External reviews are not included in the AWS star rating for the product.
I was working on Azure cloud migrations using Azure Discovery tool and AWS Endeavor tool.
I worked with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Azure discovery migration tool. I have worked on-premises for 16 years and on the cloud for four years.
I like that there is no downtime during operations. We work to mitigate downtime, but it typically ranges from two to three hours for upgrades and up to four hours for migration work.
Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) now uses satellite servers, though we are not getting many materials or awareness about that aspect. Containers have also been implemented in Red Hat Enterprise Linux, but we need more materials and documentation for these features, based on my work experience.
I have used Red Hat Enterprise Linux in hybrid environments including physical, virtual, and cloud deployments.
Red Hat Enterprise Linux is now integrated with RAN engineering, supporting telecom applications. Features such as Ansible and container applications come built-in since RHEL 8.
I find information through seminar websites and seminar links. With satellite servers, I receive links through which I share and gain knowledge, including online resources, PDF materials, and Udemy courses.
For telecom products and technical platforms that support RAN engineering, we expect more features to be added to satellite, as it is currently quite complicated.
I have been working with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for 16 to 17 years. The upgrades and materials have been consistently good.
Initial container deployment is difficult because the application matters more than the Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) server.
I would rate the scalability at eight out of ten.
Technical support from Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has been very good.
Positive
The implementation took approximately six months because it was a RAN application.
Using the framework, I can upgrade directly from 7.9 to 8.1. I have completed upgrades for approximately 2,000 servers using Leap.
I perform server migrations, including physical to physical and physical to virtual transfers. I work on application upgrades and Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) server upgrades.
I rate this product 8 out of 10. I expect more Ansible features and container features in future releases.
I am a system administrator using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for handling applications and databases. The machines I manage handle applications and databases, along with some JBoss.
Ever since IBM has come into the picture, Red Hat and Ansible have been developed very well. The reporting and workflows have become very good.
Among all Linux flavors in the market, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has a very high-level support developer team, which is important for our critical systems. We need a solid platform that provides one spot for vulnerability fixes, unlike Ubuntu, CentOS, etc. They only provide low levels of support.
The management is fine. We're doing regular patches with Satellite. We're happy with it. It is manageable.
We can manage a hybrid cloud environment. Red Hat doesn't come fully into our picture with our environment since we're using the Amazon environment and VMware for virtual machines. Red Hat is just an OS, and it is easy to set it anywhere with no issues.
They should be more generous in providing documentation in a friendlier way. The Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) documentation is good, yet not as good as other products such as IBM. Oracle, on the other hand, is the worst; they are very limited in sharing their documentation with engineers.
The Asian support could use improvement.
I have total experience in Unix/Linux of 25 years, which includes five years of Solaris, IBM HP-UX, IBM AIX, and HP-UX, along with Sun Solaris, while the other 15 years is with Linux.
We never faced any issues with stability, and we never faced any limitations.
We never faced any issues with scalability, and we never faced any limitations. For our company, it is more than enough. I'd rate scalability nine or ten out of ten.
Red Hat support is good, actually. It depends on the region. I have dealt with several regions including Asia, Middle East, and Europe. The majority of European support is excellent. I would give it nine to ten out of ten. In the Middle East, it is between seven to eight out of ten, while in Asia, very rarely do we get nine or eight out of ten. I'd rate it five out of ten there.
Positive
We have moved to another technology since we are no longer working with Dell EMC or Networker. With Veeam, we are currently working for that vendor. We are using Veeam exclusively nowadays.
We're working with 80% Linux, 10% Unbuntu, 10% Oracle.
The initial setup was very simple.
Management is fine, since we have the Red Hat Satellite, which allows us to do regular up-to-date patches. We are happy with the Red Hat Satellite. It is manageable.
I am handling the storage, backup, and operating systems of Linux flavors personally.
This question of ROI would be unfair for me to answer. We are not using the full range of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) products and are depending on other things. However, Ansible is doing very well with the new version, and in terms of workflow, it is easy to manage. Ansible has been performing very well, especially after IBM acquired Red Hat. IBM has enhanced Red Hat and Ansible very well, as they are famous for reporting and managing workflows.
The pricing is very simple. Compared to something like IBM, Red Hat is the cheapest.
Without something to compare it with other than Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I cannot do a direct comparison. However, compared to Unix products such as Oracle Linux or IBM, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is less expensive.
Regarding Linux Image Builder and system roles, I have tried both, however, cannot recall which one I downloaded. The last time I built it was more than five months ago.
