I am a database administrator, and we mostly use Red Hat Enterprise Linux to manage databases. Primarily, we use it for Postgres, as it works best on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). It's easiest to set up and has the best documentation.

I'm aware of one customer that is thinking about it. But I'm not sure what specific projects they want to use it for. I think there's one customer who is interested in it and is trying to find a solution that might benefit from it.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) contributes significantly to our business continuity and compliance efforts. The best example is uptime. Many critical businesses need to be operational twenty-four hours a day. If a database goes down for some reason, it is seldom Red Hat Enterprise Linux that is the issue. This provides peace of mind.

It has helped us centralize development because Red Hat Enterprise Linux has many tools that aren't accessible to our Windows customers.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux's most valuable feature is its reliability. I don't have to worry about the operating system. It's one of the easiest operating systems for databases, and the integration is excellent. It gives me peace of mind because I can focus on my database work without worrying about my OS. I want to ensure I have applications that run on the OS without searching for temporary fixes or workarounds.

It has some of the best out-of-the-box security features of any Linux distributor. Red Hat Enterprise Linux has more built-in security features than most standard flavors, or it has implemented them better.

I haven't identified anything that needs to be proved, but I hope Red Hat Enterprise Linux maintains its reliability.

I have used Red Hat Enterprise Linux for the past five years.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has been perfect. My Windows customers experience a lot more downtime and bugs. Our critical businesses need to be up 24/7. It's rarely its fault if a database goes down. I would estimate that there's about 10 percent less downtime compared to Windows customers.

I haven't been involved in any real project that necessitates scaling as our needs change.

The support is excellent compared to other solutions like Oracle. They're knowledgeable and easier to work with. We have a nice, transparent working relationship.

The biggest ROI is from Red Hat Enterprise Linux's reliability. If I run databases on Windows, I have to find other tools or workarounds. It's a big hassle. Red Hat Enterprise Linux lowers the total cost of ownership for my customers because I bill fewer hours than I would in a Windows environment. Open-source databases run better on Red Hat Enterprise Linux than on Windows. Most things I need are built-in or can be downloaded from the repo.

Ubuntu is commonly used, and there's a decent amount of documentation for databases, but it can't compare to Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Setting up Postgres or any open-source database on Red Hat Enterprise Linux is way easier. The documentation is more extensive. It's also easier support because many customers have a subscription with Red Hat.

I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux nine out of 10.

My advice would be to focus on reliability and ease of integration when choosing a Linux OS.

In our environment, we primarily use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for managing customer environments and our own. The customer environments are mostly Apache web servers. Some customers have databases, like Postgres, running on Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Others run native Docker on it to manage application dependencies.

We run containerization projects in the OpenShift environment based on Red Hat Enterprise Linux OS because that's more suitable for containerized workloads. You can do some machines on Red Hat Enterprise Linux, but not all of them. Your worker nodes need to be Red Hat CoreOS, but your master nodes can be Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

I was more experienced with other Linux distributions and Docker. It's open source, so you can fetch Docker and run it, but they don't have support if you have questions or if something isn't working as expected. Podman is similar to Docker. I don't primarily use Red Hat Enterprise Linux for containerization, but I set something up in Podman on Red Hat Enterprise Linux. It isn't used that much. Tinkering and development are the main reasons you would use Podman on a single centralized Red Hat Enterprise Linux machine. If you want to orchestrate on a larger scale, you use OpenShift.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has made significant contributions to our business continuity and compliance efforts. If a critical vulnerability is spotted in the wild, Red Hat fixes it most of the time. It's usually within a day if it's a zero-day vulnerability. Log4J was a bit more difficult because it was not a single package, but it was mostly shipped with other products. It's hard to analyze which application is vulnerable and whatnot. The solution lets us centralize development. We use Ansible to orchestrate the tooling deployment or to fetch a lot of information.

Red Hat always clearly describes the vulnerability on its security pages as a CVE score. You can fix errors by patching or mitigating them. If the patch hasn't been released, you can mitigate it to prevent the vulnerability from being exploited. Red Hat Enterprise Linux helps us guide the data and ensure it is correctly placed. I was monitoring it daily, but it was a bit too frequently. Now, we get vulnerability notifications weekly or monthly about a vulnerability or exploit that's been discovered. I also look on Reddit directly to see if there's a fix or a mitigation we can implement.

