My main use case for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is as the operating system for all of our applications. I'm our Ansible SME, so we install on top of that and then use that application to manage the RHEL for the enterprise.

The features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that I most appreciate include the easy package management and the straightforward upgrades. The stability and support are also impressive.

The benefit that my company sees from these features is significant. In my particular applications, it's not allowed to be down for more than five minutes consecutively, so it's helping me meet my requirement.

When considering how Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) can be improved, I would say for the enterprise, having easier hooks for these air-gapped lab environments would be beneficial. The reason why these lab environments are air-gapped is we want to test new things, and we can't have it interact with the rest of our network until it's fully vetted. That's why we have these labs to fully vet those types of things. It's normally a hassle to get RHEL up in those environments until we work out the right treatment.

The improvement would be if there's an easy way to, through that air-gapped environment, entitle the RHEL images.

In terms of assessing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)'s built-in security features, I find that out of the box, we are able to manage golden images and that keeps us in compliance.

It is very easy to manage.

I haven't had experience with customer service and technical support for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) items, but I have on the Ansible side.

The portal is excellent. They integrated OpenShift AI, so sometimes when I'm filling out the ticket, it already has the solution there and I end up not opening the ticket. When I do have to open the ticket, I get a good response. That's on the Ansible side, but I'm sure it's the same on RHEL if I ran into something.

We have considered different solutions, not so much Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) itself. Our company started with mainframe way back and has been long time RHEL customers.

We have looked at different container solutions and things in the Red Hat ecosystem, and Red Hat came ahead in those.

From my point of view, the return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is definitely significant.

If we were not able to meet our regulatory impact, we would not be able to do business. It is table stakes.

The advice I would give to other companies that are considering Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) right now is to do a comparison and get feedback from their engineers.

They will see that this is a much more stable platform with a lot of support. I would rate RHEL a 10 out of 10 because it's how we do business.

My main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in this company include running some mission-critical databases, which include Oracle, and one of our document imaging applications.

The best feature of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the easy virtualization on any of the VMware platforms, and now we are also trying on OpenShift, which is very helpful. These features benefit my company by reducing the downtime, which is the main help.

I describe my experience with deploying Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as a bit challenging because it is very advanced on the AIX side or HP-UX side in terms of creating the image and directly building a new server or recovering a server; that is still a challenge on the Red Hat side with that rear image, but now they are improving upon that, and I'm hoping Red Hat 10 will have better options. 

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) can be improved to keep pace with the dynamic world of IT, especially as artificial intelligence and other technologies evolve.

So far, we are very satisfied with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)'s built-in security features when it comes to simplifying risk reduction and maintaining compliance. However, we are exploring further, as there are always challenges, especially when it comes to well-known bugs that need addressing before deployment. I’m expecting more automation in this area. Ideally, it should be handled automatically, allowing us to say, "You don't need to do anything; I’ll take care of that."

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for probably fifteen plus years.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped mitigate downtime and lower risks because we used a lot of freeware Linux systems before, which posed challenges when bugs came up, leading to struggles when solutions weren't available. With Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and support from Red Hat, if issues arise, we can get quick support and resolution, making it very helpful.

So far, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales with the growing needs of my company, but we need to see how this next big change towards artificial intelligence will unfold.

The knowledge base on their website and other resources is quite helpful. However, I have faced several challenges with support, not only with Red Hat but also with other vendors. Typically, when we open a support case with Red Hat, it is assigned to the first level of support. Even when we clearly outline the issue and request a timely response, the case often takes longer than expected to resolve. Sometimes, the support team asks unnecessary questions that are not relevant to the issue at hand.

I believe this is not just a problem with Red Hat; many vendors exhibit similar behaviors. There are knowledgeable individuals on the support team who could assist effectively, yet the initial support level often asks basic questions that do not pertain to the problem we're experiencing. It would be beneficial to streamline the process to ensure that appropriately skilled personnel are assigned to cases more quickly.

My experience with customer service and technical support has been mixed; sometimes it has been excellent when we get the right person at the right time, but otherwise, it is always a challenge, even though we pay for the highest support and have a special Account Executive or Account Manager assigned to us.

