External reviews are not included in the AWS star rating for the product.
Our primary use case for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is hosting enterprise applications that rely heavily on databases and middleware technologies.
The platform supports both application hosting and large-scale data collection, enabling us to manage and process significant volumes of data efficiently. RHEL provides the stability and reliability required for running these critical workloads in our environment.
Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has significantly improved our organization by providing a stable, secure, and standardized operating environment for our applications.
Its reliability has reduced downtime and improved performance consistency across workloads.
The strong security features and regular patching process have enhanced our compliance posture and reduced operational risk.
In addition, the scalability of RHEL allows us to support growing data collection and application hosting needs without major infrastructure challenges.
Overall, RHEL has helped streamline system management, improve efficiency, and provide a solid foundation for our critical business operations.
The most valuable features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for us are its robust security capabilities, stability, and enterprise-grade support. These features ensure that our production environment remains secure and reliable, which directly reduces operational risks.
I have been involved in several Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) upgrades and migrations, both on-premises and in the cloud. In my experience, RHEL’s built-in security features greatly simplify risk reduction and compliance management. Our team works closely with the security group on daily scans and vulnerability reports, and RHEL enables us to address findings quickly by streamlining patching and updates. This process has proven reliable, allowing us to remediate vulnerabilities and apply fixes in a timely manner.
RHEL has also helped us mitigate downtime and reduce risks during system changes. While I personally prefer replacing production systems with thoroughly tested builds in lower environments rather than in-place upgrades, RHEL provides the flexibility and stability needed to support both approaches.
One of the key differences compared to other platforms is the reliance on command-line operations. While Windows environments tend to emphasize GUI-based management, RHEL encourages working directly in the CLI. This has been a positive shift for our team, as we continue to expand skills across both Linux commands and PowerShell.
RHEL consistently provides the stability, support, and knowledge base required to keep mission-critical systems running smoothly. With excellent vendor support and strong documentation, it fully meets our enterprise needs.
Additionally, RHEL has addressed key pain points related to security and usability, making it one of the strongest platforms from a service-level perspective. We have also recommended RHEL to clients, particularly in cases where migrations from CentOS are required, as it provides a trusted and stable foundation for critical workloads.
From a hands-on experience perspective, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) could be improved in terms of user experience and ease of adoption, especially for teams that are still building their knowledge of the platform. Enhanced usability tools, more intuitive configuration options, and improved documentation or guided workflows would help reduce the learning curve.
For future releases, additional features such as built-in automation templates, more advanced monitoring dashboards, and tighter integration with hybrid cloud environments would further increase productivity and make system management more efficient.
I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for approximately two years. Our adoption began with multiple environments, and it has since become the standard platform for our current operations.
Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is extremely stable and well-suited for production workloads. We have run hundreds of instances across a wide range of applications, and the operating system consistently delivers reliable performance with minimal downtime. Its predictable update and patching process, combined with strong vendor support, ensures that our critical systems remain secure and available.
Overall, RHEL provides the stability we need to confidently support mission-critical operations.
Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales very effectively across both on-premises and cloud environments. We run hundreds of instances supporting diverse applications, and the platform has consistently handled growth without major performance issues.
Its flexibility in supporting small workloads as well as large, mission-critical deployments makes it a reliable choice for enterprise scalability.
Our experience with Red Hat customer service and support has been excellent. Support teams are responsive, knowledgeable, and provide clear guidance for troubleshooting and resolving issues.
The initial setup of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) was moderately complex due to the need to configure multiple services, integrate with existing databases and middleware, and ensure security compliance from the start. However, the clear documentation, enterprise support, and guided best practices provided by Red Hat made the process manageable.
Once the initial environment was established, ongoing configuration and scaling have been straightforward, allowing us to reliably deploy and manage production workloads.
The implementation of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) was carried out by our in-house team. Our staff handled the installation, configuration, and integration with existing systems, leveraging Red Hat’s documentation and support resources.
The ROI of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is reflected in reduced downtime, improved system security, and streamlined operations. By providing a stable, supported platform, RHEL minimizes operational risks and resource overhead while enabling faster deployments and easier maintenance.
The subscription model is cost-effective, as it provides enterprise licensing and also includes access to Red Hat support and training resources. This combination has improved our team’s knowledge of RHEL features and enabled us to adopt new capabilities with confidence.
I would confidently rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a ten out of ten for its reliability, security, and enterprise support.
Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) serves multiple purposes in our enterprise environment. It's used for running containerized workloads, third-party software, and tons of automation. RHEL predominately runs critical production systems because its versatility makes it suitable for various enterprise workloads.