I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) nine out of ten.
I'm supporting a client in North America, specifically in Canada, where they are using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) servers in their retail business. They utilize it for back office software service, specifically a software called BOSS (Back Office Software Service). We are using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) on almost 1,200 servers, but this year, we have started migrating to Rocky from Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).
Vulnerability management and patch releases are done on time. There are no delays, and we are not leaving our environment vulnerable, which minimizes risks.
Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped us mitigate downtime and lower risk. With our current patching process using Kpatch, we frequently do not reboot the servers. We only reboot once a year during application downtime to upgrade to the next kernel level, while all security patches are applied live.
Some of the best features I noticed with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) include the LVM and the patching mechanism through the Satellite system. We do patching whenever there is a security vulnerability, and we are able to do it with the support of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). For me these two big features, LVM and patching, are essential.
If I can resolve an issue myself, that would be ideal, as it means I wouldn’t need to raise a case at all. The KB articles should contain all the necessary information for reference.
It would be great if they're able to reduce the price. It will be easier to convince customers to use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) instead of open-source solutions.
I have almost five years of experience with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).
Scalability is fine; I don't have any challenges there. However, we are not using many of those features because our application is not ready to utilize them.
We use their knowledge base to find the solution.
I would rate the technical support with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a nine out of ten.
Positive
The customer is moving to Rocky. It is not our decision; we still insist on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) due to its security and additional features. The customer is moving away primarily for cost-cutting on licensing.
Compared to other Linux distributions such as openSUSE, SUSE, or Rocky, I believe Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) offers better features. In Rocky, we don't have a live patching mechanism.
Deployments or migrations are quite easy for us since we have been working with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for the last five or six years. It feels like a piece of cake. Whether it's a minor or major version update or a migration, we don’t face any significant challenges. The process is smooth.
Initially, it took us two days to spin up a VM with all the requirements when on-prem. Now, the code is in GitLab. We have set up a code to build the servers, so after submitting a request in ServiceNow, it can be ready the next day. It is all automated.
It was on-prem, but last year, all of the servers were migrated to GCP.
There isn't much difference whether it's on-prem or on cloud, because the patching mechanism we follow through the Satellite system remains the same. From an admin's perspective, there isn't much difference between cloud and on-prem support.
As we lift and shift, our application is not cloud-ready or digital-ready, so we are still working in legacy mode. Therefore, we need to recode the entire application stack to make it compatible with cloud features.
If Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) can reduce its pricing, then it would be easier to convince others that there is not much difference between open-source solutions while still receiving several features for a licensing cost.
I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a nine out of ten.
I use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) to manage applications and for system administration. The latest version is Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 10, which has AI with Red Hat Lightspeed inside the operating system, where you can write natural language in the terminal. I am using artificial intelligence inside Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). I am working with Ansible, which is an automation tool from Red Hat. I install Ansible inside Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and make many automations.
Red Hat Insights helps in monitoring Linux servers, providing CVEs that need updating in the operating system, and giving information about server security.
In the latest release, there are three important new features: Red Hat Lightspeed with AI integration, image mode capability allowing Red Hat Enterprise Linux to be imaged and transferred to another VM, and Quench-key cryptography for enhanced security. The AI integration through Red Hat Lightspeed is particularly significant as it differentiates it from other operating systems.
SELinux is valuable for security purposes. SELinux is very good because we can give the correct permissions to the employees.
Red Hat Lightspeed, added in the latest version, and image mode features are also significant features.
Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is already good and perfect. They can continue to improve the AI features.
I have 10 years of experience working with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). I worked as an operating system specialist for five years, performing administration tasks such as managing LVMs, users, groups, disks, and performing troubleshooting inside the operating system.
Their support is very good.
Positive
I worked with SUSE and changed to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) because I worked at IBM for five years, and IBM bought Red Hat. All systems were integrated into Red Hat solutions.
SUSE is very similar to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), but I prefer Red Hat solutions because their support is much better. I believe that the support and updates from Red Hat are superior. For example, Red Hat has a feature called Red Hat Insights, which allows me to proactively manage incidents and identify vulnerabilities. SUSE does not offer these features.
The deployment is easy.
Red Hat saves time with integration with tools such as Ansible for automation.
I am not involved in the pricing, but it is not very expensive.
I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux a ten out of ten.