Neutral

We mostly used free Linux, but our critical systems were on Red Hat ever since we started migrating from HP-UX, which is not Intel-based, but rather RISC-based systems, even AIX.

I expect to see a return on investment once we start migrating from VMs on VMware to Red Hat or OpenShift.

I have not considered switching to another solution that does the same, but there is always pressure from the company to reduce costs. They question why we don't just use free Linux, Ubuntu or other flavors, which we are using, but not for our critical applications. The main difference is support.

Security requirements are always a consideration before choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) because we are living in a different world. I always have upgrade or migration plans to stay current and we are very aggressive about it, except when the application vendor says it's not supported on the new version yet, which is the only bottleneck.

For the management of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems, a lot of processes are currently manual, although we are using some features and trying to do a lot of automation with Ansible, which we just started implementing, to complete the automation process.

We are always very aggressive with upgrades, except when an application states that it does not support the new version. That's the only drawback we face.

For someone considering Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for their company, I advise conducting some kind of PoCs to understand how it works, and I would then recommend going ahead as it represents the future.

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) an eight out of ten.

My main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) at this company include the development environment, where the dev environment is all in Linux. It's a server where you connect to via PuTTY, and it's currently running on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 7.

My favorite feature of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is that it's a Linux server with Linux commands. These features have benefited my company by making it feel lightweight. If you know Linux commands, you can connect to it and still be able to navigate within that Linux environment. The benefit is that if you onboard a new developer and they know Linux commands, they could just jump on it immediately.

From a user standpoint, every time they do an upgrade or they bring down the Linux server, I have to re-clone all my repositories. Perhaps they could just migrate them over so I don't have to do all that cloning again, because I have three different repos that I have to clone. This has happened twice. I am uncertain how Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) can be improved beyond this.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) at my company for two and a half years, ever since I started.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped mitigate downtime and lower risk for what we use it for because we use it to host a Docker container and for the development environment. From my standpoint, it has been beneficial because we're using it as a development environment to test out new features, which helps mitigate unwanted bugs.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales with the growing needs of my company because there have not been any issues with deploying different servers.

I have worked with Goldman Sachs and Bank of America, and they all use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for their Linux servers. I haven't heard of any other solutions being used, though I haven't worked on the DevOps side to set up these systems. In all the environments I've used that are Linux-based, it has been Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 6 or Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 7.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps solve pain points by being very easy to connect to, and it has an easy setup, though I didn't set it up as the DevOps people handled that.

I don't manage the Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems when it comes to provisioning and patching; there's a DevOps team that handles that. When there is an upgrade, they handle all that after work hours. They bring everything down and then bring up the new servers.

My advice to a company that's thinking of getting Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is, as a user, go for it. I don't know any other product besides Linux and Ubuntu, but I think Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is good. 

On a scale of 1-10, I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a 9 out of 10.

Primarily, our use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are web hosting, but we have a lot of other IBM products running on the machine.

The feature I find most valuable about Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is security. For our company, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped us significantly. We used to be on Sun Solaris approximately 12 years ago, and we have migrated to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), on 7, 8 version, and now on 9 version, and I'm trying to go to 10 as soon as possible. This has resulted in faster app migration because we're running an elevation of many IBM products we had at the legacy, and we see significant improvement in how fast they can build services.

From the web app perspective, my experience with the deployment of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is that they are fast to market; when they request a new VM instance, they can do it very quickly, in a matter of minutes. Security requirements were a consideration before choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

Based on my personal observation over the last several years, there is definitely room for improvement on how to collect the troubleshooting logs, especially in live production. Many times my server team has to open a case with Red Hat to collect their dumps, and there should be a better way of live collection without shutting down or restarting the machine. If you restart, you lose the opportunity to capture the issue, and that should be much more improved.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for more than 20 years.

My personal observation is that Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales effectively with the growing needs of our company. We are currently migrating from VMware, which is showing more improvements.

We used other solutions in our company before choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). We had Sun Solaris and also IBM AIX, and currently, we are using both AIX and Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

The big difference between AIX and Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is definitely in how they interact with the application side, as the underlying hardware for IBM AIX runs on P-series compared to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), which runs on the Intel platform. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is extremely reliable.

