My main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are for applications, primarily. We provide Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) to other teams because we are from the operations team and have infrastructure responsibilities. We provide Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) VMs for developers and other teams to run their applications on.

Before adopting Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), my company used many Windows VMs. From the time I have been working in the company, we have been a Linux shop with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) VMs, along with a few Windows VMs.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps me solve pain points because Linux in general is easy to work with. The automation is straightforward. Because we have an ecosystem of Red Hat OpenShift, Ansible, and Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), the integration flows naturally.

The features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that I prefer most are the security features, which are very useful. The domain join realm and SELinux are also excellent.

For navigating our security risks with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), we currently use SELinux for security. We do not use Lightspeed at this time. We have FirewallD and other services for security. For identity management, we have our own Kerberos agents that we use for identity purposes.

Satellite helps maintain our environment overall because we have integration with Ansible and the Ansible Automation Platform. When we need to create a new VM, we start with Satellite and have all the bootstrap processes integrated with Ansible. The VM then comes up automatically, and we provide it to customers or whoever wants to use it.

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

The capabilities of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that have assisted me with this are mainly the integration aspects, such as Satellite and the Ansible Automation Platform. Everything has helped us reduce downtime for customers and accelerate VM deployment.

The security portions of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) could be improved and made easier to work with. SELinux in general is not intuitive because customers and developers do not know how to work with the VM. This part could be more user-friendly.

In my company's implementation of the Zero Trust model, we have not yet implemented this with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). Because we are from the operations team, there is another team that handles other responsibilities. We do not necessarily handle that aspect.

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

We have occasionally experienced downtime, crashes, or performance issues with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), but not frequently. Overall, it has been reliable.

Scalability-wise, the scaling process for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is smooth. We have scaled many applications and have not encountered any issues. The performance has been solid.

I evaluate the customer service and technical support from Red Hat as very good. I have never had any issues with the technical support. I have created multiple tickets with the Red Hat team and they have been quick and effective at responding and fixing the issues. I would rate the customer service and technical support a nine out of ten.

The advantages of having Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) instead of Windows servers are that the development process is easier. I think Windows is limiting. Linux in general provides more opportunity to try different approaches, work on different projects, and avoid being restricted to certain functionalities that are imposed on clients who use the operating system. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has done an excellent job overall.

I would describe the experience of deploying Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as straightforward. It is not complicated. We use Satellite to deploy the VMs and the process is very straightforward with minimal complexity.

We have used the Ansible Automation Platform through a dedicated automation team who handles all the automation for us.

From a technical point of view, the biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the integration aspect. Working with OpenShift and having VMs on it is very smooth. Even though some features are not intuitive, the integration is seamless.

My company has not considered switching to another solution that does the same thing as Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). We are committed to continuing with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

I would assess the knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as very good. I believe there could be more information available. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in general is excellent, but counterparts such as OpenShift could improve with respect to documentation and the knowledge base.

We performed a major version upgrade of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) using the Leapp upgrade tool manually. Although the process has been automated, we have not used automation to upgrade many VMs. We successfully upgraded forty to fifty VMs from Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) version seven to eight and from eight to nine using the Leapp upgrade.

The advice I would give to other companies is that from the time of deployment until the customer uses the system, having a pipeline ready and integration prepared for every component makes it much easier to deploy and use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). I would rate this product an eight out of ten overall.

My use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) at my company include application servers, infrastructure servers, web servers, and virtually every server type.

The features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that I appreciate most are ease of automation and ease of deployment, particularly because we also use Satellite for deployment management. It scales well.

These features benefit my company by resulting in less time spent working on servers and issues and more uptime.

I have not identified any immediate areas for improvement in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), as I cannot think of anything that there is not already a product for.

We have encountered some issues with the high availability clustering lately, and it seems that could use some refinement.

The deployment process for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has been somewhat rough around the edges to get it up and running with Kickstart, but once I have it dialed in, it is fantastic. The documentation for Kickstart can leave something to be desired sometimes, so that may be an area of improvement.

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

I have not experienced any downtime, crashes, or performance issues with the platform that were not caused by some kind of misconfiguration. The platform itself is solid.

