The primary use case for our company is for deploying applications.

The most valuable aspect is for deploying applications.

The ease of use works well and is what I appreciate the most about the solution's most valuable features.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped me to automate my process to mitigate downtime and workloads.

The solution has improved my organization, especially with the ease of deployment, as it's mostly just a better user experience for our users.

The challenges that we've had with different servers that don't have access to the internet require an installation, and keeping track of all the different versions on the different deployments is a challenge. I would love a feature that could manage the agent versions.

On the Ansible side, from what I've seen, there are certain templates and playbooks that can be used for specific use cases that I'd like to see in the next release.

I've been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for a couple of years.

The stability and reliability of this solution is very good.

In the environments that I work in, I've had no downtime, crashes, or performance issues.

It scales well with our growing needs and organization, and it's been pretty easy to spin up new servers as we require them.

The other users of the solution in my company are probably more on the operation side.

I think it would be suitable for a couple more roles.

I've been made aware of some of the latest announcements that were made today; for a large organization, it takes a while to get there, so we might not be able to realize those for another couple of years, but it seems there are new features that are coming out.

I'm not sure if there was one specific feature that stood out to me today; I'd have to look back at my notes, but it seems there's more functionality that's being offered.

I would rate this review a 9.

My main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) include maintaining a stack of servers where we perform monitoring, provisioning, certificate provisioning, and checking patch status across the servers.

The most valuable feature within my systems is Satellite. The features that I appreciate most on a daily or on-demand basis are those provided by Satellite. This feature benefits my organization by providing provisioning for every instance, as we have approximately 100 instances under Red Hat and another 20 under Ubuntu. Currently, we use a single user interface to control them all.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) could be improved by providing end-to-end support for customers because we are seeing that it is more distributed. For all the Red Hat services, we use Satellite, but other services are on the cloud, and some things are hybrid cloud. This means we have multiple platforms to monitor each time. Another area for improvement is the false positives. We have the Red Hat alarm system, and it is good, but it just fires and reports, sending an email every night for us to check our duties. This is really unpleasant for us.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for four years.

I have experienced downtime, crashes, or performance issues seldomly. It is good and can solve 80% of problems. Sometimes I seek consultants for help to rebuild the model or to see what the root cause is. Sometimes this problem occurs many times, requiring someone to show up and thoroughly investigate it.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales with the growing needs of my organization as it is stable, and I see that with Android development. However, I think it has only increased our usage by 3%. I think it is stable and we will not decommission it, but we still compare the benefits of cloud solutions and the Red Hat solution. I have expanded usage on Red Hat because Ubuntu is an open licensing and very unmanageable, so we are trying to reallocate resources to Red Hat.

I evaluate customer service and technical support as great. My own company has a consultant who is very timely in dedicating support to our services. We can call at any time to seek urgent consultant services. Overall, it is good. We find that rebooting or rebuilding is tough for us. We want to make sure that the service is ready to use, but for some unfortunate situations that happen, we seek 24-hour support to solve the problem as soon as possible. Every second that passes represents a loss for us.

Prior to adopting Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), we were using Ubuntu, and now it depends on what this product and what this pipeline built initially. If they used Ubuntu at the beginning of the startup, we just use it. We make sure they are up, make sure they are stable, and do not care about anything else. If they use Red Hat, we just keep running with it.

I would describe my experience with deploying Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as manageable. It is not out of control. For every server instance, we get notified, and I get an alarm at a very early time, so we can manage to replicate it. This instance has some broken files, which is helpful for the developer to debug and understand it.

When I was deploying Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), the deployment, particularly the hotfixes, is a real challenge. We have some big instances with the front-end code and back-end code in one service. We have to do this really quickly to deploy hotfixes and implement new features. We need to make sure that the code is consistent across all the services at that time. We can do the Ansible playbook, which is a very good template that we can reuse to replicate the problem.

I have been involved in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) upgrades or migrations, as for version upgrades, I have been involved. We still have some Red Hat Linux consultants who support us in doing the migration. I think it is helpful. The seamlessness of the process with the consultant depends on the service difficulty because sometimes everything is hard to ensure that it is correct. It depends on the project size.

I do not touch the pricing and the cost of the solution, but I think compared to some cloud costs, it is good because our team is relying on that. We just make sure that the service is up.

The other solutions I considered before selecting Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are that in our company, we have two choices: one is Red Hat and one is Ubuntu.

