External reviews are not included in the AWS star rating for the product.
My main use case for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is server management and cloud operations.
I use RHEL for server management and cloud operations to perform multiple tasks, such as user access management, user management, patch management, and troubleshooting.
Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) offers multiple features that are really accessible and stable, providing security and compliance, hybrid cloud compatibility, enterprise-grade container support, task automation through cron jobs, and an overall good platform.
Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has positively impacted my organization through automation, as my recent task saved a lot of time by reducing the work from months to a day using scripts developed in RHEL, thus boosting our productivity and cutting costs while empowering a skilled workforce, enabling scalable and secure infrastructure, and fueling innovation and digital transformation.
Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) could be improved with a modernized knowledge base and documentation, better performance under high load, and possibly a reduction in the cost of the professional subscription. Apart from that, I don't see much need for improvement.
I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for more than five years.
In my experience, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is perfect in terms of stability.
Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) handles increases in users, applications, or data smoothly, which is why we use it for all our projects, as it provides us with confidence. We also use Amazon Linux, but primarily it is RHEL.
I have reached out to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) customer support multiple times, and I've found the experience amazing, as issues get resolved in a lesser time compared to Amazon AWS.
I have majorly worked on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) only and did not use a different solution before switching.
We have seen a return on investment with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), having saved a lot of money and time due to the automation and scripting we perform, resulting in savings on man-hours as well.
I have mentioned earlier that the pricing, setup cost, and licensing for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) could be reduced a bit, indicating a scope for improvement there.
Before choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I evaluated other options like SUSE and AIX, but I don't think any of them are better than RHEL.
We do a lot of automation using Bash scripts. In a recent task, I had about 2,500 to 3,000 EBS volumes that I needed to change from GP2 to GP3 and calculate their throughput and IOPS, which would have been impossible manually due to time constraints, but we accomplished it with a Bash script thanks to RHEL. It's really very useful.
My advice for others looking into using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is that everyone working on Linux should at least give it a try because it's a great platform.
On a scale of one to ten, I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) an 8.5 out of 10.
From the start of my career, I started working on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).
My work role is a network engineer and systems engineer. We manage customers' servers, which run the Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) operating system.
The servers are Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), and my job role involves troubleshooting and ensuring the servers are running properly.
Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is very good concerning security; it's much better than other Windows systems. RHEL is something I normally use command prompt with, and it's very easy to manage as a network engineer.
The Red Hat systems build in their own security features, which is unique, and it's better to use for enterprise-level customers. Most enterprise-level customers prefer RHEL to run their systems and applications.
I can work with less downtime, and if anything happens, it's very easy and direct to troubleshoot compared to other operating systems. The FAQ rules, details, and commands in the Red Hat FAQs are very helpful.
Currently, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) supports all types of integration using other systems, but it might be better if they had more documentation on the relevant integration with other apps or systems.
There can be some improvements in this area.
The solution has been in use for nine years.
Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is stable.
When it comes to cloud, it's easy to scale up using the AWS management tool; we can easily upgrade or downgrade the systems. However, when it comes to physical on-premises deployment, that is a different situation.
We are not using only Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). As Lumen Technologies is the largest MNC, we have all types of systems. RHEL is one of the main systems which most customers use, but we currently use other solutions as well. We didn't switch to anything exclusively.
We host web applications and websites in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) servers.
RHEL is a reliable and best operating system for users to implement.
I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a 10 out of 10.
I have completed RHCSA and RHCE certifications. In my day-to-day work, I mainly use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for basic installation of Red Hat OS, configuration, MariaDB setup, Apache setup, and cluster management.
Regarding my main use case with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), it is an open source OS which allows us to modify the system as per our requirements. It is also secure and user-friendly.
The system is user-friendly because we can use it through both CLI and GUI interfaces, which provides flexibility, and the ability to modify the OS helps me in my daily work.
Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has positively impacted my organization because we can check for vulnerabilities, and when we have internet access, we can directly install packages. The system provides easy access to internet resources when needed.
Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has potential for improvement, though currently all features are working well based on my experience. Different versions have increased security measures, which is beneficial.
Regarding needed improvements for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), increasing its cloud capabilities would be beneficial. Additionally, it would be helpful if they provided direct RPM package downloads via the Red Hat site without requiring a Red Hat subscription.
I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for more than five to six years.
I used a different solution before Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) when I was working at SBI, where they had a Galera cluster. Sometimes servers would unexpectedly remove themselves from the cluster, which caused major issues requiring troubleshooting and node verification.