One feature of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that is most valuable is its sophisticated update strategy. The system allows for staged updates rather than requiring all changes to be implemented simultaneously. This approach is crucial for maintaining system stability, ensuring that packages remain compatible during upgrades, and preventing software failures during operating system updates.
The security benefits RHEL provides are particularly significant to most customers. There's a reassuring confidence that comes with Red Hat's support and commitment to system security. What sets RHEL apart is Red Hat's proactive approach to handling vulnerabilities - they not only identify security issues but also provide clear solutions and upgrade paths. This level of support and accountability is unique compared to other operating systems, where such comprehensive security guidance isn't always available. Additionally, RHEL's robust security architecture results in fewer vulnerabilities overall, making it a more reliable choice.
From a technical standpoint, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) performs exceptionally well - it's reliable, straightforward, and functions as intended. The only significant concern isn't about the product itself but rather its pricing structure. Red Hat's recent changes to their pricing model have prompted some customers to question the cost and explore potential alternatives. While I can't speak to the business aspects, the feedback I've received consistently indicates that cost is the only notable concern. The product itself meets or exceeds expectations; it's purely the financial aspect that has raised discussion among users.
Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the industry standard operating system for businesses. Based on my experience across multiple companies, RHEL is widely adopted because of its long-standing reputation for stability, security, and reliability. Most choose RHEL specifically for those three reasons.
What can I say? Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) just works. The system consistently performs as expected, and on the rare occasions when issues arise, Red Hat's response is swift and effective in both identifying and resolving problems. This reliability stands in stark contrast to other operating systems like Windows, which has experienced high-profile failures - such as airport system outages - due to problematic updates. RHEL's track record of stable performance and minimal disruption makes it a trustworthy platform for critical operations.
Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)'s scalability is effectively enhanced by the cloud infrastructure running it rather than RHEL itself, but the operating system works seamlessly in the cloud. When additional capacity is needed, new RHEL instances can be automatically provisioned to meet demand. The combination of RHEL's reliability and regular updates, along with cloud platform flexibility, ensures customers can confidently scale their operations as needed.
I would evaluate the customer service and technical support of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as great. I am a former Red Hatter, so I might be a little skewed. But when I talk with customers, they love it. That is never a concern.
Security requirements were a primary consideration when choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for the cloud. We have Amazon Linux as. Red Hat is often the requirement, so we have to follow this path.
For many customers, security requirements drive them to choose Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). For example, while Amazon Linux on AWS is an available option, security policies and third-party software often specifically require RHEL. This compliance requirement effectively determines the path, making RHEL the mandatory choice in some situations.
My management of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems is streamlined through AWS Systems Manager, particularly for provisioning and patching operations. The cloud environment simplifies this process significantly, as I have access to pre-configured Amazon Machine Images (AMIs) and built-in management tools. The system's orchestration and automation capabilities handle most of the work automatically, reducing the manual intervention to mainly scheduling tasks. This cloud-based approach has greatly simplified what was traditionally a complex system administration process, making RHEL management more efficient and less labor-intensive.
The primary return on investment (ROI) from Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) comes from two key areas: robust security and reliable support. The platform's strong security features protect daily operations, while Red Hat's consistent and dependable support ensures expert assistance is available whenever needed. This combination of security and readily available support creates significant value for the investment, providing peace of mind and operational stability.
My experience with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has been largely positive, though there was a significant shift in their pricing structure last year. That change caused considerable discussion among customers. While I'm not familiar with all the specific details, this pricing change became a major talking point, particularly because it resulted in increased costs for many users. What's noteworthy is that customers' concerns were solely focused on the new pricing structure - never about the product's quality or performance. This pricing change led some customers to reevaluate their commitment to RHEL, purely for financial reasons rather than any technical considerations.
We only consider other solutions before or while using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) if it is a requirement, for example, if they have to have Windows, then nothing we can do. If that is the requirement, but other than that, I think it is pretty much the default in most cases. There are other players, Amazon Linux, of course. It just depends on what the use case is and what the requirements are. That dictates which way to go. In most cases, we go with Red Hat because that is what is required.
Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the default operating system in many cases, but alternates are considered when requirements allow. For instance, if a system explicitly requires Windows, we have no choice but to use that instead. While other options exist, our operating system selection is primarily driven by specific use cases and requirements. Most frequently, customers implement RHEL because it's either mandated by their requirements or is the most suitable choice for their needs. Their decision-making process is straightforward: RHEL is the go-to solution unless project specifications or technical requirements specifically demand an alternative.