Our use cases for Red Hat OpenShift revolve around telco environments, where we deploy telco applications using container microservices architectures. We have around 32 to 35 OpenShift clusters, with multiple worker and master nodes running on them, totaling more than 500 nodes across pre-production, test, and various production environments. We onboard different applications onto these OpenShift clusters, which primarily operate in private data centers on bare metal rather than in VMs, since the motive of this client project is to align the telco environment with a cloud-native approach.
It enables customers to deploy any type of application. A lot of enterprises are moving to the Linux environment from the Windows environment.
When it comes to development, it saves time because, unlike Windows, you don't require a lot of different things and licenses.
I appreciate the features of OpenShift, particularly its built-in capabilities such as operators and integration with multiple identity providers. Operators eliminate the need for creating helm charts, and considering Kubernetes, which Red Hat OpenShift is built on, the enhancements make OpenShift a preferred choice for many enterprise customers.
The documentation and knowledge base for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are quite good, allowing for effective searches, though I would prefer something more interactive.
I have tried the Insight features in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), which provide a good overview of clusters, but most customers at the OpenShift level do not opt for the Insights feature for two reasons. Firstly, Insights is specific to individual clusters and does not offer a single pane of glass for multi-cluster environments. Having a centralized Insights feature for multiple clusters would be more appealing, especially for customers managing a fleet of 50 or more clusters.
There is one feature that could significantly enhance our time to market: enabling AI capabilities. For instance, if you have a fleet of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) servers, potentially thousands running, they can incorporate a built-in agent that monitors key metrics. This agent would allow us to easily query and track the CPU and memory status of all clusters. Instead of generating traditional reports through Insights, we could leverage AI to curate this information directly. If such features could be included in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), it would be a game-changer. There would be no need for external AI solutions; just an integrated AI agent would suffice. This enhancement could help minimize operational costs. From a customer perspective, while capital expenditures (CapEx) are already being handled through Red Hat solutions, we need to focus on reducing operational expenditures (OpEx), especially related to reporting. Even when Insights are generated, someone still needs to analyze them. By incorporating this advanced capability into Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), they can streamline processes and deliver valuable insights more efficiently.
We are using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for our customers. We have been using it at the infrastructure level for more than 10 years. However, we have been using Red Hat OpenShift only for the last two to three years as our container platform.
It helps reduce downtime. Overall, it's stable, but it also depends on the type of workload you are running.
It is scalable. For example, creating logical volumes and extending disks is straightforward. This process is quite easy.
Red Hat's support is generally good, but sometimes they take a long time, which can be frustrating for customers, particularly when dealing with products still in development, such as new versions of Red Hat OpenShift. When bugs arise that lack solutions, both customers and Red Hat are searching for answers, leading to delays until new releases are issued.
Positive
I have used Ubuntu and CentOS. I find Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) better than Ubuntu and CentOS.
Its deployment is easy. The number of people required and duration depend on how many servers you're deploying.
We utilize a hybrid environment with some of our customers operating in the public cloud, allowing us to manage both on-premises and cloud infrastructures.
I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) an eight out of ten.
The most valuable aspect of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is its reliability. The support is very good.
The knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is excellent. It is very easy to search for solutions to problems and apply new features.
The main concern is the price.
I used Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for five years recently, and about ten to twelve years overall. The last time I used it was last year.
It's reliable. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) did not help much with our uptime or security.
The support with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is good, and it is similar to Oracle.
Positive
In the bank, we use Oracle Linux, but previously we used CentOS.
It was easy to manage in terms of provisioning and patching. We used other products to update the systems, though I don't remember the name. I had other teams to manage the environment. I was satisfied with the management process and the management experience.
It's expensive.
I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a ten out of ten. I would recommend it to others. It is very stable.
Our use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are diverse; it powers our servers, runs desktops for our development network, as well as some of our production hosts, and we'll see if it expands further.
Red Hat is giving that level of enterprise support helps us build a Linux ecosystem that makes sense for business.
Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps us solve pain points by providing tremendous support from our Red Hat representatives.
The flexibility that we get through Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and the ability for people to build their own tools as they're working without having to deal with something like PowerShell or hack it through backwards ways in Windows is a real relief.
Interactive Brokers is powered by our workforce, and we have really brilliant engineers, top to bottom, especially our developers. The flexibility that we get through Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and the ability for people to build their own tools as they're working without having to deal with something like PowerShell or hack it through backwards ways in Windows is a real relief and something that we couldn't operate without.
