Our primary infrastructure operating system is Red Hat Enterprise Linux, predominantly RHEL Eight. While some products utilize RHEL Seven, RHEL Eight point Zero is the standard for most of our operating systems and servers. However, server choices may vary based on specific industry requirements. Our underlying infrastructure relies almost exclusively on Linux distributions.

Our primary Linux installations use Red Hat Enterprise Linux in an on-premises VMware environment, with some instances deployed on AWS.

The built-in security features simplify risk reduction by allowing direct control of the root system's access.

Red Hat's knowledge base is excellent.

While Red Hat Leapp and Insights are helpful tools, they are not part of my daily workflow.

The web console is a good feature.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux enhances uptime and security, boasting faster boot times than other operating systems.

The most valuable feature of Red Hat Enterprise Linux is its security, which is more secure than Windows.

Integrating certificates from third-party clients into Red Hat Enterprise Linux can be challenging due to the operating system's stringent security policies.

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

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is stable.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is scalable.

The technical support team was professional and quickly resolved our issue.

We use Oracle for our database, Ubuntu in our testing environment, and Red Hat Enterprise Linux in our production systems due to its increased stability.

The cloud migration from Red Hat Enterprise Linux Seven to Eight was straightforward due to the absence of underlying infrastructure complexities. However, the on-premises migration presented challenges from existing infrastructure dependencies, resulting in numerous errors.

The migration of approximately 200 servers required a team approach to ensure continuous monitoring. Although two people could have completed the migration, a four-person team completed it within two days.

The migration from Red Hat Enterprise Linux Seven to Eight was done in-house.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux offers a compelling value proposition for corporations due to its robust support infrastructure, which is essential for maintaining enterprise-level systems. However, the pricing model may be less attractive to individuals or small businesses. Compared to cloud-based platforms like AWS or Azure, which offer flexible pay-as-you-go options, RHEL's subscription-based model can become cost-prohibitive for those with limited budgets or smaller-scale projects.

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

We utilize Ansible to provision and patch our extensive server infrastructure. Ansible's automation capabilities enable efficient batching and management of security patches across all servers.

We test all the patches for some time before we add them to our production environment.

We utilize Red Hat Enterprise Linux in our private cloud and on-premises environments, but I've observed better performance in the cloud, likely due to the greater availability of resources.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux does require maintenance.

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux as the operating system to host various applications developed by our application group. It has our test tools, web servers, and Java applications. We install it based on the requirements of the applications.

It is a good product. All Linux solutions are pretty solid. It carries a different business model than a lot of them, which fits more into our business model. That is where it excels. We do not prefer unsupported ones or buying third-party support.

The most valuable feature of Red Hat Enterprise Linux is its support. I primarily use the product because it offers a phone number for support when needed.

It integrates well with our existing systems like SaltStack for patching and provisioning. However, its primary value is in having support when issues arise.

There is room for improvement in terms of pricing and its knowledge base.

I consider the cost high. The knowledge base is extensive and deep but can be confusing due to outdated or non-applicable information that you have to sift through to find relevant answers.

I have had experience with the basic and extensive use of Red Hat Enterprise Linux for about 15 years.

Customer service varies. I would rate their support a five out of ten, as it depends on the person at the other end. Sometimes the support is good, and sometimes it is not so good. It is like any other support organization.

I did not switch from any previous solution. Red Hat Enterprise Linux has been in use since before my tenure.

I work in the casino gaming industry. Most of our servers are in Windows. We have about 30 Linux instances. We install it based on the implementation requirements of an application. There is a justification for putting an application into our environment. It goes through a process at our company, and then where we install it or what we install it on is usually up to the requirements of the application.

We have on-premises and cloud-based environments. Red Hat Enterprise Linux is running in one of those environments. It has adequate features for security in cloud environments.

We use SaltStack, and we built the patching mechanism ourselves. We are pretty satisfied with it. If we were not satisfied, we would change it.