Sometimes, when upgrading or migrating systems, there are differences in the repositories of the versions that aren't one-to-one replaceable. For example, there are significant differences in the repositories from version 7 to 8. We needed to upgrade Red Hat Enterprise Linux from version 7 to 8 because it had reached the end of its life. A Postgres database was running on it that used a Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 package, allowing some database or reporting features. When I upgraded to Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8, it was not in the repository. I needed to install it with some workaround. Of course, it was installed with some minor incompatible dependencies.

I have mixed feelings about the built-in security features. SELinux must be configured correctly for the port and directory, or applications won't run, so we primarily disable it. Sometimes, we enable it and tinker with legacy systems deployed long before I joined the company. However, chances are it will break something if you enable it.

We have been using RHEL for three years.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has performed very well for our business-critical applications, with minimal downtime.

We don't need to dynamically scale our application because of our workloads, as we mostly use Red Hat Enterprise Linux for our internal tools. We don't have much demand to scale out. Containerization lets you quickly scale out your application with some bots if your hardware supports it, and you have enough resources.

In VMs, we didn't need to dynamically hot plug some service to compensate for the load. It would be vertical scaling by adding more resources. Sometimes, we need to do that for databases that consume a lot of memory, CPU, power, etc.

I rate Red Hat support eight out of 10. It depends on the priority of the requests. We had to launch several P1 requests because something wasn't working in our OpenShift environment, and we were stuck. The support response was quick.

However, we were annoyed that most of the support was based in India. Sometimes, they don't know what the problem is and need to escalate it to an expert in the US or or Germany. It prolongs the ticket resolution, but once it gets to the expert, they fix the problem instantly because they know more.

We previously used other Linux distributions with Docker. We prefer Red Hat Enterprise Linux because of its enterprise support capabilities, which open-source distributions like Debian or Ubuntu lack.

I'm unsure what the standard Red Hat Enterprise Linux license costs for one machine. We pay for premium support that guarantees a response in two hours.

I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux eight out of 10. If applications and package installations work correctly, I would give it an 8.5. It's a pleasing OS to work with, especially Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 and 9, which are more polished than Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7. I briefly interacted with Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6, I'm 27, so I know I'm very young, but I know colleagues who worked with Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4, 5, and 3.

Other open-source Linux distributions might work if they have high levels of community involvement so the community can identify and fix vulnerabilities quickly. Alma and Rocky Linux are all upstream from Red Hat Enterprise Linux. If you want to go with an open-source distribution, I will point you to Alma and Rocky because they are the one-to-one replacements from CentOS. You don't need a subscription.

We are a big company with many customers, so we prefer a stable platform with support. You can't open a ticket for open-source distributions like Debian or Ubuntu if you have a problem, ticket. With Red Hat, you can open a ticket if you discover a bug. That's included in your support subscription. You also get regular patches, so we can show our customers we are compliant, etcetera. It's a no-brainer to use an enterprise distribution with support instead of something open source where you don't have a support subscription.

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux due to its robust security features, which are essential for securing e-commerce transactions and monitoring our Linux servers. Additionally, its flexibility allows for deployment across a range of devices, including HPE and Dell.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux offers robust provisioning and patching management capabilities, ensuring efficient system administration and security.

I am delighted with Red Hat Insights and recommend this feature to others.

Since using Red Hat Enterprise Linux, I have found it to be very secure.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has reduced our downtime by about 60 percent.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux aids in achieving security standard certifications by providing a secure foundation and tools for compliance with various security frameworks.

The most valuable aspects of Red Hat Enterprise Linux are its flexibility and security. It allows us to manage servers independently and ensures security for any device used.

The system roles feature is good.

While Red Hat Enterprise Linux offers robust security features, continuous improvement is crucial to ensure a secure environment and prevent potential losses.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for about six years.

I rate the stability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux as seven point five because sometimes it takes time to reach support for assistance.

I rate the scalability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux as eight. It is satisfactory in terms of scalability.

The response time could be improved as sometimes it takes too long to reach out to them.

The complexity of deployment can vary based on familiarity with Red Hat Enterprise Linux. I found it to be complex.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux can be expensive, but its cost is not a deterrent for many organizations willing to invest in its stability, security, and support ecosystem.