Regarding system updates, our approach has evolved away from traditional upgrades. Instead of updating existing instances, we follow a more modern deployment strategy: we create new instances with the desired specifications and simply decommission the old ones. This approach aligns with container methodology and works well with our automated infrastructure. The process is efficient and straightforward, eliminating the complexity of in-place upgrades.
As for rating Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I would give it nearly a perfect 10. Its reliability is exceptional - once deployed, it runs consistently and dependably. RHEL has established itself as a trustworthy platform, similar to IBM's reputation in the mainframe world. Users can count on both the product's performance and Red Hat's ongoing support.
Our main use case for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) at the moment is for our dev machines, as we do software engineering for automotive, and we have a lot of developers who need Linux. We had a bunch of systems and other things, and we are now rolling them all to be standardized on RHEL.
The management dashboard, RHEL satellites, Ansible, and all those integrations have been the most valuable features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that really help us.
The features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) allow our company to standardize our fragmented ecosystem, which consists of a lot of Windows systems and different development environments, so that we can move away from the 'it works on my machine, it doesn't work on your machine' issues.
We are deploying workstations with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), and we also look at deploying on-prem. We already have some cloud deployments through third-party contractors, and we are trying to tie it all together into one system. We also have high-performance compute on-prem for doing GPUs, CPUs, and simulations, and we have workstations on-prem with potential cloud workstations as a migration area.
We are migrating some workloads, such as local development tasks, to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), but we haven't really started with the servers yet. Currently, we manage our Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems using the cloud portal to build a custom image for our machines, but we want to move toward satellites and use that as our comprehensive management and patching tool.
Utilizing all the security features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is really important for us as an enterprise with a lot of security focus in automotive and intellectual property, and we are easing into some features such as different security profiles to ensure a secure experience for our users.
We have been trialing on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 9.5. We are now looking at moving towards RHEL 10, which is going to be one of our migrations before we go full production launch on this, and we're looking at doing incremental upgrades as we go to have the latest stuff available.
With Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), there's a lot of fragmentation in the documentation across different versions, and ensuring that the right version is being read can be challenging. Features such as AI assistants would provide a more unified experience, which is really helpful for IT teams who may not be Linux-centric.
I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for just a couple of weeks as we are starting to deploy it. We originally did not have any Linux systems with us and are now moving forward with that whole process.
The stability and reliability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) seems to be rock solid from our perspective, as we have workloads running continuously 24/7, and the only reason we shut it off is to install a full reboot update or if the workload fails due to our own issues.
Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is definitely going to scale with our company's growing needs. Other elements of the company have been using RHEL in production, and from our perspective as a small R&D center, it provides the flexibility to manage multiple sites in California, Michigan, and keep them all synchronized, reducing the need to send IT individuals to California to fix problems.
I would rate the customer service and technical support of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a ten out of ten. We really felt that with our Red Hat partner, there's personal service that has helped us build better solutions for our team; it has been a truly awesome experience.
I have only been with the company for a year and a half, so I'm not aware of anything they've done with other Linux OS solutions, however, we have primarily been Windows from a developer perspective, and now we are starting to get into using Linux systems on a daily basis, focusing on workstations for now.
We purchase Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) through a roster indirectly, and that will be our deployment methodology for any AWS deployments of RHEL AMI images. My assessment of the pricing, setup costs, and licensing for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is that our finance team handles it, and I've been hearing good feedback; they find the licensing model much easier to understand.
For us, the biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has to do with standardization and the ability to manage a fleet of devices, whether on-prem, in the cloud, or servers, through unified portals using standard processes and reducing fragmentation among machines.
Before choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), we looked at Ubuntu Pro and a couple of other options, however, we decided that RHEL fits better into our ecosystem, particularly in our adoption of OpenShift for DevOps, as it's best for our developers to have the same development environments from end to end.
On a scale of one to ten, I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a nine.
My main use cases for it are servers, such as web servers, database servers, and any type of server that we need.
Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps us solve pain points related to security, CVEs, and patching.
The benefit for my company is that it saves time on compatibility issues. I don't have any metrics of roughly how much time has been saved, but I just know we don't have the combat. I've done Ubuntu, and Ubuntu doesn't compare to Red Hat, so I just know when I need to install something, it works. There are very few times when I've had issues.
Security requirements were a major consideration when choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in the cloud because they have secure patching. We review all RPMs and stuff that we import, and that's the major reason.
The feature I appreciate the most about Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the DNF, yum updates, and RPM, which make it easy to install applications and customize it.
Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) can be improved by making the licensing easier for Amazon EC2 instances. When we try to do auto-scaling, the licensing is hard to automate.
I have been using it since Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4, so probably 2005.
It's very stable. I haven't had any issues. We don't have to worry about it crashing.
Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales very well with the growing needs of my company. I've done from one or two to thousands, so it's not a problem.
Their knowledge base is great. Anytime we have patching issues or anything else, we reach out to support, and they always have an answer.
Their technical support has been great. I haven't had any issues with that as they respond right away.
It has been very good. I've done from one or two to thousands, and I've never had a problem. The only issues were hardware-related. They've been able to support drivers and things like that.
We have a hybrid environment with both on-premises and cloud deployments. I specialize in AWS. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) supports our hybrid cloud strategy. When we have things that can't go into AWS, we can spin up a Red Hat Enterprise Linux EC2 instance in AWS to run legacy stuff or stuff that's not compatible with AWS.
We usually use Ansible for provisioning and patching. I am 100% satisfied with the management experience of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems when it comes to provisioning and patching, and I have no issues.
From my point of view, the biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is probably stability, as I don't have to worry about it crashing. I've had issues with other forms of Linux, so it's been pretty stable.
It's been good, but I don't really get involved with that.
We did consider other solutions, such as Ubuntu, Amazon Linux, and Rocky Linux. but Red Hat Enterprise Linux was the one we went with. The biggest reason Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) leads the way is support and security.
I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux a 10 out of 10 because of the stability and security. That's the main reason I use it.
I am working with a FinTech company. We have clients in the US, and for these clients, we have applications that are hosted in Amazon Web Services Cloud. We use the Red Hat Enterprise Linux operating system to run these applications.
We have a data center as well. In our organization, we are using a hybrid model. We have the AWS cloud and our data center is using VMware. Some of the workload is in the data center, and some of the workload is running in AWS.
We have various products, and we are trying to move all of the products to the AWS cloud. Our legacy applications are hosted in the data center. We are planning to move this data center to the AWS cloud in 2025. We are using AWS lift and shift technology for that.
The console is user-friendly. The web console provides an interface to manage all your resources.
Overall, I am happy with it, but I believe, security-wise, it could be better.
I have used Red Hat Enterprise Linux for almost eight years.
We never faced any major issues.
We are not taking any support from Red Hat. If we face any kind of issue, we just search on the web.
I am very comfortable and happy using the Linux operating system. My experience with Windows is very bad.
There are no significant issues; it is very easy to set up. The implementation takes a couple of weeks.
I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux a ten out of ten.
Most of the applications I work with, including our primary enterprise-level application, necessitate the robust capabilities of an enterprise-grade operating system. Therefore, we utilize Red Hat Enterprise Linux to ensure optimal performance and stability for these demanding applications.
Red Hat Enterprise Linux is praised for its exceptionally precise documentation, which greatly aids in the learning and implementation process. Troubleshooting is straightforward, and solutions to any arising issues are readily available through a simple Google search.
For provisioning Red Hat Enterprise Linux, tools like Terraform and Ansible are commonly used to automate the process on a base machine. While Terraform handles various provisioning tasks, Red Hat provides its software for patching, although OpenSCAP is also a strong alternative for effective patch management.
Our organization uses Red Hat Insights, leveraging its user-friendly single dashboard to monitor all aspects of our systems. This centralized platform has proven invaluable for maintaining an overview of our infrastructure and ensuring operational efficiency.
We often use the Red Hat Enterprise Linux web console for things like viewing system performance and logs, managing user accounts, and configuring network settings.
Red Hat Enterprise Linux is robust, stable, and well-documented compared to the open-source versions of Linux.
I find the most valuable aspect of Red Hat Enterprise Linux to be its ease of customization. The operating system allows for the simple addition of kernels, modules, and other applications, making it highly adaptable to various needs.
Red Hat has several areas ripe for improvement. In the Asia Pacific region, where cost-optimization is highly valued, Red Hat's support and subscription costs are perceived as high and could be reduced. While their security documentation is comprehensive, some solutions lack open-source availability or training resources, unlike platforms such as Ubuntu. Furthermore, the quality of documentation and training sessions, particularly for OpenShift, could be enhanced. Addressing these issues would strengthen Red Hat's offerings and better serve its customers.
I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for about nine to ten years.
Red Hat Enterprise Linux is extremely stable.
When Red Hat is involved in virtualization or OpenStack, moving from one virtualization platform to another becomes easier. However, when scalability is needed, it depends on the underlying infrastructure security, which is part of Red Hat import.
Communication quality is very good. I find very helpful people in the support section, and the Red Hat portal is robust for main solutions and support. When I receive support, I often find very interesting solutions.