The upgrades with Leapp used to be painful. It used to not work at all for us. When we went to Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9, it did work, but it was a fairly painful process. The advantage is we do not have to reinstall the apps on top of the new image of Red Hat. It is an in-place upgrade. The problem is that you can install Red Hat Enterprise Linux in 50 different ways, and in the past, Leapp assumed you did it the default way. They have added some flexibility so that we can work around some of the stuff, but it makes you install it a certain way, which is not necessarily the way we would do it, mainly because of our security standards and performance needs.

We have not experienced a noticeable return on investment with Red Hat Enterprise Linux itself, as the operating system serves its intended function without bringing additional advantages.

Pricing depends on the model used, costing about $3,000 per virtual host in the virtual environment. It varies depending on whether you get high availability. There are modules that are upsold such as kernel patching, which we do not use due to cost considerations.

In the cloud, we use their licensing. For on-premise, we use the subscription, so we have two different licensing models.

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

I have been a sysadmin handling everything about Red Hat Enterprise Linux, primarily for on-premises environments. I have built projects based on Red Hat Enterprise Linux, including development and support projects in the companies. I have handled pretty much everything. Anything you can imagine, I have probably done with it.

In terms of security, it does a lot of things that most people still turn off. SELinux is turned on by default. They have pretty good firewall rules in their defaults. The audit rules always take tweaking, but, overall, it comes out of the box not too bad. I used to write scripts to harden them from there.

There are multiple ways to provision and patch. You have everything from local repositories to doing it by hand.

Their knowledge base is incredible. There is so much information out there. It has never taken me longer than 30 minutes to find an answer to anything, even very tough ones.

One company I worked for was a security company, and we did a lot of patching on everything. It was designed around security and email hosting, and uptime was pretty much whatever we wanted it to be. I have had a couple of times when the uptime was bad, but it was caused by a third-party solution. In fact, the Norton antivirus was definitely the worst. Red Hat had nothing to do with it.

I enjoy the patching processes and the way Red Hat Enterprise Linux has elements set up. I have never had a patch session fail, even when installing a thousand packages at a time.

Their implementation of Yum is effective. I have used it quite a bit to pull additional information out because, for a while, I was doing security work. It is nice to have all the security information they provide on the inside. Their security library is well-maintained. I have used it exclusively for 15 years now, and I have been nothing but happy with it.

I wish IBM would give them more leeway. IBM seems to have restricted Red Hat Enterprise Linux more since the acquisition.

The organization moved away from Red Hat because IBM introduced paywalls and additional barriers that did not exist before, which made everything a lot harder. They moved from there to the Rocky version, which is a fork of Red Hat. It is run by people who have left IBM or Red Hat engineers who left IBM. Giving Red Hat Enterprise Linux more independence could be beneficial.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux exclusively for about 15 years.

It has demonstrated great stability, with systems running for multiple years without issues. I have no problem with uptime. It is as long as you want it to be.

It offers excellent scalability. The HPC system that the organization runs is a small one, but it has 8,000 computers. Each computer has at least 24 to 72 CPUs in it, and everything runs on Red Hat Enterprise Linux or Rocky. It is eminently capable. They run jobs because they do some of the hurricane forecasting and things. The things that they run on it take 900 nodes and 70,000 CPUs. You walk into that data center, the air comes out of the floor at 50 degrees. By the time it gets through the computers, it is about 110, so they are working them hard. The room itself stays at about 90.

Before the acquisition by IBM, support was incredible. I could directly engage with developers and get immediate assistance. It was great.

I have not had a lot of experience with them post-acquisition. At this point, the entire department is moving to Rocky. It is not a huge change for me, but a part of the move was the lack of support through IBM.

The company we are contacted with has just moved from Red Hat to Rocky, which is Red Hat-based. It is a fork of Red Hat, so it is like all Red Hat derivatives. It is binary compatible. You can do anything you want with it. For the things the organization does with the HPC environment, it is a lot nicer because there are fewer restrictions. Open source works best for HPC environments. You have to recompile a lot of drivers and things to get things to work. Being able to do that is critical in that business.