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux eight out of ten.

We have 80 percent of our environment using Red Hat Enterprise Linux. A team of around 40 uses Red Hat Enterprise Linux to manage over 3,000 servers in a big environment.

We perform weekly maintenance on Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

We do updates, upgrades, and migrations on our Red Hat Enterprise Linux servers.

Based on my experience, I recommend Red Hat Enterprise Linux, particularly to those seeking a highly secure operating system.

Our primary use case for Red Hat Enterprise Linux is to deploy OpenShift solutions on the cloud.

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux with AWS, GCP, Azure, and Oracle Cloud.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux offers easy migration between cloud platforms, a crucial advantage for businesses. For example, we recently helped one client move from AWS to Azure and another implement a VPN solution using both Oracle and Azure to leverage the strengths of each platform.

It offers a comprehensive knowledge base that can be accessed through the Red Hat portal.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux helps support our hybrid cloud strategy.

The upgrades and migrations are straightforward and typically performed when introducing new hardware.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux's most valuable feature is its seamless integration with Kubernetes, a powerful platform for automating the deployment, scaling, and management of containerized applications.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux should enhance its support for commonly used application servers such as JBoss, Tomcat, and Apache.

I have used Red Hat Enterprise Linux on the cloud for five years.

I have a Red Hat account for client support, and their technical support is excellent.

We have used other Linux solutions, such as Ubuntu, SUSE, and Debian, but the primary difference lies in the level of knowledge and support provided. Red Hat excels with a comprehensive support portal, while SUSE offers less extensive support, and Ubuntu provides no official support options.

The initial setup is complex. I rate the complexity as two out of ten, with one being the most complicated.

Our clients see a return on investment within the first year.

The licensing for Red Hat Enterprise Linux in Peru is very expensive. On a scale of one to ten, with ten being the most expensive, I would rate the cost an eight.

We leverage Red Hat's Hybrid Committed Spend program to procure and implement Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux eight out of ten.

I work on SAP HANA, which is on Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has a good support portal that I rely on.

The system rules are helpful for segregation of duties, as they provide us with more feasible access to the system, allowing us to register it accordingly.

We immediately see the benefits of Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

From an administrative perspective, the cloud platform is the best because we don't have to wait long. It's a portal, so we can access whatever we want through it, whether the Azure portal or the AWS portal; we click, and it'll purchase it for us. Some deployments take 30 to 40 minutes. But in most cases, especially for small services, it's just a few seconds to three minutes. From a business perspective, the pay-as-you-go concept is where we only pay for what we use. So those are the two things I like most about the cloud version of Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

Using Red Hat Enterprise Linux on the cloud can become costly over the long term.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for six years.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux on the cloud is stable with a 99.9 percent uptime. Regional redundancies are used to ensure data accessibility.

The initial deployment was a little challenging until I became familiar with the solution through the portal. We did encounter a handshaking issue with Azure that required submitting a ticket to Microsoft, but otherwise, the process went smoothly. A team of four were involved in the deployment.

The implementation was completed in-house.

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux eight out of ten.

We have to apply patches weekly, monthly, or quarterly, depending on their purpose.

We had no concerns about using Red Hat Enterprise Linux in the cloud because both AWS and Azure supported it, and they provided support if needed.

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux for file transfers and changing file permissions. It is also used to check file spaces and for migration purposes. Our tools are hosted on the Linux environment, and our agent services run on it.

We use Red Hat Linux to start and stop our agent services during migration, install new agents, and transfer files. The primary benefit is that it's a widely used open-source solution with good support. Now that we've migrated from CentOS to Red Hat Enterprise Linux, we will realize some benefits. Red Hat Enterprise Linux has more features.

I like Red Hat Enterprise Linux's clustering capabilities and high-level architecture. It has high availability, built-in disaster recovery, SSH features, and scripting.

The documentation is excellent. Since it was acquired by IBM, the open-source tools and technologies hosted on the Linux environment have been updated with many new features.

It would be great if Red Hat had its cloud instead of using AWS, Azure, or GCP. Red Hat Enterprise Linux should have a dedicated cloud. I would also like to see more Windows support.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux could also be more user-friendly and use AI or machine learning to automate processes. That is the most dynamic feature in the information technology industry.

I have used Red Hat for five years.

