My main use case for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is using it as an operating system for all of our Linux VMs, converting all of them from 42 different operating systems and versions over to Red Hat.

One pain point that Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps me solve is patch management, as we previously used a giant Ansible playbook that would run updates across our infrastructure with so many conditionals in it, but now we can simplify it down to essentially just one. It was previously one playbook, but it simplifies the workload to approximately half of what it was.

The features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that I like the most include the cohesion among all of our VMs, so I do not have to remember that if I am SSHing into this server, it is apt update, and this one it is DNF update, and that one it is yum update; it is all going to be the same, DNF or yum update for all of them.

For navigating security risks in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), Satellite is a big feature for us, as in the last couple of weeks, we just had two critical security vulnerabilities come out for Linux, and we use Satellite to find all of the vulnerable servers and then Ansible to patch them as soon as Red Hat releases a kernel update.

I have used System Roles quite heavily, so I want to use Image Builder, but I have not used it yet. All of our Ansible playbooks and roles focus on using System Roles first so that future iterations and updates to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 10 or Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 11 will work going forward.

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

Regarding the stability and reliability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I have experienced no downtime, crashes, or performance issues; it has been flawless. We have had no issues with it, and the only waiting period we experienced was for the two recent security issues because someone jumped the gun and published the exploits too early, but that is nothing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) can control.

In terms of scalability, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales wonderfully; we have about 400 VMs, and as I mentioned, we are converting all of our existing VMs over, whether that is a straight conversion using convert to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scripts or a rebuild. I have had both five Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) VMs and also had 200 Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) VMs, and honestly, it has been no different; when running reports, it just takes maybe a minute longer to grab everything.

My experience with customer service and technical support has been phenomenal; I have submitted multiple cases for various issues, and technical support has also been fantastic to work with. The longest I had to wait for a solution was about two days, and what they suggested fixed the issue for us long-term.

The factors that led me to consider a change to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) included running an audit across all of our Linux servers and discovering that there were 42 different versions of operating system or operating system versions; we could maintain that with a bunch of Ansible playbooks, but we did not want to. Another product released by SUSE is similar to Satellite in that it provides an upstream RPM provider, but it did not work very well; it was adequate, but Satellite is by far the best. Standardizing everything has been a huge advantage for us.

I would describe the deployment process of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as straightforward, as I can go into Satellite and spin up a new VM; I have a fully functional VM within 10 to 15 minutes. This is provisioning VMs from nothing essentially, as we are not cloning a template. We initially tried cloning templates, and it only took minutes to have a new VM up and running.

We have not considered any other solutions in the time that we have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), as we just purchased Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) three years ago. However, around that time, we contemplated Ubuntu's enterprise-level agreement, which includes support and extended release for updates; these were the two contenders we really compared, and Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) beat them by a significant margin.

While I have not used Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in a traditional sense with AI workloads, we have a Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) VM that one of our Ames Technology Hub members logs into and runs AI workloads, though I do not know what they are using, and I doubt they are using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) AI.

In our company implementation of the zero-trust model, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) plays a role by using SE Linux and firewall D to configure everything and set it all up, although we have a different tool for managing Windows and micro-segmentation, and we have not implemented that on Linux since Linux is such a small portion of our company's business.

I have not done a major version upgrade with Ansible Automation Platform because we do not have it yet, but I have done major version upgrades from seven to eight and eight to nine with Satellite using the Leapp package provider. I have not done any nine to 10 upgrades because no applications really support it.

The transition from previous versions to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) was smooth; we tried converting all of our existing VMs over to Red Hat, and that was hit or miss on whether it would work. This is through no fault of Red Hat's, as Oracle Linux does not migrate over to Red Hat smoothly, but the major version upgrades have been flawless and have worked every single time.

Our company's process for managing regulatory compliance does not involve Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) playing a role, as we are not a publicly traded company, and we also do not house any PII or credit card information, so we are not under any regulatory compliance. However, our auditing team checks what users have root access to these servers or super user privileges, and at the moment, we just run an active directory audit since they are all joined to our active directory. In the future, I am hoping to set up Red Hat Identity Manager to manage SSH keys and user access into Linux servers.

Overall, I have loved the experience with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), as I have used Ansible for six years of the seven years I have been doing this professionally. We just hired a new Linux admin, and one of the first questions I asked was about their experience with Ansible. They had worked with it, so I asked about their experience in writing playbooks or roles, and they have written them extensively. I would rate this product a 9.5 out of 10.

My main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) include using it with VMs, particularly my company's SAP environment that runs with RHEL, and leveraging it into OpenShift.

To navigate our security risks, I use Satellite in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) to mitigate CVEs, so all our environments are managed by content views, and each month, I create another version. That is how I keep things updated for packages, and for security standards, I use Ansible, which is pretty much an Argo CD thing with AAP.