We deploy Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in both cloud and on-premise environments in a hybrid environment. Currently, our management of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems when it comes to provisioning and patching has gone through many changes throughout the years. We are currently using KVM. We're exploring OpenShift and some other options, and I am satisfied with that management experience.
Security requirements were considered before choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). We've been primarily with Red Hat for a very long time, and security concerns have kept us with RHEL throughout the years as we have not been comfortable with anything else.
Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) supports our hybrid cloud strategy effectively, and many of the options I've seen at the conference will make spreading out into the cloud without compromising our on-premise systems more convenient than it might be with another distro. I assess the knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as very strong; the customer relations management, support, and the fact that it's an open-source platform gives you huge clarity versus Microsoft or some other type of closed environment.
Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) can be improved by providing more support for on-prem. As you go by industry by industry, the more regulation and control you need over your data, the more precious data sovereignty becomes, and being able to work in a hybrid environment with a push in that direction would be better.
I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for 11 years now, and our company has been using it for maybe close to 20 years at this point.
The stability and reliability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are very good. It's not throwing out mystery patches that break things constantly, as certain other server solutions do, so that stability has been strong because we can say we don't need that patch now, and review them on their own merits. We are looking forward to RHEL 10.
Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales to the growing needs of our company excellently, and the scalability is a big draw.
The customer service and technical support of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has been wonderful so far. The community is a never-ending well of support, and my personal experiences with our customer relations manager have just been top notch.
I would rate the customer service for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as a solid ten out of ten. I have less experience needing their support for technical issues. Just as a partner, it has been very strong.
Positive
We have considered other solutions in our Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) journey. There have been arguments this way or that, however, they've never been enough to dislodge us. We do run Windows and other things. That said, our whole program base and everything we do back and front relies on having an enterprise Linux solution.
The biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the appreciation of being a Linux shop with enterprise-level support, enabling us to keep it up. Trying to imagine running a worldwide company purely on free open-source software would be wholly unsustainable and require unfathomable levels of worker hours, so having the power and flexibility of a Linux ecosystem with that level of enterprise support makes it all work.
On a scale of one to ten, I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) an eight out of ten.
My main use case for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is server administration, so we provide a group that delivers server software from RHEL, including Ansible and Satellite.
The features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that I appreciate most are the standard ease of use through Satellite and Ansible, which help us keep up with our demands. The benefits of those features for my company include managing compliance issues or demands we face for the business, so we need to keep up with patching on a regular basis, which is important.
Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) could be improved, and it appears 10 is a good way forward. Having been in this industry for so long, I don't have much on my mind, however, there is generally a barrier to getting used to it. The Lightspeed is improving it to help newcomers, so it seems a good idea.
My thoughts on RHEL's built-in security features are that they might be better; we haven't really gotten security to be very smooth, so we're not using much of it, and we have other tools to ensure compliance. At the moment, there is nothing I really miss from RHEL's features.
I have been using Red Hat's products since 1990. I've been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) since 1996 or 1997; RHEL came in the 2000s.
Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped to mitigate downtime and lower risks since we don't have much downtime when it comes to Red Hat systems; it's quite stable. The stability and reliability of the RHEL platform are good.
Regarding scalability, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has been able to scale to the needs of the company; we haven't met any limitations yet, and we mostly deploy it with scale-out and scale-up strategies, but we haven't managed to scale up fully yet.
My experience with customer service and technical support is that they respond, which is good. Sometimes, the bug fixes take a little while, especially on their supporting systems such as Satellite. From one to ten, I would give the customer service and technical support a seven or an eight.
Positive
While using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I considered other solutions such as Ubuntu for client-side use; tying it into Microsoft software, such as Microsoft Entra ID, which was not possible at the moment when we started looking into it, could work even more with connections or using external vendors.
The deployment is very easy. I've been doing it for a while too. Satellite helps a lot. AIP helps even more.
From my point of view, the biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the stable environment it provides, along with the solutions going from A to B, from all the way from A to Z; we get the patches, it's updated, and it's alive.
The price is always an issue, and it depends on what you get; we have lots of development, yet I'm not economical and don't deal with finance, so it's not my area of expertise anymore.
We haven't made any upgrade or migration plans to stay current with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 10 since that's just released; most of our systems are running 8 and 9 at the moment, so it depends on the applications running on them, their dependencies, and we have many systems that can't be upgraded, however, we want to stay on track for the most important systems.
Overall, I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) an eight out of ten.
