know anything in particular in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that has helped me with my AI workloads overall yet. We are still just getting into the space, so I do not know if there is really anything about Red Hat specifically, because we are just running open source tools on Red Hat. However, it is still making us secure from a foundation with a secure OS.

We are not really doing a full zero-trust setup with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), not yet. Having all our devices, such as all our Red Hat devices registered in Satellite, helps you keep tracking them. This is moving towards it, having a management system for everything, but nothing really other than that.

We have not done a major version upgrade with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and Ansible Automation Platform, such as moving from Red Hat 8 to Red Hat 9. Whenever we have done that, we just reloaded the system. We use Ansible Automation a lot, but never for a full upgrade.

My experience with the Ansible Automation Platform has been really good. We transitioned to it heavily. Before, we were just using each developer who were running the playbooks themselves. Now we can put them in the platform. The access is really good, so we can have students who can only run certain playbooks or not edit them, which is helpful. Full-timers can set up something that works and then the students can run it as they need. This has been really helpful for us for automating things.

From an OS level, when we are deploying Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), we can pick the DISA STIG profiles, and that gives us a good starting point for all our systems to be hardened a certain amount. Then we use the Ansible Automation Platform running Ansible playbooks that can finish the job and finish the rest of the STIG controls. This makes them compliant. We can also run Ansible playbooks that can verify all our systems are at that certain level. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) does a major part, and we use Red Hat for pretty much everything for our compliance.

The knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is really good. Many times I am searching for questions and it will pop up as one of the first few results showing how to solve it. A few weeks ago it helped me solve an issue for a customer. The knowledge base has been really helpful.

The deployment process with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has been pretty straightforward. We use the Kickstart process, and then Ansible to finish the deployment. My overall review rating for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is nine out of ten.

My main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) include virtualization, day-to-day computing, general use cases, desktop use cases, and server use cases, treating RHEL primarily as a server system.

RHEL helps us solve tremendous pain points because we are a cloud service provider, and we do a lot of virtualization and networking. As a cloud provider, we basically rely on virtualization, networking, storage, and a lot of other things, so RHEL is a core platform for us that enables us to combine all these components together and provide a comprehensive solution.

Since we are a cloud service provider, we rely on RHEL's virtualization feature and sell these virtual machines to customers, making a significant profit from it.

RHEL supports our hybrid cloud strategy as we offer private and public clouds to customers and can burst into other public clouds. RHEL as an operating system provides in-built support that helps us burst into hybrid and other cloud ecosystems with our expertise.

The features I appreciate most in RHEL include virtualization, networking, and storage, and there is not a single feature that stands out for me because I appreciate pretty much everything RHEL offers.

RHEL acts as an enabler for running AI workloads, offering in-built security, particularly with features such as Podman that help secure the environment. With RHEL AI, there are many integrations, including Instacloud, providing significant security benefits.

RHEL plays a core role in our implementation of the Zero Trust model, operating many OpenStack clouds and utilizing systems for regulated industries such as financial services and government sectors. The good ecosystem of RHEL supports authentication, authorization, and zero trust, enhanced by features from OpenShift as well.

RHEL should cover more hardware, particularly since we face challenges with some hardware components, such as Intel VROC as a RAID controller, which RHEL has compatibility issues with. I acknowledge that it is difficult for RHEL engineers to cover all hardware, but collaboration with manufacturers such as Intel or Lenovo might alleviate some drawbacks.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) since my university days, and it has been almost eight years.

I have not experienced any downtime or performance issues with RHEL; it is a very stable operating system.

We have been able to scale well with RHEL; we run a lot of distributed storage, and scaling up is just a matter of adding resources without limitations, as the platform supports scalability indefinitely.

The customer service and technical support from Red Hat are perfect; they know what to do when we reach out, even when it is on behalf of customers.

We have also worked with SUSE and Ubuntu Pro, but our customers often prefer RHEL for general-purpose server workloads, while they go to SUSE for SAP workloads, indicating that RHEL has a strong customer preference for its compatibility and support.

My experience deploying RHEL has been straightforward; the deployment methods are easy, utilizing PXE boot and cloud-init within our OpenStack environment, which makes maintenance and deployment very efficient.