My security requirements and considerations in choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) include that this is our manager, and we want to have some endpoints tracking any attack and detecting the status of anything broken. My assessment of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)'s built-in security and compliance features is that right now, I think it is simply risk reduction. I am just maintaining it. For maintaining compliance, I can say that the first priority is to keep it safe. The second priority is to keep it up. We make sure they are okay, available to use, and available to maintain. For any other new features, we do not require that. We just make sure of these two things. Beyond this point, we are seeking some cloud help.

My upgrade and migration plans to stay current with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are that we need to upgrade it every year, or just when you have a vulnerability, you need to come up with it and upgrade it. From my perspective, we are not doing really timely upgrading because we do not want to disturb the current pipelines.

For the knowledge base offered by Red Hat, such as the Confluence page, it is helpful. For Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), the knowledge base is helpful. I try to look up and check many of those pages, and they give me detailed ideas on how to implement the system. Sometimes the problem is really unique, and I can get help or try to get support to formalize some questions and help us understand the solutions. I still need to seek a senior consultant's help on migration. Some documentation is outdated.

My advice to other organizations considering Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is that if you use Java, you should use it. If you have many massive servers to maintain, a Red Hat solution with the pipeline and Satellite is beneficial. If you have some old legacy systems, you do not have to set up new labor on monitoring. I give this product an overall rating of 8 out of 10.

My main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are telco applications.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps me solve my pain points with support.

I manage my Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems using Red Hat Satellite, which helps me a lot to manage the new patches we integrate, making our job very easy.

The upgrade or migration process for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is acceptable. Migrating from Red Hat 7 to 8 was somewhat complex; however, 7 to 9 and 8 to 9 migrations are acceptable. While we have not yet migrated from 9 to 10, we have a plan and I registered for a session on Red Hat 10 today, so we are planning to migrate all our Red Hat 6 servers in production to 9 and 10.

I assess Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)'s built-in security features, including SELinux and Pacemaker, by saying these two features help considerably to manage and keep the system secure. On top of that, we are using firewalls, so we feel very confident without worrying about the future.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps to mitigate downtime and data losses since we use the Pacemaker cluster, which helps considerably. As a Telco, we cannot tolerate downtime issues.

From a business perspective, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is high in price, which has made our management less interested recently, not because of instability. However, sometimes we try to adapt some open-source alternatives such as Rocky Linux.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for 15 years.

I assess the stability and reliability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as nine out of ten. I have not seen any limitations of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) yet.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales very well with my organization.

I evaluate customer service and technical support as a six out of ten.

I did not face challenges in deploying Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) on-premises or on the cloud since I was very enthusiastic about it. I started learning Red Hat Linux back at university about 6, 7, 8, or 9 years ago, and a number of people were also interested at that time, so I did not see any challenges for using or adopting it.

I have been involved in upgrading Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) on-premises and tested something in the cloud, but it is not in production. On-premises, we are performing upgrades almost every day.

We are already using Red Hat Satellite and Ansible, which we have in place. Probably in the future, we will consider VMware, but I do not have a specific plan for that right now.

As an engineer, I cannot calculate the ROI in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), but management has all the visibility, and they are getting the ROI while we are satisfied with that.

What stands out to me in the evaluation process for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is that it is positive.

My advice to other organizations looking to use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is that they should use it. Everything is acceptable with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) because patching is available and management is available, so I do not think anything additional is needed from a basic standpoint. I gave this review a rating of 9 out of 10.

My use case for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is for dockerization; I use it for Docker or Postman. We use it for microservices, for example, to install JBoss and deploy some applications and pipelines for processes such as CI/CD. A summary of what I do includes microservices for applications such as Tomcat or JBoss, or for microservices in Postman, and installing Jenkins and launching pipelines.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped reduce downtime and lower risks for me. There are rarely crashes or errors.

Image Builder or system roles feature is beneficial because it is a feature that allows you to create small images for what you need. With these images, you can go to a registry or whatever with VMware or KVM, and you can deploy them very quickly and efficiently. I tested it because it's better than having to install another machine all over again and losing much time. With Image Builder, you can create a small image tailored to your necessities. It is a good solution; you have to embrace automation, and the Image Builder helps you automate the creation of servers and images.

I appreciate all the Red Hat products available and the support provided when encountering any issues or needing help. You can open a case, and they answer very quickly.

The other reason is it is a very strong OS for your needs. For example, I work in a banking system and in a financial system, and all kinds of products that you have—the problems may come from development, not from the server or machine.

In the knowledge base of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I can find everything I need. I don't have to go elsewhere. There are some videos with practical advice, all in one place, and all for free. I'm very happy with this kind of resource and knowledge base.