We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) at the enterprise level to host various applications. RHEL is our enterprise strategy for the Linux operating system, and it helps us host most of our mission-critical applications.
The feature of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that I appreciate the most is the security features. The security features of RHEL protect our environment. By having strong security hygiene with RHEL, we are able to provide business value back to our stakeholders.
I have been involved in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) migrations and upgrades. I would describe the experience of RHEL migrations as challenging since it's not an easy task to migrate thousands of machines in one major release window. RHEL has helped to mitigate downtime and lower risks, as we keep RHEL current with patching.
The image model that is currently being deployed with RHEL 10 is going to be a way of improving RHEL. I'm using CICD pipelines to manage the OS, just as we do applications. We don't have specific metrics on how much less risk has been lowered or how much downtime has been mitigated, howrever, we do keep our systems patched within 30 days of CVE being released, so our risk exposure is quite low.
To make Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a ten out of ten, addressing the enterprise management tools, such as SELinux policy management and firewalls, would bring it much more in line, especially regarding security features and overall operations management.
I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for approximately 14 years.
The stability and reliability of the platform are excellent.
We have scaled both in the data center as well as in the edge with over 15,000 devices.
We have a very good relationship with Red Hat for support and customer service. We have a TAM service, so from a support perspective, our cases are handled very efficiently.
Positive
I considered other solutions while choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), and we have a combination of RHEL and open-source free versions of RHEL. The biggest difference between RHEL and those open-source versions is support; at the end of the day, it's the partnership for support from Red Hat versus the binaries where it's self-managed and self-maintained.
Currently, we deploy Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) on-premises and we use open-source technologies to provision and deploy both bare metal and virtual.
The biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the whole ecosystem and partnership with Red Hat.
We have enterprise contracts with Red Hat, and regarding pricing, we have a good deal. On a scale of one to ten, I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) an eight.
I used Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for my past job where it was used for VMware. It was always on VMware, JBoss, or WebLogic for web-based apps and similar applications. In my current job, we use it as a base OS for AAP or for VSOS, for a Docker host, a pod host, or various applications.
Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is valuable for us since it's stable and reliable.
Some of the new features they're adding to it, such as RHEL 10 and the AI, sound really helpful. The federal security features are also beneficial. Especially the AI feature sounds useful.
Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps simplify processes and having support is super helpful. When I have an issue and try to track it down without success, I can submit a ticket and get support. They're usually able to troubleshoot the issue, so having support is beneficial for me.
Our upgrade or migration plans to stay current involve using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 8 for much of our infrastructure, while also deploying RHEL 9 for the past six months. Once RHEL 8 is deprecated, we'll probably start looking to migrate to RHEL 10 and building net new servers.
Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) definitely helps to mitigate downtime and lower risks through access to AAP. I've also heard you can do an in-place update for the kernel, which is something I'm curious to try but haven't had the chance yet.
Improving Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) requires good documentation and having a way to onboard people for new technology they're introducing. The AI will be helpful for that since they have that now. The SE policy is not very clear on how it's supposed to be implemented, which they can improve upon, or perhaps I don't know where to look for that information.
I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in my job for probably ten years or more.
Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has been pretty reliable from my experiences so far, with no major issues.
Customer service and technical support from Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has been pretty good overall. It has been fairly responsive, although I have had times when it was somewhat slow to respond to tickets and requests. I've had coworkers who have experienced that as well, so that could be improved. The response and quality of their responses could be better in some cases. In other cases, it's adequate for what we need.
Neutral
My experience of deploying Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in general has been pretty good so far. I use Image Builder, which is developed by Red Hat. I use that to create the image, and then satellite servers actually deploy it. For the most part, it's seamless and reliable.
The biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), from my point of view, is having the integration between all of the various platforms, whether it's AAP, or satellite, and IDM. We use satellite, AAP, and IDM, and the integration between all of these has been super helpful.
We haven't had a need for other solutions while using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) currently, but if something came up, we would probably consider it.
I have been involved with upgrading from Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 8 to RHEL 9, and from RHEL 7 to RHEL 8 because RHEL 7 has been sunsetted. In these cases, we build net new rather than doing in-place upgrades.
For upgrades, we use satellite to deploy, and AAP for our host provisioning and whatever we need to layer on top of the infrastructure. For managing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems regarding provisioning and patching, we use AAP. We have a written playbook that reaches out to the host and takes a snapshot of the host in VMware. Then it runs the patching and reports back if it succeeded or failed.
I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) an eight out of ten.