In my company's implementation of the Zero Trust model, every application runs on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), and while we are not using it much outside of that, approximately 90% of the application runs there.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps maintain my environment overall by acting as a repository manager where I set up everything, ensuring our servers are not directly connected to the internet to receive updates, thus keeping it safe.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps me feel very comfortable knowing that I have vendor support for whatever happens. I can open a ticket and someone will be there with me figuring out what happened. I feel very safe using RHEL.

The features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that I like the most are its reliability and how reliable it is, along with the integration with Ansible and OpenShift. I think it is the same environment, so it is all connected.

I cannot think of a point for improvement for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), but perhaps making it lighter in some way could be beneficial.

To be completely honest, I have no idea how Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) can be improved, as sometimes I think it is just perfect. Every iteration of RHEL seems to fix issues that were not a problem for me.

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

Regarding stability and reliability, I have not experienced any significant downtime, crashes, or performance issues with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). As with any systems, they crash from time to time, but there is nothing to complain about.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales great to the growing needs of my company, as I can just spawn whatever I need. I virtualize pretty much everything, so in a matter of minutes, I have a bunch of servers running RHEL, and I license the hypervisors too.

The customer service and technical support of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is great, as I can create a case with priority one, and someone will call me 10 to 20 minutes after that.

I think the reason I switched to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is primarily about pricing, as I needed to buy new hardware, and Oracle was bumping up prices little by little until it became unpayable.

In terms of the deployment process, I find it straightforward. Either spinning up a VM with a template gets it there, or using the installation wizard is also straightforward. I just click next, next, next, put my name, and that is it.

I have considered switching to OpenShift, which is the natural step for me from Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped to mitigate downtime and lower risks.

The combination of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and Satellite has been beneficial, as they work together to mitigate any risks that come into Satellite first. I have all the tools to mitigate directly into the host or do it manually.

Regarding the knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), every time I have a doubt or something, I just search for it, and Red Hat articles pop up. Someone asked the same question one year ago, and there is the answer.

The advice I would give to other companies considering Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is that while I have heard of some companies running open-source free alternatives such as Ubuntu or even Fedora from Red Hat, they are doing so to bypass the payment of a license. I think it is worth the price, so if someone is thinking about it, there is nothing to think about. I would rate my overall experience with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a 10 out of 10.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) serves as the operating system for virtual machines that our applications run on. I use RHEL as an operating system, and overall it is a quality product.

I use Satellite in RHEL to be able to download the packages inside our network because it is a closed environment.

I have tried using the Red Hat Enterprise Linux Image Builder or system roles.

RHEL plays a role in my company's implementation of the Zero Trust model for Application and Workloads.

We do use Ansible, but not much.

We went from RHEL 7 to RHEL 8, and now I am looking to go to RHEL 10.

RHEL helps solve our pain points by providing the benefit of having the Enterprise edition so we can get support when we need it. The support is probably the biggest thing, being able to get the repos and download the latest packages and security.

Satellite in RHEL is a big benefit in navigating our security risks.

I have a dedicated team that supports our account with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). I email them questions, and they get me support really quickly.

The availability of training for people to find information and work through and solve problems with their online documentation is valuable.

I would like to see improvements in RHEL for closed environments, as it is not straightforward to go from RHEL 8 to RHEL 10 without a seamless upgrade.

I have been using RHEL for the last 20 years.

I have not experienced any downtime or crashes with the stability and reliability of the platform.

Scalability is smooth.

I have a dedicated team that supports our account with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). I email them questions, and they get me support really quickly.

Prior to adopting RHEL, we were using proprietary solutions from vendors that addressed similar needs.

The deployment experience with RHEL is straightforward.

We have not used RHEL to do AI workloads as we are just starting that.

The biggest return on investment when using RHEL is the availability of training for people to find information and work through and solve problems with their online documentation.

The pricing for RHEL is fine. I get an enterprise discount, so our pricing is quite good.

I did not consider switching to another solution.

My experience with the upgrade was seamless with no issues.

It is straightforward to start up a new VM within minutes.

Somebody else manages that.

We use some playbooks. We do not really use Ansible too much, but there is a lot of information available.

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a 10 overall. There is a cost factor to it, but you get what you pay for. I would recommend Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) over a lot of other open-source products. I would rate the overall experience a 10.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is used in my organization primarily to install platforms and middleware, such as WebLogic or WebSphere. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) makes it easier to install and run platforms like WebLogic or WebSphere because the installation is more transparent and less complex, and it can be automated more easily with commands.