I find Red Hat Insights very helpful and beneficial. In all IT departments worldwide, I find it important because when I call my colleagues or other companies, this is a very significant feature. Insights gives many opportunities, particularly regarding security, and provides more facilities to improve security in your servers. In my opinion, the most important security feature in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is Red Hat Insights. When you use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), you can install an agent in your Linux, and this agent runs on your Linux and gives you all the CVEs or security issues you have. For me, as an administrator, this is very helpful because with minimal clicks, I have the solutions and instructions on how to solve them. You only need to connect to Red Hat, and they provide a deployment, scan your machine, or all machines with Ansible, and give you a summary of your vulnerabilities, and you apply the solutions they provide.

The areas that have room for improvement in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) include having more case bases and possibly more forums or places. A community that is not just informal but rather official could be beneficial. Everything else is good.

I would suggest improving compatibility. Sometimes I find that Red Hat is not aligned with the rest of the world. They create their own solutions, such as Docker, Podman, Kubernetes, and OpenShift, which can be better than what others offer. This can be both good and bad, depending on the situation. On the positive side, their innovations can enhance the overall quality of the company’s offerings. On the downside, when you need certain images or components that deviate from industry standards, it can become confusing. I find it difficult to understand why they choose to differentiate themselves from the rest.

I have been in IT for 24 years, working with Linux and Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for about 10 years.

I would rate the stability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as a nine out of ten.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is scalable for my business. It is very important, and I cannot imagine working without it.

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

I have worked with Ubuntu and SUSE, but I prefer Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) because the support is better than others. All solutions, how the machine or OS works, and all the other products, for example, OpenShift, I appreciate. I feel very comfortable with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) because it is a solution based on CentOS and Fedora, and since my early career, I studied and learned in this distribution.

The deployment of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is very easy.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has saved me about 40% to 50% time.

I would recommend Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) to other users; it depends on the company size. For medium and bigger companies, it is necessary because all the components needed, such as support and stability, are available. I cannot help much with the pricing because I do not work with licenses; this comes from another department. I discuss with my boss about how many machines or servers we need, and they coordinate with the commercials. I do not have information about whether it is cheaper or expensive, but I hear that they are very comfortable depending on how you deal with them.

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

My main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are that it has been part of our core delivery solutions for many industries, mostly for telecom.

The features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that I find most valuable include all of the features since system V.

In my organization, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) provides an agnostic interface for many storage vendors that we deal with, which helps us to have a wider spectrum of offerings in our consultancy offerings.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) can be improved by adopting a feature similar to YaST from a big European competitor, which would significantly enhance Red Hat technologies.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) since 2005 when it was in release four, which makes it 20 years.

I would assess the stability and reliability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as favorable, noting that during the last five years, we've experienced fewer crashes and downtimes compared to other commercial Unix and Linux distributions in the market.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales excellently with the growing needs of my organization, and I would rate it ten out of ten.

I evaluate customer service and tech support as excellent; with either the partner portal or customer portal, we receive very good RCAs and analyses for any case we submit to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). On a scale of one to ten, I would rate customer service and technical support as ten out of ten.

Prior to adopting Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I was using Commercial Unix, Oracle Solaris. The factor that led me to change was that during the last decades, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has absorbed many features straight from Solaris, enabling us to perform effective migrations from Commercial Unix to RHEL.

At the very beginning, at the earliest versions of Red Hat since version six, there was a kernel that was not compatible with many cluster vendors, and that's why we were adopting another vendor of Linux. However, we've seen that during these past years, Red Hat has been experiencing a lot of enhancements overcoming these kinds of barriers. And now Red Hat has become more versatile in accepting more hardware that allows us to standardize our Red Hat offerings in our consultancy services.

I have seen a return on investment with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). For data points, in one of the key industries I handle, which is telecom, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has been one of the key strategic providers offering a good price to implement automation and containerization across all of the network elements we manage with several vendors, and in the latest five years, we have observed a good investment return in terms of ROI.

My experience with pricing, setup costs, and licensing is that I strongly believe Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) offers a good relationship between value and price, and despite it being quite pricey, it's definitely worth it.

Before selecting Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I considered SLES, which is a competitor of Red Hat.

My advice to other organizations considering Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is to have a good plan and to establish the relationship as a key strategic reference for any upcoming migration. The partnership and customer support provided is a high-value option. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped mitigate downtime and lower risk through high availability solutions and key features that enable network redundancy, allowing us to achieve this.