We have intermittent issues with stability, but we're hoping they will improve in the latest version.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is quite scalable. We can place a lot of agents on Linux servers, some on the cloud, and a few on-prem. It can handle the workload.

I rate Red Hat support eight out of 10. We have communicated with Red Hat support via email.

Before Red Hat Enterprise Linux, we used CentOS. Another Linux flavor I've used is Ubuntu.

The first deployment of Red Hat Enterprise Linux had a learning curve, but I've learned a lot since then. Once you know the process, then it's straightforward. It uses a command-based process, but if it were based on a GUI or a console, like a Windows installer, that would be a significant improvement.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux requires some housekeeping. We have to restart and patch servers weekly or biweekly and check the CPU, memory size, file size, the database used, and whether the IP network protocols are defined. All this happens monthly, weekly, or fortnightly.

I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux eight out of 10.

We are using the solution for automation. Mainly, we're doing a lot of automation with it. One of the projects, for example, is for ensuring payments processes on forms. We streamline and optimize the insurance claims process using OpenShift. This has enabled us to do faster claims processes and make resource utilization more efficient than it was. Everything can be done online. There are no papers involved.

It is mainly just cutting out redundant tasks. The focus was mainly driven by driving costs down and efficient resource utilization. We wanted a solution that could make deployment easy and ensure scalability.

The biggest benefit has been the automation. It affected our delivery schedule. Instead of doing something in two weeks, we do it faster. We've cut down our production time. And people are able to focus on other tasks since they're automating a lot of things. Even with our clients, when they have issues, we have created a system where they can send out a ticket. And from that ticket, we can diagnose, and it's easier to solve the issue at hand.

In terms of cost per head, we've seen a drastic drawdown from that. It is mainly optimizing a lot of our systems and resources.

The high availability is great. It's available most of the time - even when we're doing upgrades, provisioning, configuration, and patching. It made things easier for us.

The automation is great. I'm a big fan of offering convenience to people and making systems easier for people to understand and use.

There are good features, such as proactive monitoring as well. It offers predictive analytics, which helps you identify issues before they impact operations. We can foresee several problems. On top of that, this is how we can combat those problems. These types of features are really valuable when considering a company's strategy and when it comes to the impact of operations.

We are able to move workloads between different clouds or our data center using Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

The knowledge base on offer is quite extensive. We started learning from a third-party provider since we've had a lot of use cases. Maybe you are installing something, or maybe during virtualization, you have to do something, and you need more information. The Red Hat OpenShift community is quite huge. Even a resource such as YouTube has people releasing videos on common problems. Even outside of Red Hat itself, the Red Hat community is very good. The information is extensive. The knowledge base is there. There's a lot of information sharing. People do not try to gatekeep information.

When it comes to provisioning and patching, so far, we have not had a lot of issues. We currently are using a subscription model. In terms of getting security patches and updates, they support us quite well. There's a 24-hour support base and they're quite good.

I've tried the Leapp and Red Hat Insights features. It helps with proactive monitoring. It did analyze the system configurations and compares those against databases of known problems and fixes. Basically, there's a pool of data that has common issues and it analyzes how you've configured your system and then compares them. It can come back to you and say, "Hey, this is your problem. Why don't you try the solution?" It's like a good AI tool. It gives us a lot of help. It's quick. Thanks to this feature, we sometimes find that we don't really need to open a ticket for support.

We realized the benefits of using RHEL in months. We were told when we were doing the onboarding, we'd see benefits in six months. For us, it took a little over eight months. That was due to some of our internal processes that we had to do, some sign-offs, et cetera. Still, it took us less than a year. Over time, we are down 20% to 30%.

In the beginning, we didn't start on the cloud. Only now are we fully transitioning to going off-site. There are still some clients who are a little resistant to going to the cloud. It's nice to be hybrid, to accommodate both. We've done a lot of virtualization and server consolidation. So far, everything is running smoothly.

When moving workloads between different clouds or data centers, it's not that simple. There are a lot of things that you need to consider, including prerequisites and things like hardware, network, operating systems, et cetera. Once you get the hang of it, it becomes easier. However, in the beginning, it was very, very challenging. Coming from a development background, I found it easier to use command lines.

I've hit some snags doing updates or changing things for clients.