From our perspective as a cloud service provider, the biggest return on investment with RHEL comes from the margins we make after selling licenses to customers. We operate clouds with RHEL as the core, and we see a good amount of margin through virtualization services provided to customers.

The pricing, setup cost, and licensing of RHEL work out for us as a cloud service provider, so we are satisfied with them.

We sell other products such as OpenShift that do similar work to RHEL.

When it comes to navigating security risks with RHEL, we rely on SELinux as the main security feature, and we are also looking at Lightspeed, which provides a nice command line assistant. We also utilize PQC for core cryptography in RHEL as well as its TLS functionality, and container sandboxing is another major feature we leverage.

I tried the Image Builder in RHEL, and my experience with it was quite good. The image mode is beneficial because it allows us to create many portable images, which I find really good for our needs. I use the Image Builder in the cloud for internal purposes as well as for our customers.

I have used Satellite. Satellite helps manage and maintain my hybrid cloud environment, although not to a very good extent because we operate a single environment that we consider an on-premises or private cloud. Some customers use it to manage a fleet of systems across various instances, but for me, it is more focused on on-premises.

We have tried out RHEL AI, using Instacloud and other tools as well as OpenShift, which is outside of RHEL. We are not using the Ansible Automation Platform for major version upgrades, but we do use Leapp upgrades because the Leapp tool is necessary for our upgrades, although it requires manual oversight to ensure there are no compatibility issues.

We use both open-source Ansible and the Ansible Automation Platform, and it has been good for managing our fleet of servers as we run virtualization. The Ansible Automation Platform is particularly useful for managing many CVE patchings.

I believe RHEL effectively mitigates downtime, and I do not see any significant problems regarding this issue. The knowledge base offered by RHEL is pretty good; the documentation is top-notch and very helpful, and the support portal, including the AI features, is also excellent.

We have been able to scale well with RHEL; we run a lot of distributed storage, and scaling up is just a matter of adding resources without limitations, as the platform supports scalability indefinitely. Overall, I would rate RHEL as a top-notch, superior product, and it is a very stable operating system.

I would recommend RHEL to other companies, emphasizing that stability is key, especially for running enterprise-grade workloads or server workloads because everything is tested and reliable, which minimizes the risk of breaking things during upgrades. I would rate this review as 9 out of 10.

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for applications. Our use case involves its very easy deployment and usability, along with substantial support from the community and open source resources. We are looking forward to using much more OpenShift applications and Red Hat Open as well. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps me solve pain points related to scalability, enabling us to deploy several servers in one.

The AI and automation features such as Ansible and Ansible Tower stand out to me. We build streams in our automation features, using playbooks in Ansible for patching the application servers in a timely manner. We are also using automations for fault detections and fixing configurations, as well as building pipelines to deploy new features such as Windows 2019.

The open source environment has positively impacted our organization due to the package feature with the satellite, allowing us to download open source codes, which has been very flexible, resulting in enormous savings. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has mitigated downtimes and lowered risks in our organization, especially with the latest features.

I would like to see smoother integration with the AI components that would use other Red Hat products such as OpenShift and Ansible in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). I think the support should be more concerned about the new standards of technology. Customer support could be a little bit better, but it is definitely very good overall.

I have been working for 26 years in the application management team.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is definitely stable, and we are very happy about it.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)'s scalability is very well configured and very straightforward.

Although my team is not responsible for patching and maintaining Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems, I hear from my colleagues that they are very satisfied with the features, stating that it is easy to maintain the Linux environment and flexible. I have a Red Hat account and look on the internet for knowledge bases.

Since I am not responsible for managing the Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) hardware in our environment, I cannot give a detailed explanation of how I access the knowledge base. However, I research on the internet and with my account, I try to go into labs and find the appropriate knowledge base.

We used a different solution primarily for automation, which was the main reason for our switch.

We have saved costs, but I cannot provide specific metrics at this time.

Since we are a big bank, the pricing, setup cost, and licensing were through an end-user master agreement, which made us really happy because it was beneficial for both sides.

We had some options, but we were very enthusiastic about Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), so we chose it.

We navigate our security risks using features such as identity management, which we fall in love with more every day because it is really key to organizing security. The most important security feature for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that stands out to me includes the accessible accounts groups.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is part of an open-source community, so I advise others to develop their own solutions within the environment and community while still being supported and free of enhancements. I would rate this product a 9 out of 10.