I would assess the knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as excellent because it has become one of the key standards in the industry for following guidelines according to any topic in the RHEL environment.

On a scale of one to ten, I rate this solution an eight.

My main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are Virtual Desktop Interface (VDI) for the server, supporting Telco work workflows, manufacturing software for manufacturing, and travel software. I have a huge base for what we're targeting around AWS or Red Hat solutions.

I favor the network manager feature of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL); I appreciate the versatility and flexibility of network manager. I appreciate that we can make super-fast modifications to networking solutions, and I value the support for IPv6.

I also value the support for working with the community very specifically. Bringing the solutions we need for customer problems to reality tends to result from our conversations with Red Hat. Normally, if I need help making a customer experience better, I can have a conversation with the business teams at Red Hat, and then we can find a collaborative solution.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped to mitigate downtime and lower risk; although it's hard for me to say that I really understand it outside of an analyst report, I can say that I truly believe it has increased uptime based on my experience.

There's a consistency, and my example is that I trust the kernel and the quality engineering, which leads me to more favorable results in places where other distributions might make changes that slow down my networking or storage network in unpredictable ways.

For a new release of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), the main improvement could be in the pricing models, particularly understanding how to better present those pricing models in a more predictable manner. It is very difficult from a partner perspective to figure out how to position software to a customer when the pricing may or may not be competitive, so that's my biggest 'how could I fix this?' question.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for 25 years.

When assessing the stability and reliability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I can say that on every operating system, there are always exceptions and new issues to fix.

However, if I have software validated for RHEL, I know I can expect a certain level of certainty that issues will be ones that have either never been seen before or are the result of our new approaches.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) by itself scales incredibly. However, the problem tends to arise where increased consumption raises total costs.

As the total cost increases across the operating system distribution, my requirements for support decrease, making it difficult to gauge a return on investment, which complicates the situation for me as a representative of an entire fleet.

I would evaluate customer service and technical support as generally positive; I've never had a problem with my support. Sometimes, individual support agents might not know what they're discussing or misunderstand the question, possibly due to my clarity or other factors. I would say that it is at least at the same level or better than any support group I've ever engaged with in technology.

Prior to adopting Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I was using another solution within the RHEL family. I often test workloads using Fedora or CentOS as a foundation and then move those production workloads to Red Hat.

My experience with pricing, setup costs, and licensing has been confusing; it feels different every time. The complications often arise from being unable to predict exactly what is necessary for a deployment, as the build-out and sales cycles are significantly more complex.

I have most definitely seen a return on investment with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL); I don't think my job would exist if there wasn't a return on investment.

By policy, I am required to use Amazon Linux for everything, however, by necessity, I am replacing that with Red Hat solutions where we have space during my evaluation process.

My business relationship with Red Hat is that I am a Partner.

The knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is still hard to search, but I recognize that AI is probably making that easier during this period. I think Lightspeed is an important part of our structure for interacting with the knowledge base information, and I look forward to making that work better.

I typically advise other organizations considering Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) by asking how important their workload is to them. I question what happens if it goes down and how much time they have to spend fixing it. If they value that aspect, then it's their choice to determine their path.

My biggest question often relates to how much they would pay to replace the community, and if they are willing to understand the significant number of partners and open-source champions contributing to Red Hat, they will see how that community cannot be replaced in terms of how software fits their business needs.

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

Our main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) include having servers all around for storage and processing, specifically for compute processing.

The best feature of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that I appreciate is that it provides consistent configuration setups with step-by-step configuration, which is easier. When configuring a server, what previously took at least a 24-hour turnaround time now takes only 30 minutes to one hour.

I am satisfied with the management experience and normally choose Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) when there is an option between it and other solutions. I have been involved in RHEL upgrades or migrations from many years ago, approximately 14 to 18 years back. Currently, everything is easier as upgrades and patches come as a package.

Regarding built-in security features, maintaining compliance is handled at the architect's level during configuration setups. While the service provider handles access level security, configuration compliances need to be managed by the architect.

The upgrade and migration process in AWS is straightforward - I can easily increase the number of processors through hot migration, which can be done while the system is running without requiring shutdown. RHEL has helped mitigate downtime and lower risk with negligible system interruptions.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) could be improved with more shared storage capabilities. For example, I have multiple RHEL instances, and enhanced storage sharing would be helpful for transferring data between servers.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for almost 12 years.

I assess the stability and reliability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as very stable, with negligible downtime, crashes, or performance issues.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales efficiently with the growing needs of my organization as it is one of the managed shared services. When we check the scalability option while configuring, it manages everything automatically without requiring separate actions. I have expanded usage, and the process has been smooth with zero downtime.