The best features offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) include scalability and ease of use. The aspects of scalability and ease of use that are most valuable for me in my day-to-day work with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are that it integrates much more easily with automation applications. Java-based platforms run better on those platforms. Antivirus solutions are less invasive on that type of operating system, and the code is more stable and less prone to crashes or instability of the operating system.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has positively impacted my organization as we have practically migrated to installing middleware applications on Red Hat. It is much simpler, there are no library conflicts, there are no conflicts with antivirus, and they are more stable.

A concrete result I have observed after the migration to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is that deployments are now much easier. They went from about six to ten days down to three days for delivering a complete environment across different environments: development, testing, and production. Additionally, the incidents that always caused conflicts with antivirus issues, library blocks, and application blocks that were not allowing installation or access to the operating system were completely eliminated.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is an extremely stable operating system. It is very open in terms of integration with other applications and migrations, and the applications developed for this type of operating system or that support these operating systems are more stable for a financial company like the one I work for.

At the moment, I do not think there is any functionality, documentation, or support that could be optimized. I have not had any problems with it. In fact, external documentation is very extensive, which is a big advantage because you can find documentation through searches on the internet itself.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in my organization for approximately four years.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is an extremely stable operating system.

The aspects of scalability and ease of use that are most valuable for me in my day-to-day work with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are that it integrates much more easily with automation applications.

I give Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a rating of 10 because I used to work with Windows and found too many integration issues. Even though it is visually easier, I prefer working with the command line and the stability and scalability.

I use VMware as the private cloud provider to deploy Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). I hardly handle patching in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), but Satellite is used for patching and updates, and I am satisfied with that management experience.

I have not tried tools like Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Image Builder or System Roles, so I cannot speak to how useful they are.

The knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is extremely useful and truly well documented.

The most important security features in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) include user levels, which have very good restrictions at the file level and at the execution level and obviously at the modification level. Additionally, viruses are still very restricted.

An example of a specific situation in which these levels of restriction and security have made a difference for my organization is that end users try to delete files, and it does not allow them. The audit features, which it handles very well, allow you to track down any problem, any execution or modification.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps me solve challenges and pain points in my daily work regarding integration and interaction with artificial intelligence. I gave this review a rating of 10 out of 10.

My main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are desktops for scientists and for development.

The main reason that we use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the fact that it is stable and thoroughly tested, so we do not experience a lot of bugs and lockups. This enables our developers to work on a more consistent basis.

The feature I appreciate the most in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is using NFS for network file shares, as it makes collaboration easier. This feature improves my company because we can create data shares where multiple scientists and users can collaborate and share data in one space without having to retrieve something separately, as it is already available for us.

Everything can be improved in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). The only thing that comes to mind is perhaps the speed in which newer packages are deployed. However, that is because everything has to be thoroughly tested to maintain uptime. That is a tradeoff that you must accept. Otherwise, I have truly enjoyed using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). Even before I used Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I used CentOS, and I have always enjoyed it.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for 23 years.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped us mitigate downtime and lower risks because we do use Satellite.

Satellite has helped us mitigate downtime absolutely. Even with people who are using Fedora, which is more advanced and more buggy, being able to patch at will has helped us tremendously.

I have worked with everything from desktops and local desktop computers to clustered servers in terms of the scalability of the platform, and I have not had any issues. I have even run the workstation versions on server-level hardware and it has worked flawlessly.

The customer service and technical support for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) have been phenomenal. We had one dedicated person, and he has retired, and I miss him. His name was Rick Ring, and he worked with us consistently, so he was on-site all the time. That was very helpful.

I considered Ubuntu while using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) because we had some scientists who wanted Ubuntu because of the newer packages. However, the support for it is not as strong. Red Hat's biggest strength is their support. With Ubuntu, it is open-source community support, and you do not have someone dedicated to help you fix something. That has been the significant differentiator for us.

My experience has been that building images for us has been more of a base image then using Ansible Playbooks to configure it. Being able to build a completely configured image with the Image Builder would save us some time. That is not my decision, but I will be able to go back and tell people about it.

The biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), from my point of view, is the stability and uptime. You are not having to spend man-hours troubleshooting or configuring something as much because the work has been put in on the back end before it was released to make sure everything is working. This has always helped us.

I have just a very little bit of experience with the pricing, the setup cost, and the licensing. A few years ago when they went to a multi-core processing model, it threw us off a little bit. However, we as a site have site licenses, so the amount of systems we have is not really an issue. The government comes up with a bunch of money up front and pays for it.

Since I am in government, we do not use any features in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) to navigate our security risks. We have independent security standards called STIGs, which we use OpenSCAP to harden our services based on what the Department of Energy wants.

I have not tried using either Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Image Builder or System Roles, but I was recently in the Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 10 lab and got to experiment with it. It is very interesting.

I have not implemented Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for AI workloads, but there are other people in my lab who are working with it. We have an entire AI department that is working on that kind of project right now. From what I have heard, the outcome of using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for our AI service is that it works, though I do not know much about the internals of it.