We are deploying Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) both in the cloud and on-premises. Currently, we are doing upgrades from RHEL 7 to 9 and 7 to 8, but not directly. I manage and own at least 10 to 12 servers.

The biggest return on investment for me when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is not necessarily financial. The command interface and the way it offers faster response times make me feel much more productive working with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

From the OS perspective, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is very good at mitigating downtime and lowering risks; however, certain things when bundled with other components show significant dependency. I definitely recommend using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as long as the financial cost is acceptable.

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) an eight or nine out of ten overall. To make it a perfect 10, from a system admin perspective, my only concern is that for an actively reproducing issue, I should have the provision to collect live logs without needing to depend on a Red Hat support case for minor issues, as that takes time. Other than that, I'm very satisfied with the usage perspective.

I use OpenShift as part of my system because most clients require it. I work as a forward engineer. For ten years, I've worked for companies where I'm deployed to their site to do one-day to six-month projects, similar to Geek Squad for coding. My specialty is architecture, so I've used Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), mostly Ansible and OpenShift. In instances where I'm working with a VPC directly and everything runs Linux and I'm running RHEL, I'll have some workloads. However, I don't manipulate the OS itself. I use the tools built on top of it.

My specialty is finance and medical, so with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), it's all hybrid. Those two sectors have significant compliance requirements, especially medical. I do many hybrid clouds and must build two or three redundancies. That's why all of the nuances of the Red Hat platform stand out to me in a way it wouldn't for someone else. For example, in a hospital system, they have emergency generators for power. The same concept applies to data, HIPAA, and transferring. I notice things that others may not. It means I'm always concurrently running two or three clouds for disaster recovery for compliance. All of the clouds have nine nines, 11 nines, whatever they're marketing now for reliability, but the time from start to production, the shorter that is, and the better it plays with the rest of my tools and system, the better. Red Hat really excels at that.

The main benefit is time savings, which is something that can't be easily quantified. By not breaking or causing problems, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) saves time, headaches, money, anguish, fees, violations, and penalties. This becomes apparent when teams are happy to use a tool that doesn't slow them down. For high producers, having a reliable system that doesn't require extra steps or workarounds is crucial.

There are two big pain points that Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps me solve. First, Red Hat being interoperable and not taking a side is humongous. Every other platform has tricks and questionable behaviors for lock-in. RHEL is the only platform I don't have issues connecting. Everyone is running hybrid multi-cloud environments, so the fact that others make their products purposely not work with others is obnoxious. As a professional who has made money making APIs and connectors, those companies being stubborn benefits me financially. However, from an efficiency or executing on an idea standpoint, it's frustrating. The fact that Red Hat isn't that way is excellent.

The second aspect I really appreciate, and I don't think they get credit for this, is how Red Hat's interfaces, design choices, and options work very well for producers. For example, Amazon Web Services' approach is to add 200 features a year. They throw everything at the wall to see what sticks, resulting in a confusing experience when logging in, using CLI, or setting up a bastion host into VPC with PEM keys. On the other side of the spectrum, some clouds are too simple. Red Hat hits the perfect balance.

The only thing I can think of is the RHEL AI, which has only been announced for a couple of months, so I'm still sorting it out. The way that gets implemented will be very key to the future of the company and the stack. Until I listened to the seminar, I wasn't even sure what RHEL AI meant. What I understand now is that RHEL AI is the regular RHEL with pre-installed, AI-specific tools and tooling. That's fine, but as a company, they should make that more obvious. Additionally, it seems to only save a few minutes of typing in the terminal. It sounds similar to how people took Ubuntu and made flavors, where they changed two apps and called it a distro. Red Hat should make something actually different because they have that capability, and users would definitely use it. The AI implementation is the future, and it's just a matter of how that gets used.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for production for approximately five to six years.