I previously used CentOS, Ubuntu, and Debian, among other Linux distributions. However, with the growing popularity of containerization technologies like Kubernetes and Docker, solutions like Red Hat OpenShift are becoming increasingly common, particularly in regions like Bangladesh, India, and the Asia Pacific. That is why we are using Enterprise Linux.
The initial deployment and migration of Red Hat Enterprise Linux are straightforward, particularly for cloud-based solutions. However, on-premises migrations present a slight challenge due to the complexities of CVS solutions and potential application compatibility issues. This can involve numerous parameters that require careful consideration. My lack of experience with Red Hat's migration tools may have also contributed to the perceived difficulty.
Red Hat could gain a competitive advantage in the Asia Pacific region by adjusting its pricing strategy. Lowering the cost of enterprise-level offerings could attract organizations seeking operating systems or Kubernetes solutions, as these tools are essential for many businesses in the region. This adjustment would make Red Hat a more appealing choice compared to competitors with potentially higher pricing.
I have not found another operating system that matches Red Hat Enterprise Linux; it receives a perfect score of ten out of ten.
The Red Hat Enterprise Linux upgrade process is generally smooth. However, patching occasionally causes issues, typically due to application incompatibility or bugs in the updated packages. This necessitates restoring from a backup to maintain functionality. While this is a recurring problem, the infrastructure itself remains stable throughout the process.
My customers primarily use Red Hat Enterprise Linux for application hosting and small databases. It is used for hosting Java applications and small web servers.
Cloud-based Red Hat Enterprise Linux deployments provide cost savings. If customers are purchasing a physical server, they need to have a proper setup. They need to have a data center, cabling, and a lot of other things. For cost-saving purposes, they are going for a cloud. As an operating system, it offers the same functionality on-prem or on the cloud.
It saves money for company owners. It helps our customers save money and do things quickly. They can build servers quickly. There is a menu where they can fill in the VM name and other details and attach storage. In ten minutes, they have a server ready.
I am Red Hat certified. I train people in corporations and educational institutes. Red Hat's material is very good. Their testing system is awesome. If someone is certified in Red Hat, you know that they know it well. There are millions of videos on YouTube, but they are not always updated. On the Red Hat site, the documentation is very clear. You just need to focus and study for two to three months to get certified.
Nowadays, delays are common with their support, and it often takes time to get assistance from experienced engineers.
I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for seven to eight years.
Red Hat Enterprise Linux is an excellent product, and its stability has improved significantly over time. It can operate for extended periods, like six months to one year, without issues.
Red Hat Enterprise Linux scales well with increasing user demands or infrastructure size. It is easily available and efficiently adapts to varying needs.
Most customers host medium-sized applications on the cloud. Storing a big application can lead to higher costs.
The technical support from Red Hat has declined over the past four or five years. It could be because there are not many skilled people. When we raise a case, it is attended by junior people or new people, which wastes two to three days. We might even have to raise the severity of the ticket. However, when senior people take ownership of the case, the support is awesome. They give proper support. This was not the case earlier, so whenever we raised a ticket, we got an immediate response from Red Hat.
The initial setup is smooth.
We have Cloud-based deployments. We are using AWS, GCP, Azure, and other cloud platforms. We also have on-premises deployment. Some customers also have a mixed deployment with the cloud and on-prem but in such environments, I have seen problems in terms of performance. For example, if my database is on-prem on Red Hat Enterprise Linux, and I am storing my application on the cloud on Red Hat Enterprise Linux, whenever someone hits the website, there will be latency issues. I sorted out such issues for a customer. I suggested they migrate their server from the cloud to on-prem because their database was quite big. With a mixed setup, they were having a lot of issues in terms of performance and storing data. It was very slow. After they moved it on-prem, it was much faster. This is not a Red Hat-related issue. From the operating system side, no improvements are required. However, cloud providers need to improve their facilities.
For patching, I use Red Hat Satellite, and for configuration, I use Red Hat Ansible. Leapp upgrades are also awesome. A month back, I upgraded Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 to Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9. I created detailed documentation about the procedure. There were about 14 steps. It was straightforward.
With Red Hat Insights, we can see the security threats. Red Hat Insights is integrated with Red Hat Satellite. It will be helpful from the patching point of view. It lets you do subjective analytics of servers.
I did some research on pricing a long time ago, and at that time, it was much cheaper than Windows. I do not have current details about pricing, but it is affordable.
Overall, I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux a ten out of ten.
I use Red Hat Enterprise Linux as an operating system for government contracts.
I like the flexibility Red Hat Enterprise Linux offers in terms of permissions. The patch management is much shorter and easier. Red Hat Enterprise Linux helps us move workloads between different clouds and data centers. It's pretty smooth and transparent.