For the most part, upgrades and migrations are very straightforward. In one of the cases, it was very straightforward to install the OS, but it was a lot more problematic to find all the pieces that ran the underlying hardware and get those working right. We had to do a lot of testing between lots of different versions of both the OS and the hardware drivers before we found good combinations. From what I hear, going from Red Hat to Rocky was a lot cleaner than going from Red Hat 6 to Red Hat 7. That was a big change.

In terms of maintenance, for the most part, once you get it set, you can walk away from it.

I do not have any insights, but I know why the prices went up. At the time, it made sense. I do not know what the pricing is like now. Previously, the pricing model was advantageous as it allowed unlimited installations for a single price, focusing on support. The recent introduction of paywalls complicates the cost landscape.

I have used the web console, but I am more of a command-line person. I did not see a lot of use for it, but I have used it in the HPC world because you can do some things that are handy, such as pulling in entire groups of things and building them as a boot group. It is nice to have when you need it.

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

Our servers utilize Red Hat Enterprise Linux for production and development environments due to the application's strong performance on this platform. Additionally, some workstations also use Red Hat Enterprise Linux as their operating system.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has robust built-in security features that effectively mitigate risk and help maintain compliance.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux offers a comprehensive knowledge base that provides reliable support. When online searches fail to yield the necessary information, their resources consistently deliver the answers needed.

It also offers a positive management experience. Its monthly update patching, scheduled according to the number of users and their security profiles, facilitates efficient system maintenance and allows for the closure of inactive accounts.

I used the Red Hat LEAP feature when upgrading from Red Hat Enterprise Linux seven to eight, which simplified the upgrade process.

The Red Hat Enterprise Linux web console is user-friendly. Simply open a new terminal, log in, and enter our desired commands or searches.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has yielded cost savings compared to a Windows environment, offering better stability, ease of use, and maintenance. Unlike Windows servers, it eliminates the need for reboots during updates, enhancing operational efficiency.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has improved our uptime and security.

I appreciate the simplicity of reporting in Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Running a command, tagging the log, and sending it to support is all it takes. The user-friendly interface has consistently improved from version four to eight, particularly in login and display features. Overall, the system is stable, easy to use, and maintain.

Red Hat should improve its support services, specifically the responsiveness and expertise of its India-based team. Response times need to be faster, and support staff should have access to more detailed procedures to address customer cases effectively.

I started using Red Hat Enterprise Linux in 2019. Specifically, I started with Red Hat four and then upgraded to version eight.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is very stable. I would rate its stability as nine out of ten.

Scalability is easy because Red Hat Enterprise Linux supports virtual machines. I would rate the scalability a nine out of ten.

Technical support is taking a long time to resolve our issues, and we must monitor the resolution time for each ticket.

The initial deployment is easy; follow the instructions and use the automatic setup. This straightforward process takes no more than 15 minutes, even for new users.

I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux as nine out of ten.

We have Red Hat Enterprise Linux deployed in one location with 15 users.

We have local maintenance for Red Hat Enterprise Linux by certified admins.

I recommend Red Hat Enterprise Linux for enterprise production environments due to its stability and proven industry track record.

We primarily use Red Hat Enterprise Linux to host applications with our virtual machines.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux offers an excellent and comprehensive knowledge base for Linux. It is among the most thorough available.

Our Red Hat Enterprise Linux environment utilizes a patch management system for updates. However, provisioning remains a manual process, with virtual machines being installed individually. We currently don't use automated provisioning solutions like Ansible, Vagrant, or Terraform.

Red Hat Insights is helpful for deep dives into OS-level issues and remediation, as it links directly to the Red Hat knowledge base.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux enables compliance with regulatory requirements by providing customized images that meet various security standards. This streamlines our process as every virtual machine image is deployed with hardening by default, reducing the need for manual application per virtual machine.