I have extensive experience with stability issues in Linux systems. Since 2017, I have run Debian derivatives on my personal machines. However, for work, it's always RHEL. The built-in security, secure groups, and overall architecture make it a more robust and stable system. Linux did not become stable for home users until after COVID, when everyone was at home fixing issues. RHEL's advantage lies in its architecture - it's harder to break the system due to its notifications, invisible files, and pre-reboot checks.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) solves stability problems in two ways: the architecture of the software stack is exceptionally stable, minimizing downtime and risk, and when issues occur, the recovery time is minimal. Using OpenShift, I can spin up new instances quickly and seamlessly.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales effectively. An OS by itself doesn't determine a company's success or failure; it's about the usage. While Windows, Linux, and Mac have their differences, they share basic components such as a kernel and a user interface. RHEL excels in stability, preventing system crashes even when inexperienced users interact with files, which saves time, money, equipment replacement costs, and prevents employee downtime.

I have had limited experience with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) customer service and technical support. I've used email support, which is efficient and quick. I once needed phone support while working in a data center basement without internet access. I called RHEL for assistance, and the service was excellent. I've had no issues with Red Hat or IBM service, whether it's resolving login issues via email or getting help with critical situations in front of clients.

My experience with the deployment of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) tends to work well. Due to the nature of my work, I rarely build from scratch. I typically join existing projects to iterate upon or fix something. I'm not usually the decision-maker, though I can influence clients through my expertise and trust. The migration path is relatively smooth, even when jumping two versions, and it doesn't break everything.

The pricing, setup costs, and licensing of RHEL are reasonable. While some people complain about the subscription model, I understand and accept it.

The main difference between other solutions and RHEL is configuration and security, which helps maintain stability. Since RHEL is used on web servers, both public-facing and internal, security is crucial. While any modern OS can run without crashing, RHEL's advantage is its resilience against external threats and operations that might compromise other systems.

RHEL is a reliable solution that saves users from numerous technical headaches, though these savings aren't easily quantifiable. The system's reliability speaks for itself.

My advice is to dive in and use it. There are no gotchas with RHEL. There's a large ecosystem, many knowledgeable users, and a strong community.

My review rating for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is nine out of ten.

My main use case for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is for all the tasks, which can be utility services or web services, DNS, NTP, or identity service as well as mail service in my day-to-day work.

The best features Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) offers are that it's a well-managed operating system, and I can use anything regarding the system and other features.

It is good for performance, reliability, and updates.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has positively impacted my organization because its improved security helped our team to maintain compliance issues, even though it's a bit complex.

It's acceptable to work with the current system and current initiation regarding how Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) could be improved; I don't have significant frustrations.

The GUI operation needs to be improved, especially for day-to-day desktop operations.

I'm working about 10 years in my current field.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is stable in my experience.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is a highly scalable solution, and it can handle growth and increased demand well.

The customer support for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is exceptional; I have interacted with their support team, and it's awesome.

I rate the customer support for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a 9 out of 10.

We used Oracle Linux before Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), but I prefer RHEL now.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) saved our money and is good, which indicates we've seen a return on investment.

We have evaluated Ubuntu before choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

I absolutely give others looking into using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) the advice to adopt RHEL for their other production systems. On a scale of 1-10, I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a 10.

I mainly use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as a financial application.

I appreciate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for its stable product and good support. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps me solve pain points through automation with tools such as Ansible. It helps mitigate downtime and lower risk because you can recover.

Regarding security requirements from my side, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is somewhat satisfactory, but in most organizations, they are asking for more enterprise solutions for security. If Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) can invest in monitoring, it would be great. For example, Instana is an IBM product, and since IBM owns Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), if they invest in Instana, it will be a great improvement.

I have been working with Red Hat Enterprise Linux for more than five years.

For Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) stability, I rate it a nine. It is really stable, with no issues. I found one server running for more than two years without any issue.

For scalability, it depends on the hypervisor you're using, and if you have a template, you can clone it. It doesn't matter which OS you are using, even in the cloud, it's the platform that can scale.

I am satisfied with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)'s knowledge base. They have one of the best knowledge bases for their products with good documentation and articles that help solve issues without needing to open a case.

The initial setup for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is simple.

I don't think Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is saving money because it is expensive, but saving time is a benefit because they have a lot of automation and good documentation, and it is a stable product.

I can say about pricing for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is maybe a two on a scale where ten is a high price.

I think of Ubuntu and SUSE Linux as the top in my mind competitors to RHEL.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) can run anywhere, everywhere, so it is easy to run on any platform. On RHEL, it is a more general OS, so I don't know if there's a particular feature to consider.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps mitigate downtime and lower risk because you can recover, but upgrades require downtime. We mostly do in-place upgrades and haven't used migration much.