I have been able to scale and expand usage as my needs have grown.

I assess the knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as outstanding. The Red Hat Learning Subscription is great, and usually when we enter a ticket with Red Hat support, we can get a subject matter expert to help us resolve our issues.

I would rate the customer service and technical support as probably an eight out of ten. Sometimes when we enter a ticket, it takes some time to get to the level of technical resource we need, but once we get that resource, they almost always help us get a problem solved.

When I came in, our department was already heavily using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

The deployment process for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has been somewhat rough around the edges to get it up and running with Kickstart.

From a technical point of view, the biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the stability and uptime.

I have worked with Ubuntu and CentOS in the past while using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), but I do not particularly care for Ubuntu. I prefer Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) wins over Ubuntu for me by being a more stable enterprise platform and more mature.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps me solve pain points by being more reliable and easier to work on than Windows. It is simply good at what it does.

The features in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that I use to navigate my security risks include Satellite, which helps us keep everything patched and up to date and keep package-related CVEs down. We are looking at doing OpenSCAP scanning with Satellite, and we use Ansible for automation, deploying configurations and packages. We are also looking at implementing OpenShift, as our department has OpenShift.

I have worked with System Roles and have used Image Builder before, finding it useful for tightening a gold image and standardizing deployments.

I use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) only on-premises in my department. Some other departments might use it in the cloud. I do not know that my department has a cloud strategy yet, but I know we are exploring alternatives to VMware, so that could happen in the near future.

My department does not have a hybrid cloud yet, but as far as on-premises is concerned, Satellite helps us with patch management and controlling what packages we present through content views. We build systems through Kickstart, so it helps with deploying systems.

I have worked a little with Lightspeed for AI workloads with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) but have not really scratched the surface too much yet.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) plays a critical role in my company's implementation of zero trust by tightening down configurations when we join a system to Active Directory through SSSD, locking down what users and groups can touch a given system.

We have used Leapp to do a major version upgrade using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), but we have not coupled that with Ansible Automation Platform yet.

I have been using Ansible Automation Platform almost as long as I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL); I used Tower before it was Ansible Automation Platform, and it is incredibly useful. It is invaluable for deploying systems, standardizing server builds, deploying compliance, and hardening. I have not found a use case it is not useful for.

We are working toward using or building Ansible jobs to help with our regulatory audits and evidence collection, and Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) plays a significant role in our compliance and auditing workflows.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped to mitigate downtime and lower risk with capabilities such as its stability. If you standardize and deploy a system and have it tightened, you tend not to have unexpected issues, or the issues you do have are ones that you would have seen many times and can easily remediate.

I rate my overall experience with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as a nine out of ten.

My main use case for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is virtual machines for web server hosting, and mostly web hosting and application hosting.

The feature of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that I like the most is the integration with the cloud, the cloud.redhat.com integrations, and the Insights portal.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps us solve the need for a supported Linux platform that we can dependably deploy all of our applications on, with an easy to patch process, very interconnected with Ansible, and very interconnected with Red Hat Satellite. It provides easy deployment and automation capabilities that are where it performs best.

Red Hat Satellite helps us manage and maintain our hybrid cloud environment by being the backbone of our automation. Without Satellite, we would not be able to do version matching, and we would not be able to ensure all the packages are the same between our on-premises and Azure environment. When we do new deployments, we are able to make sure our new deployments match what we have existing, whether it is on-premises or more nodes in the cloud or more nodes on-premises. That is where we use the versioning.

I do not have much experience with the pricing, the setup cost, and the licensing of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). I know we have it; somebody pays for it, but we have enough licenses and they make sure of it.

One of the biggest improvements I see for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) AI that is on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 10 now. We have not had the chance to try that one yet, but I have seen demos of it, and it appears to be a very good tool that might be very useful in the future.

I have been in my area of expertise for thirteen years.

I have not experienced any downtime, crashing, or performance issues with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). It has been solid, particularly Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 8.

We find Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scalability good; we have clustered databases that we use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for, and it has been solid. When you give it network access to the other nodes, it will perform its function.