We use AMIs — machine images — for provisioning. The image builder is nice. It's a vertical Amazon machine image. They have each machine image, so you don't need to install anything. You can just copy the machine image.
There's an operating system called EdgeOS, which is an edge operating system used by edge computing nodes in the cloud. If Red Hat Enterprise Linux had a version incorporating EdgeOS-type functions, that would be great. Otherwise, you have to learn a little bit of EdgeOS to work with those nodes.
We have used Red Hat Enterprise Linux for several years.
I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux nine out of 10 for stability.
I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux nine out of 10 for scalability.
I rate Red Hat support nine out of 10.
Red Hat offers better support and stability. There are several others, including Windows, and Red Hat Enterprise Linux is a pretty stable standard operating system.
I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux nine out of 10 for ease of deployment and migration. Deploying an AMI is straightforward. We hardly had to do anything. It's pretty much automatic and uninterruptible.
I wasn't involved in the licensing, but Red Hat Enterprise Linux's price should be reasonable if the government and others get it.
I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10 out of 10. It's the top of the line.
The use case in my very early years was for dedicated servers for doing web applications.
We almost exclusively use Red Hat. The benefits boil down to the support. There is no problem getting support. Whenever we have an issue that we cannot solve, which does not happen often, we have somebody who is there either virtually or physically.
We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux on-prem and on the cloud in a hybrid environment. We probably also have edge devices. I am not completely sure about that one. Having it in a hybrid cloud deployment has been no different than having it on-prem. Running it on-prem is just as good as running it on the cloud for us. It simply works.
I appreciate the dashboards that are available online. There has been a lot of feedback on the CVEs. The most recent one that came was probably related to Zutil. Red Hat made an announcement very quickly saying that if you are using only Red Hat features, you do not have to worry about it. It does not run on their operating system. Unless you are custom compiling, it does not work on their system. I greatly appreciate little things like that because they save us a lot of time. If Red Hat is simply saying that it is not a part of their repo, I do not have to look for it.
We use Red Hat Insights but not company-wide. It is one of those things that simply saves you time. I do not want to have myself or anyone on my team go out and check various things. That is the whole purpose of using Red Hat Satellite. The whole purpose of all different dashboards and these websites is to use what you have. Let it report out what you have and not continue to write scripts just to check things.
Their support is valuable. Whenever I had a problem, I could get on a phone call with somebody. I did not have to go to some random forum or send an email and wait forever. I could call somebody.
It does have a workstation option, but you rarely hear anything about it. I would love to see the workstation replace Windows. That is a stretch goal, but it is possible.
I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux since version 4. It has been a while.
It is stable as long as you do not do something stupid.
Red Hat specifically works hard to make it difficult to not be able to scale it into anything. The only thing that I do not see it being capable of, officially at least, are the IoT devices. Technically, it is possible to get it on those devices, but that is not something Red Hat is focusing on right now. From a scalability standpoint, it comes down to what makes a reasonable profit and what is a good return on investment while choosing how to scale and where to scale. Red Hat is doing it right so far.
Prior to a few months ago, the support that we got from a TAM point of view was next to none. Now that I understand the scenario a little bit more, it was not because Red Hat was not doing its job or did not want to do more support. It was because of how the contracts aligned, and more importantly, who in our organization was handling those contracts. We had a recent change in our organization in terms of who is running what and who is handling what. When that change happened, the doors really burst open. Now that we have a different person he is working with, we are getting incredible support from our TAM. He is in communication with us on a very regular basis. While I have been here at Red Hat Summit, we have gone out to have meetings twice. I cannot speak highly enough. I would rate their support a ten out of ten.
My current organization has pretty much always used Red Hat, specifically Red Hat Enterprise Linux. There are all sorts of flavors of Unix in our environment. Almost all of them are there because they are managed network devices.
We wanted to stay close to Red Hat Enterprise Linux simply because of the mentality of the business. We have got some people who have been around for 20 years. Things such as switching from YUM update to APT update are easy. People can usually change from one to another pretty quickly, but some of the other commands that you are used to running in Red Hat Enterprise Linux are slightly different for different versions of Unix. It did not make sense.
I have used a lot of different variants through the years. I could be running Raspberry Pi, or I could be using Ubuntu to do a job but not for the production environment. I do not waste my time anymore. I know what works and where support is.
Our setup is a bit of a hybrid. We are streamlining a lot of things and trying to redesign how we are doing things. In terms of the cloud, we are 100% TerraForm. We are building out infrastructure as a code and TerraForm pipelines. On-prem, we have a Jenkins job that runs some TerraForm, which then runs some Ansible and then some Puppet. There is some cleaning up needed there.