The role that Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) plays in my company's implementation of the Zero Trust model is that we actually use Active Directory, so we use SSSD in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). We do not really use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)'s internal identification system.

I have not done a major version upgrade with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and Ansible, but I have used Leapp to go from 7 to 8 and 8 to 9. That has worked very well.

My company's process for managing regulatory compliance involves getting our security stipulations down from the Feds, and Red Hat works closely with us. They have a government sector dedicated to the Department of Energy strictly to work with us and are on-site constantly. If we come up with a bug or find something new, we use something called FIPS, which is very important. When FIPS has broken something, they have put in new packages and we get a hold of them, and they come up with a fix for it, usually the next day. That has been really beneficial.

I feel that the knowledge base offered by Red Hat is helpful because I have gone on their support website for questions, such as how to resubscribe to a Satellite dish, and it is usually fairly easy to find answers on the website.

The deployment experience with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has been better. From version 7, which I started with way back at version 3, to versions 8 and 9 has been much easier with our Ansible Playbooks. Hopefully, I will be able to get on version 10 soon and I will try the images with that. The experience has been very positive.

My main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) include day-to-day operations and a lot of production systems. That is mainly what we do.

When it comes to pain points, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps us solve various issues. A lot of our systems are proprietary, so we develop on the Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) system, making it hard to answer what Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) does that we couldn't do without it, because we build on top of it, and if we can't find a solution, we reach out to support for help.

I do appreciate the OpenShift product in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), and I am interested in the new feature, the MCP, which I found fascinating after seeing it yesterday.

We definitely use the Identity Management features in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a lot, especially the rollback features and primarily the RBAC features, which are the brains of the system right now, even though the projects I work on are locked down significantly, so we cannot use all the tools in the toolbox.

In my company's implementation of the zero-trust model, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) plays a role mainly in the identification process, along with other tools we embed with it, focusing on identification and scaling, including a lot of tokens.

I love the knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), which I use all the time because there is always something in there that can serve as a reference, guiding me or providing solutions to solve my problems. I often encounter the same solutions for issues I have seen before.

I have not tried either Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Image Builder or System Roles, but I plan on working with Image Builder as I think I signed up for it, though I am not certain if that is today or tomorrow.

I have not tried to work with AI workloads using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), but I recently attended a talk about that with the Agent AI, which was new to me, and I took snapshots and pictures, planning to introduce it to the team sometime this week.

Mitigating downtime with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is tough to assess because of patching, which is inconsistent sometimes. Other systems installed on top can sometimes break systems, but we resolve those issues as they arise.

I do not know how Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) can be improved because I have not played with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 10 yet. I am still learning as I go, having downloaded it and staged it, but I have not really tinkered with it yet.

I do not want any improvements in my workflow because new features are always coming out, which I appreciate. Each new release brings along something new that we work on implementing into our current pipeline.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for at least 15 years.

I have not experienced downtime, crashes, or performance issues with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). If there were any, they would likely be due to some type of tool installed on top that was not compatible with updated patches, but overall, out of the box, there are no problems.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales well with the growing needs of my company. We have upgraded from version 7 to 9 without problems, and the migration has been straightforward, although I think version 10 might have some features that are not compatible, but I am not completely certain.

My experience with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)'s customer service and technical support has been excellent. I love them and have no complaints.

From my point of view, the biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the support. I love the support because when I put in a ticket or reach out, it is always excellent, and they never leave me waiting for days, providing feedback promptly.

Before choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I think my company was using another solution, possibly something like AIX or another Unix flavor, but I am not entirely certain what it was.

I do not know why they migrated to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), as that was before I started. I just know there are still some legacy systems out there.

The deployment experience with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) depends on your knowledge or experience. We do a lot of kickstarts, making deployment easy, but if something needs to be done manually, it might take a while. However, so far, it has been pretty much streamlined, so we are happy.

From my point of view, the biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the support. I love the support because when I put in a ticket or reach out, it is always excellent, and they never leave me waiting for days, providing feedback promptly.

We have considered other solutions like Ubuntu, but right now, we are still using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) wins because currently, everybody is familiar with it and they are happy with it. We prefer not to fix what is not broken, so we are content and happy with what we have.

I have not done a major version upgrade with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and Ansible Automation Platform, but that is in the pipeline, likely next quarter.

My experience using Ansible overall is good so far. I am used to doing it the old way, but now that we finally have an Ansible platform, it is better than when I was running playbooks manually from my workstation.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) since version 4, having used it for a long time with my current baseline systems ranging from version 7 to 9, as we try to migrate over to version 10.

I have used Ansible as well.

I know OpenShift is expensive and while I just put in requests, if they fill their budget, I am happy because that is above me.

My overall review rating for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is 9 out of 10.

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.