My experience with the customer service and technical support of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has been very good. When you open a case, you get somebody pretty quickly, and they are very knowledgeable, so I am very happy with the support.

I would rate the customer service and technical support a nine, because nobody gets a ten.

Prior to adopting Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), we were using CentOS 7.

We decided to switch because we wanted support. We were always looking at containers and thought Red Hat offered the best solution to containerization, so it was a natural progression to get Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as well. We used to run the open-source version of Satellite, AWX, but it was falling apart and hard to maintain due to issues and a lack of solutions in the open-source forums. It made sense to switch to Satellite and get Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) since we were adopting all the other Red Hat ecosystem platform offerings.

I would describe my experience with the deployment process of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as initially complicated due to the licensing model of Azure, which was a little confusing. However, afterwards, we created some Terraform configurations to deploy Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in Azure, and since then, it has been one enter button.

The biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), from my point of view, is the support and the integration with Red Hat's cloud features. The documentation is really good, and before, when I searched for something about a fix, Red Hat documentation would often come up, and I would not have access to it. Now that I have access to it, the solutions given are usually straight to the point, such as "Run this command and we fix the problem." That has definitely been a lifesaver.

I have not considered other solutions while using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

We have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for four years now.

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) both on-premises and in the cloud, specifically on Microsoft Azure cloud and on-premises.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) supports our hybrid cloud strategy by enabling us to host our applications in a hybrid deployment, half on-premises and half in the cloud, while using load balancers in the front. With Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), we are able to deploy the applications that we need to support our strategy on both sides, including the databases and the caching system with synchronization between on-premises and the cloud. It allows us to install anything we need, and with the automation tools around it, it lets us quickly deploy and automate everything and have it running.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) plays a role in our company's implementation of a zero-trust model mostly with workloads, as it works with workloads and the integrated firewall. With Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), we are able to secure access to the various ports that are running in our application, regardless of whether we decide to use a Unix socket or something VIP-based, to host them.

We use the Ansible Automation Platform.

Our experience with the Ansible Automation Platform has been great; it is one of our favorite tools. It started small and then it became one of the most important tools within our organization. Everybody uses it, and everybody has been creating Ansible playbooks for it. We are now pushing to have all of our applications deployed using Ansible Automation Platform, so it has become a major tool that has been integral to the success of our team.

I cannot say I have used a lot of the available knowledge base from Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) directly, but it is very good. Red Hat documentation is very good in general.

I would rate this review a nine overall.

My main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) involve operating a number of data centers across the United States where we primarily use Linux for our SCADA platform and for telemetry collection of the data center components.

We also use RHEL for day-to-day infrastructure needs such as email, DHCP, DNS, and normal network infrastructure operations. We have also started deploying Kubernetes, but we are not doing that within the scope of OpenShift at this time; it is really just bare metal Kubernetes.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) solves my most significant pain points with its enterprise tooling, particularly Satellite for effective management of patching and Ansible tooling, especially for configuration management at scale. That is really where I spend most of my time, working with Ansible.

My favorite features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are the RHEL-specific features, particularly the development of the bootc image process and container file process for deployment. That is really interesting and coming along. However, it is mostly the tight integration with Ansible Automation Platform and Satellite that stands out.

The feature of having a single pane of glass administration point for all systems improves my company's efficiency significantly as my scope of responsibility includes maintaining systems at about 40 data centers across the United States plus internationally. We have migrated to a place where I rarely have to touch servers individually for configuring them; I can do orchestration at scale from one place. Instead of updating 400 servers individually, I can execute one command and update them all. That is really what it is about—maximum efficiency in the time I can spend.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)'s winning factor for me is the support and tooling, including Ansible Automation Platform, Satellite, and decent integration with ITSM platforms such as ServiceNow right out of the box without needing to hand-code those things from scratch. It is really the interoperability that stands out.