Currently, we use all three major cloud providers: Azure, Google Cloud, and AWS. Each has its purpose.
The initial experience of deploying it at the current company was terrible, but it was not a Red Hat issue. It was an internalized issue that took a little bit of time to work out. After that, it was not a problem.
We implement it on our own.
I have not run into a single person who knows about Red Hat Enterprise Linux and is not being helpful. You can get talking with somebody at Red Hat Summit about what you are doing on Red Hat Enterprise Linux, and they will be like, "I did that a couple of days ago. Did you run into this problem too?" There is a community. I am sure there are communities for other variants, but my return on investment is simply community and support. I cannot speak highly enough of these two.
To a colleague who is looking at open-source, cloud-based operating systems for Linux instead of Red Hat Enterprise Linux, I would say, "Good Luck!" We looked at a lot of different options to potentially leave Red Hat simply because of the cost. We tried out CentOS. We tried out Rocky. There were even talks about trying out Ubuntu, but there was the hassle of changing all of our mentality and code to work with different systems. It just did not make sense. CentOS worked almost side by side with Red Hat, but certain things that we have specialized with Red Hat were not working on CentOS for some reason.
We chose not to use CentOS because we had a misunderstanding of what AppStream was in terms of end-of-life for CentOS. Rocky was ruled out pretty quickly simply because of a lack of understanding in terms of:
Red Hat's support model trumps a lot of those other ideas. I tell people that even if they are working in a home lab environment, get a developer license and get a developer account with Red Hat. Use Red Hat because more and more businesses I work with simply use Red Hat. It is great to have Fedora on your laptop as a workstation. It is great to have CentOS as a workstation. That is because those are still a part of Red Hat. You can transition and use Red Hat for a company. I have not been a fan of Ubuntu and some of the other variants because of how easy it is for people to make changes to operating systems that are not fully backed or tested. In my opinion, you do not want to put production on it.
Red Hat Enterprise Linux has not enabled us to centralize development. We are moving towards centralized development, but there are still so many different teams, so centralized development is not yet there.
We are partially using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for containerization projects. Within the next year, I hope to bring OpenShift in and replace AKS. I do not have a use case for the portability of applications and containers built on Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Based on what I have seen here at Red Hat Summit, I have a lot of ideas spinning around in my head to make it happen, but I do not yet have anything around containerization.
Red Hat Insights provides vulnerability alerts and targeted guidance, but we are currently not using that side of it. It helps in my limited sandbox environment, but of course, my sandbox is built up and torn down like crazy. It is valuable, but we do not have a great use case yet.
I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux a ten out of ten. I have been working with Unix systems for a while now. The first Unix system I touched was in 1992. There were so many variants that were striving to become well-known. You would hear all of these weird names. There were all of these weird animals and all of these different logos through the years. Even before 1992, there were a lot. As things progressed, you quickly saw different ones die out. I do not remember when I truly got onboarded with Red Hat. I know I started with version 4. It is one of those companies when you are looking for a name that sticks around and about which you do not have to question if they are going to be around for a while. You do not have to question that with Red Hat. You do not have to question that with Red Hat Enterprise Linux, whereas a lot of other variants do not even exist anymore, or they exist, but they have not been maintained longer than some people have been alive.
Most of our infrastructure is made up of Linux servers. All of the apps that we have published are running on a Linux system. That is the main functionality.
I am responsible for Ansible for automation, and I am also responsible for our Satellite server, which is for patching and things like that. We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux a lot. We have 80% Red Hat Enterprise Linux and 20% Windows.
The benefits have been in terms of the speed and how the operating system does not interfere with apps that are running on it. That is the best aspect, at least from a business point of view. Databases run smoother, and so do the applications we have. There is no latency or issues like that.
We have a small number of servers up in the cloud in AWS, and then most of our servers are on-prem. We have a data server. Red Hat Enterprise Linux has made the deployment of servers smoother. We can do that pretty much with the click of a button, especially using AWS's platform.
For security and compliance, we have to be in sync with our security team. We cannot leave anything open. In Ansible, we have set up an actual configuration management playbook where it keeps all of our systems security compliant. It is really cool. Right now, we only have it working on our Dev and QA environments. We have not moved past that because we still have Chef. We are trying to get off of Chef completely. As of now, we are a hybrid. We have Chef and Ansible. Eventually, we will be completely Red Hat Ansible.
When it comes to keeping our organization agile, it is easy to decommission servers. Most of it is on VM, so we can just delete and then rebuild. If we accidentally delete a server, we can always bring it back because of backups and things like that. That is possible because of VMs. We do not have OpenShift, so I cannot say that Red Hat is the one that is keeping us agile.