My advice to others considering Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is that compared to Windows and Mac, Red Hat is very comfortable to use.
I currently use both Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and CentOS as tech products.
My main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are on the infrastructure side, including patching, building, engineering, administration, and a little bit of everything.
The feature I appreciate the most about Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is its installation, which includes numerous capabilities. The installation process, especially when automating tasks, provides great satisfaction when it works. These features benefit my company because they enable tasks to be completed quickly.
I cannot identify specific improvements needed for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) at this time. We are currently using version 9.6, and it is performing satisfactorily. I would need to work with it daily to provide specific feedback. However, the documentation could be more user-friendly and comprehensive. Instead of simply stating procedures, it should provide more detailed explanations through multiple layers of implementation. The documentation could be simplified for beginners who are unfamiliar with the system. In our organization, we write our own documentation to address these needs.
I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) along with CentOS throughout this period.
Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps me address vulnerabilities, particularly high CVEs with scores of 10 and nine. The build-out capabilities are beneficial, and Ansible integration works effectively with RHEL.
Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales very effectively to meet my company's needs.
The customer service and technical support are good, though they have declined in quality compared to previous standards. Currently, support often responds by sending PDF documentation, and scheduling direct calls can be challenging.
Security requirements were a key consideration in choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) due to its ease of use, robust security features, and comprehensive experience and support. Support availability was particularly important among these factors.
From my perspective, the biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has been its excellent performance and issue resolution capabilities.
I am not considering alternative solutions to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) at this time due to our current three-year contract commitment.
I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a 9 out of 10 and advise other companies considering RHEL to proceed with implementation. They should complete their customer assessment and work with Red Hat representatives. The solution is highly recommended, despite minor support-related concerns.
My main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) cover all the tiers from web application to the database.
The feature of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that I prefer most is Insights. I have been using Insights, and it can give me the health of the system, CPU, memory, and everything, allowing me to see everything including security patches, vulnerabilities, and missing patches.
Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps me solve pain points because it is a stable platform, so I don't have to fix many issues because we're using Ansible to automate everything. Since we have a very stable environment and Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is very stable, we don't have much pain. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) benefits my company significantly because by using it, we are using a stable platform, and all our environments are working as expected.
It has excellent features in terms of security. Everything is there. I just need to deploy it, and we have the SELinux, OpenSCAP, and many tools that I can use to configure the system to make it more secure. For upgrade or migration plans to stay current, we're using the automated LEAP process for migrating from a lower version to the latest version.
I see that there's a lot of improvement needed, but I can see that Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 10 has some of the features that I'm looking for.
I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for eight years.
I have peace of mind, so everything with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is reliable and stable.
Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped me to mitigate downtime and lower risks because we have everything in place to mitigate any issues since we have a failover on the other side.
Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales effectively; all the needs of our company are being met by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).
I have experience with customer service and technical support. The experience with customer service has been pleasant, but some of the features that I am looking for are not met, so they're still working on it. I would rate the customer service an eight out of ten.
The knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has improved now because of AI. Previously, when I searched for something, it didn't give me everything, but now I am more satisfied.
Positive
My experience with deploying Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is smooth. We are using an automated process; we're using VMware VRA and Ansible to customize the environment. Everything is smooth in building Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) because we have the process from end-to-end, it's very well-defined, so we don't have any problem deploying Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).
We have a hybrid environment with on-premise or cloud deployment. We use all cloud providers.
When it comes to managing my Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems for provisioning and patching, we're using automation with Ansible Automation Platform, AAP, and everything is going smoothly, and I am satisfied with that experience.
I am looking to make the deployment much easier because there's the Image Builder that I prefer, and in building using the Image Builder, all the packages or repositories that I need are inside that feature.
The biggest return on investment for me when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is peace of mind; I don't have to worry about the operating system because it's running smoothly as expected.
Security requirements were a consideration when choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) because since we're in the government, I'm the one that set up the compliance requirements, and I deployed using the OpenSCAP, but I cannot tell the profiles as it's confidential.
While using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I have not considered other solutions; we are working on moving to OpenShift, which is still Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).
I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as a nine out of ten; I don't give a ten because it's a perfect score.
My advice to other companies that are considering Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is that it is the best operating system currently, so they can use it in deploying their system, wherever they want to deploy the applications.
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.
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.
Positive
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.
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.
Positive
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.