I have tried both Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Image Builder and System Roles, but I do not use System Roles as extensively as I would prefer because of the nature of our business, where we have acquired other companies that are not standardized on RHEL across the board. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) System Roles cannot always be applied to non-Red Hat Enterprise Linux distributions. I am trying to incorporate that more, but I believe the bootc and the image move and image builder tools are the direction I am attempting to push us towards.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) System Roles have been extremely helpful, speeding my time to development of my Ansible configuration management deployment, which is a huge time saver for me. However, regarding bootc and image mode, I cannot yet comment because we are still in the testing and development stage, so it remains to be seen.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has limited relevance for my AI workloads due to strict governance, though our developers are involved in that world; it is outside my scope.

I have not done a major version upgrade with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and Ansible Automation Platform, but we have done upgrades from RHEL 8 to RHEL 9, and that experience was positive, as we were using Leapp tools to do that prior to having AAP in the environment.

I do not have any strong recommendations for improving Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) because what matters to my organization is more about stability and consistency. New features for the sake of new features are not what I need, but if I had anything, it would be more tooling to help me respond to CVEs faster. For instance, the recent copyfile CVE has sparked discussions about adding a kill switch with certain kernel modules, which might be an interesting idea, but I worry that it could become an attack vector of its own. My primary need is not new features; it is stability while keeping things as lightweight as possible.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has not been the direct cause of any downtime issues; those tend to be more related to connectivity, such as a fiber cut. It is less about mitigating downtime and more about having good stability, as generally uptime is good. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) specifically does not get us there when downtime occurs.

Regarding the stability and reliability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), there is really nothing to add; it is the most stable platform we have, provided you do not let the developers get in there and make changes. The operating system and the kernel itself is never the problem.

I would rate customer service and technical support quite high, perhaps a nine or 10. On a daily basis, I rarely need to interact with technical support, but when I do, they respond very quickly. The knowledge base usually has the answers I need, unless we encounter some very unique and specific situation, which is pretty rare.

I find the knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) to be very good, highly rated, and a very useful resource. Overall, I have a positive view.

Before using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), my company underwent multiple acquisitions, resulting in an amalgamation of different Linux distributions and Windows servers. There has been a lot of Rocky Linux, CentOS, Ubuntu, Debian, SUSE in the past; I even found an AlmaLinux box recently. We are in the process of trying to standardize on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as quickly as possible amidst a data center race, which involves building new facilities and acquiring smaller companies, as we deal with their existing systems until we can migrate them over.

I would describe the deployment process of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as very straightforward, especially with the changes we are experiencing with image mode deployments. This new approach makes it almost more straightforward because I am not having to deal with RPM packaging, and I do not necessarily have to package my own RPMs for custom deployment. I am looking forward to these changes, though deploying image mode from a registry can affect network bandwidth as it involves pulling the entire operating system rather than a small update, which could make time to deployment smaller while providing more consistency across the board.

The biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) comes from the reduction in time spent on manual labor associated with a fractured infrastructure. By standardizing on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as much as possible, my day goes faster and I can use my time more effectively. This also allows us to operate with a reduced head count because we do not need to add more personnel to solve problems as things are more standardized; that is really the biggest factor for me.

It is difficult to compare the business value of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) to other Linux distributions I have used, as I do not handle the licensing aspect. For me, the value lies in the consistency and tight integration with all the platforms, but it is hard to put a dollar amount on that.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) plays a role in my company's implementation of adhering to the zero trust model primarily through devices and network aspects. Most of our IAM components are still handled through Windows Active Directory, so all of our systems are domain-joined, but it is Active Directory domains as opposed to RHEL IAM, which pains me. Most day-to-day users, when you have non-engineers, are still going to be using Windows and Windows applications, so that is outside my purview.

I cannot describe my company's process for managing regulatory compliance, as it is not part of my job. There is a whole GRC team handling that. Generally, during the testing process, we ideally adhere to certain CIS benchmarks, but due to our unique requirements, those are not exactly what we need. We are sort of in the middle of CIS 1 and CIS 2 benchmarks, and I would like to be able to deploy Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and simply apply benchmark two and have it done, but we have to build that by hand.

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) overall as a nine. The main advice I would give others considering Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is that your primary gains will come from standardization and having a specific plan. The problems we faced in the past arose from smaller organizations deploying a particular version of Linux based on individual preference because an engineer wanted to try something new, rather than due to stringent controls being put in place.

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.