It would be nice if they improved vulnerability management. They could add more security tools and tools for provisioning.

I've used the solution for two years.

The stability is good. We don't really have any downtime. I'd rate stability nine out of ten.

We've had no issues with scalability. It's quite user-friendly.

During the implementation, we did have to open a support ticket. They assisted us effectively.

I've never tried other solutions. I know of other solutions, such as Ubuntu. However, my interactions with that solution have been minimal.

The initial setup was a little bit complex. The instructions, however, were very clear, and our deployment strategy was clear. Still, for the technicians doing it, it was complex.

The setup took about a week and a half.

I've been involved with two upgrades so far. They were challenging. There were a lot of teams involved. There needed to be a lot of migration planning. We had to use the Link Utility and we did a lot of testing first. We spent a long time verifying the applications and checking dependencies. It was quite a learning curve.

There is some maintenance needed in the form of system updates.

We did get a lot of help from RHEL. We had senior engineers guide us through the setup.

We've seen an ROI of around 30%.

When we went through IBM, it was quite expensive. Now, we are going through AWS, which is less pricey.

We started off as a partner to IBM, and IBM opened up the opportunity for us to build certifications for Red Hat through the certification program. Then we became support specialists, taking on RHEL projects. We are in the process of becoming a reseller.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. We're doing a lot of big data infrastructure and they are giving us good stability and performance.

As an organization, we use Red Hat Enterprise Linux for its stability and security.

I have worked with it on the cloud as well as on-premises. We use it with AWS.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is great when it comes to provisioning and patching. I am satisfied with it.

The user base and the knowledge base of Red Hat are way better than those of others. They make the user install and solve the issues easily.

We have used Red Hat Enterprise Linux Image Builder. It is a great tool for managing multiple systems. It can copy an exact image of my existing server to multiple servers. It is a great way to save time.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has helped us a lot. After switching from Ubuntu to Red Hat Enterprise Linux, there has been a drastic difference. The stability and the efficiency have enhanced greatly.

At the moment, we only have AWS cloud, and Red Hat Enterprise Linux is working well. We have plans to switch to GCP.

The package manager of Red Hat is very convenient and efficient to use. With other Linux versions, such as Arch Linux and Ubuntu, package managers might not always be stable. When installing any software, the dependencies can vary, and there can be conflicts, whereas Red Hat has efficiently managed all of that so that users can install packages without any conflicts. We do not use the graphical interface, so the package manager and security features are mainly valuable to us.

After installation, the initial setup can be simplified or improved a little bit for new users coming from a distribution like Ubuntu or Windows. For example, for Arch, the user guide is very good. If a user does not have any experience, he or she can refer to the guide and install it successfully, whereas, for Red Hat Enterprise Linux, the user needs to have some understanding of Linux.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for two years.

It is very stable for us. I would rate it a ten out of ten for stability.

It is quite scalable. I would rate it an eight out of ten for scalability.

Before using Red Hat Enterprise Linux, we were using Ubuntu as our main server. Ubuntu is more consumer-oriented, whereas Red Hat Enterprise Linux is more professional and work-oriented.

The main concern for us was how to get it installed perfectly. Before me, there was a fairly new person installing Red Hat, and he was not able to get it installed perfectly. The partitions were very differently implemented in Red Hat than in Ubuntu. That was one of the major issues for him.

My colleague was handling the main setup, but he was not able to figure out how to get everything to work. He was able to install it with the ISO, but he could not set up partitioning and Wi-Fi drivers. It was complicated for him because he knew Ubuntu, but Red Hat Enterprise Linux was complicated for him. We had to refer to the documentation for our network drivers and then we could get our Red Hat Enterprise Linux working. It took us around three to four hours.

In terms of maintenance, timely patching is required.

Overall, we have about 1,000 users of these servers, but we are the only ones who work with these servers. No one else in the company operates these servers because one mistake can bring down the entire server.

It saves us time. There are about 40% savings.

It is cost-efficient for the tasks it does and the improvements that it brings. For a professional environment, it is very cost-efficient. It was easy to purchase the subscription.

If a user is using it for commercial purposes, I would not recommend it. If a user is using it as a server or a workstation, I would recommend it.

We do not use the Red Hat Enterprise Linux Web Console much. We only use it for the initial steps to configure the users. Other than that, we do not use it much.

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