The feature that I am enjoying right now is the actual LEAP program that they created for the actual in-place upgrades. I am upgrading from Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 to Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8. We are in the process of that, so that is the best functionality right now. It never had that ability in the past. That addition has been an amazing aspect.
I am not too sure how it could be better. I have not yet used Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9, so I cannot say if there have been any changes or improvements. Honestly, I cannot see it getting any better. I like the way the operating system works now, and I do not really see any bad functionality with it.
The only thing I would say is getting rid of some aspects. That is the one part that a lot of admins probably get annoyed with. For example, we are now going to DNF from using YUM. At some point, YUM will be taken away completely, but right now, you can use both. There are those minor tweaks, and you just have to roll with the punches. Maybe it is just a better version of what was there prior. DNF is probably used at a simpler level, and it probably does not take up as much configuration and space as YUM. I am not sure exactly why they make those changes, but that is probably the only thing that is kind of annoying.
It is definitely stable. We never have any issues. Everyone wants to blame the patching or some change in the OS, but it is never that. It is always the other side.
It has a lot of scalability. We have plans to increase its usage. We are in the process of getting off Oracle Linux, which is, again, another version of theirs, but we are going to be converting those over to Red Hat. All of our databases are going to be running on Red Hat.
It is awesome. I just upgraded my Satellite server. I moved from Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 to Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 and then also upgraded to Satellite 6.14, which is almost the most recent version. I did that in the last month. Their support was awesome. I worked through what was said in the documentation on how to do the upgrade. I created my own spreadsheet for the upgrade and what I needed to do. I worked with their support. I had a meeting with them to check if it would work and if anything needs to be added or taken away. They worked with us that way. Their support is awesome.
We had CentOS. It is still based on Red Hat.
We are just now starting to use Podman. We were using Docker, and we are now moving over to Podman, which is the Red Hat Enterprise Linux-specific version of containers. It has been an easy transition. We do not necessarily work with Podman. Application owners are the ones who want us to install it, and then they utilize it the way they want to.
We have three data centers. We have a data center in the East in Pittsburgh, and then we have one in Arizona. We also have it in the cloud in AWS. Even there, there are two, so we have four data centers.
We do have a few Red Hat Enterprise Linux systems on the cloud. We are not sure if we are going into the cloud completely, but we do have some servers in the cloud. Our cloud provider is AWS. Our main app resides in the cloud. All the data, most of the data servers, and other applications are on prem.
I was involved in the deployment of Red Hat Enterprise Linux. We were the ones who converted it. It was very simple. Red Hat's technical person gave us the conversion script and tools. We just utilized that conversion script to switch from CentOS.
We did not use a consultant or an integrator. Red Hat gave us the tools, and we did it.
I do not know what the impact is financially because I am not in that department. For compliance, it has been helpful. Especially the banks have to be compliant in terms of being patched and things like that. Red Hat has been beneficial.
The biggest return on investment has been the ease. I have been a Linux admin for many years. I have used Solaris, AIX, CentOS, etc. I have always liked Red Hat Enterprise Linux better. It is just a better OS.
I do not know the overall cost, but I know that Red Hat is cheaper than Windows.
We did not evaluate any other solution. We were going to Red Hat Enterprise Linux.
We just switched from open source, which was CentOS, to Red Hat. My advice is to stick with Red Hat only because with open source, you do not get the updates at the same time. The updates come later for vulnerabilities and things like that. I would not recommend open source for an organization. If you are at home, you can go ahead and easily use CentOS. It is free, so why not use it? For an organization, Red Hat Enterprise Linux is better.
Currently, we are not using Red Hat Insights the way they are meant to be used. We are planning to do so at some point in the future. Currently, we only use it as a tool to make sure that it keeps track of all of our servers, whether we delete or add servers. Red Hat Insights keeps track of that and lets us know what version it is and things like that, but we do not utilize Red Hat Insights the way they are meant to be. Red Hat Insights provides vulnerability alerts and targeted guidance, but we use Nexpose for vulnerability scanning.
Red Hat Enterprise Linux has not yet enabled us to centralize development. That is because of the way the company is structured. Everything is fragmented. We have a separate networking team. We have a separate Linux team and we have a separate software team. Getting something done and centralized is pretty much impossible at this point. Any small tweaks are like pulling teeth at this point. I do not know if that is going to change. Hopefully, it will. We are planning on moving to OpenShift. I am hoping that it will make everything more centralized and it will bring the company to a less fragmented spot.
I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux a ten out of ten.