We are involved in upgrading RHEL 7 because it has reached end of life; sometimes we upgrade to eight or nine. I am already a Red Hat Accelerator and a reference.

Overall, I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) eight to nine out of ten.

I use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for the web server application. The application I refer to is the web server application. I use this product in the telecommunication industry. We use it mainly for web applications.

In my opinion, the best features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are security, which is the main feature, and stability, as it's a stable product. The security of RHEL is beneficial because it is pretty good, and we get regular patches if there's an issue. The best security feature of RHEL, in my opinion, is the kernel patches.

RHEL helps me save time since if the OS is stable, I spend less time troubleshooting and can focus on my application. It helps mitigate downtime for sure.

It would be nice if they could bring in more features fast enough. More features for Linux in general would be appreciated. I hope they can draw from the upstream Fedora for more features.

We have not switched from a different solution; we have been using it for many years.

We haven't seen downtime yet, as we don't have a comparison against other operating systems. RHEL helps solve pain points such as less outage and less time spent on stability of the operating system, allowing my team more time to work on our applications.

Scalability is not that significant because, nowadays, OS in general doesn't help in distributed computing; that is mainly done by technology like Kubernetes.

I would rate Red Hat's support around an eight; we have never had to call them as we could fix issues ourselves.

The object storage is with another vendor, and I cannot disclose it.

Setting up Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is fairly easy; we have automated that. The setup process is fairly easy. It takes maybe 15-20 minutes to set up RHEL.

I would say Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is definitely expensive. Compared to open-source Enterprise Linux like Rocky Linux or Alma, it's definitely very expensive. We use it mainly for web applications; it is very pricey for us, and I think they will be negotiating with Red Hat to lower the price.

I have experience with Red Hat solutions. I am familiar with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), specifically Enterprise Linux. I have more than 12 years of experience with Red Hat Linux. Currently, I use Red Hat on-premises. I use this product in the telecommunication industry. We use RHEL strictly on-prem. Overall, I would rate my experience with RHEL an eight.

I use it as an EC2 Web Server.

It was needed for FedRAMP Moderate compliance.

The ready-to-go AMI is a valuable feature.

It does not pass the RHEL8 STIG standards without a lot of extra work.

I have used the solution for one year.

I previously used CIS RHEL 8 Level 2.

Check it to verify costs.

I did not consider any alternate solutions.

It does not pass the RHEL8 STIG standards without a lot of extra work.

According to the price and if your use case is more worth saving, you can go with that. I can help determine what use case you want to pursue. If it is a small scale operation, you do not need to choose that option. If it is a huge business, you can definitely invest in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

The system is user-friendly and they have a cloud console for managing all the subscriptions you have purchased. From that perspective, it is very user-friendly to manage your subscription, and you can list out all the systems where you have installed this Linux, managing them from a single console.

We are saving more costs because we are getting immediate support. If any issue arises, we do not have to wait for someone to respond. We can get immediate quick responses from the support team. We are saving lots of time and from the customer side, we have heard that they are achieving significant cost savings from this.

The main disadvantage is that you may find the price is too high.

I have two years of experience with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), and I am currently doing projects with it.

I would rate the customer service nine out of ten.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is basically from Fedora. I worked with Fedora and CentOS. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), Fedora, and CentOS are all from the same Linux family. I have also used Ubuntu.

We are a service-based company delivering services. We provide subscriptions to customers, implement them, and then complete our work.

You definitely need to consider the cost and determine if it is worth the investment. If your use case is larger and you need immediate solutions, then you should consider the cost. Technology-wise, it is very good and reliable.

I am working with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and am certified with the OpenShift platform, which is a Kubernetes platform. The company I currently work for operates both on-premise and in cloud environments.

Regarding patching, if any issues arise or security issues such as hacking or vulnerability issues occur, they will first address it through engineering and provide patch support to customers as the first priority. After that, they release it to the open source part. This patching process makes it more secure.

The immediate support and response time are good reasons to use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). My overall rating for this solution is 9 out of 10.