The Red Hat Enterprise Linux knowledge base is a valuable resource.

In terms of improvement, Red Hat could consider offering cheaper licensing. The licensing model is good, but we would all appreciate a lower price.

To ensure compliance and security on our Red Hat Enterprise Linux systems, we had to install additional software, such as endpoint detection and response or antivirus solutions. The built-in security features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux were insufficient for our needs, necessitating the implementation of supplementary security measures.

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

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has not affected our systems negatively regarding stability, experiencing no issues so far.

Customer service by Red Hat is very good. I haven't noticed any shortcomings in response time or overall competence.

The upgrade from version seven to eight was done with Red Hat's assistance, as we manage hundreds of virtual machines.

The licensing model of Red Hat Enterprise Linux is good, but lower prices are always preferable.

We evaluated several alternatives, including CentOS and Rocky Linux, but the support question kept coming up with community distributions. We chose Red Hat Enterprise Linux for its enterprise support, which is crucial for maintaining production systems.

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

I would recommend Red Hat Enterprise Linux to others, especially in the enterprise space. However, for startups or companies that do things themselves, alternatives like Ubuntu or CentOS Stream might be more suitable.

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux primarily for our entire group because most of our applications are based on Linux.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has robust built-in security features.

It has an extensive knowledge base.

We used to patch our systems manually, and now we use Red Hat Satellite to manage the patching of our systems.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux provides a good way to manage our OS.

It has enhanced both our uptime and security. The system's stability has eliminated any noticeable security issues.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has enabled us to achieve security standards certification, which has allowed us to maintain business operations without interruption.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is a stable and supported platform with valuable built-in security features that help reduce risk and maintain compliance.

The cost of Red Hat Enterprise Linux is a bit high.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux's support could be improved by offering human support in addition to their documentation. While their documentation is helpful, it can be frustrating to be referred to it instead of receiving direct assistance from a support representative.

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

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is stable overall.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is scalable.

Red Hat's support is generally good, but their response time and overall competence could be improved. Occasionally, we are referred to their documents when requesting assistance, which can be frustrating.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has a yearly subscription cost for the licensing that includes maintenance and support.

We evaluated Microsoft Windows Server, Ubuntu Server, and Red Hat Enterprise Linux before ultimately choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

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

I recommend Red Hat Enterprise Linux for its support and stability.

I use Red Hat Enterprise Linux to manage pre-configured web servers, troubleshooting issues such as "524 errors" and missing configurations in EMV files. Furthermore, I constructed an on-premises Kubernetes cluster on Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9 and configured it for ELK.

The Red Hat Enterprise Linux knowledge base is excellent. When I encountered an error, they were able to quickly identify the issue and guide me through the necessary steps to resolve it.

The Red Hat Enterprise Linux Web Console functioned properly throughout the lab courses.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is excellent for commercial use and enterprise tools. It's best to use Red Hat for enterprises because it provides robust support available twenty-four by seven, which I have experienced.

To start working with Red Hat Linux was straightforward and user-friendly. I didn't encounter any complexities.

The most valuable feature of Red Hat Enterprise Linux is its comprehensive ecosystem. The detailed documentation eliminates the need to consult external resources, and the knowledgeable support team provides expert assistance with both technical issues and site navigation.

Improvement is needed for supporting Kubernetes clusters because it is less supported by Red Hat according to my experience. There are also some gaps in documentation which affect configuring Kubernetes clusters.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for four to six months.

I have not faced any downtime or stability issues with Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

I have not encountered any scalability issues with Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

The technical support is excellent. They promptly addressed my concerns regarding permission issues when I contacted them.

I used CentOS for non-enterprise purposes but switched to Red Hat for enterprise applications due to its superior support and stability. However, Ubuntu is generally preferred for Kubernetes deployments.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is nine out of ten.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux does not require maintenance.

Our mid-size organization has between 20 and 50 employees, including our DevOps team, who use Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

I recommend Red Hat Enterprise Linux due to its support and strategy.