I haven't had the opportunity to evaluate customer service and technical support because we address any issues through AWS since it's a managed service.

Prior to adopting Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I was not using another solution to address similar needs.

I manage Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems for provisioning and patching through AWS, which handles the patching at the service provider level. Provisioning is easy because I can modify configurations, such as the number of processors and other parameters.

The deployment model for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is cloud. Security requirements were a consideration in choosing RHEL in the cloud, as AWS provides most of the security features.

I have seen a return on investment with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as the prices have been reduced since we implemented a shared environment.

I cannot speak to licensing because we are using managed services from AWS. Regarding pricing, setup cost, and licensing, all costs come from AWS on a pay-as-you-go basis. We get charged when the service is up; otherwise, there is no cost.

Before selecting Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I considered something similar to VMware. These were the two options I chose between.

My advice to other organizations considering Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is that it's easy to use and a reliable service. It has been consistently at the top in this industry for ages and has its own strengths. I would recommend it as a first choice.

On a scale of one to ten, I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as eight or nine out of ten.

We mainly use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) to host containers.

RHEL makes things easier for hosting containers and has really good integration with automation tools such as Ansible, which makes configuration management easier. Those were the two areas where RHEL helped us significantly.

We haven't used Lightspeed yet; however, we are focused on containers. It's pretty seamless, and RHEL made it much easier for us to get things running when we moved. We were initially on PCF, Pivotal Cloud Foundry, and now we are on OpenShift.

RHEL made development much easier, and we use it as a testbed to run our containers before moving them to OpenShift.

RHEL simplifies container hosting and offers excellent integration with automation tools like Ansible, making configuration management more straightforward. They have really good support, helping me adapt more easily because I already had a good understanding from working on open source technologies.

I find Lightspeed to be the most valuable feature about RHEL. It makes troubleshooting much easier. It's an LLM similar to ChatGPT, allowing me to query what my exact command is, and it provides me with that.

RHEL supports many different container runtimes and packages, making our job pretty easy to build images for developers to use on our container platform. Using RHEL as a base image simplifies our work compared to other options, as it comes pre-packaged with many necessary features.

The fact that we also use a Red Hat-based container product platform, OpenShift, means it has everything needed to run on OpenShift.

RHEL is a pretty polished product, however, if it becomes more mainstream compared to other Linux distributions and if more people adapt it, it would be used as a much more universal product. This would make it easier for people to adapt to RHEL.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for four years.

I would assess the stability and reliability of RHEL as good. I faced some issues due to the underlying platform on which they were hosted, but I didn't encounter problems with RHEL itself. Whenever we have issues, we have good Red Hat support, so it's very reliable.

I assess RHEL's scalability as pretty robust. Most of our footprint is on the cloud, and any new VMs we spin up happen quickly because of how easy it is to set up RHEL. Combining that with the capabilities of Ansible makes scaling up pretty easy on demand.

I evaluate customer service and technical support as excellent.

They have a tiered structure for outage severity and type of environment, which is great. My experience has been positive, and we also had vendor engagements with Red Hat when implementing new solutions, with an engineer and architect helping us set things up. That was a really good learning experience for me as well, so my overall experience has been positive.

Prior to adopting RHEL, I used other distributions of Linux. I worked on Ubuntu and SUSE, and I even worked on some personal projects with Kali Linux. Every distribution has its pros and cons, but for an enterprise-level solution, I feel RHEL is a much better option because of the support it provides.

Security requirements were 100% a consideration in choosing RHEL in the cloud. Our company has its own setup with images we use, with our own vulnerability checks before pushing it. RHEL qualifies as one of the software solutions that has been vetted, and we use it as one of our primary operating systems.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has provided a return on investment of 100%.

I haven't worked on the RHEL side regarding pricing, setup cost, and licensing, however, I have worked on the OpenShift side. The pricing is competitive, especially when compared to our last vendor, PCF, which became quite expensive after being acquired by Broadcom. That's another reason why we started moving to RHEL.

In my current company, RHEL had a mature environment before I joined, but in one of my previous jobs, we chose between SUSE and RHEL. We felt RHEL was a much more polished option because of its larger user base and extensive knowledge catalog.

For other organizations considering RHEL, my advice is that if your organization is operating at scale and requires good support, RHEL is a great product.

On a scale of one to ten, I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) an eight out of ten.

My main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) include workflow development. We are running the workflow in that.

The features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that I appreciate the most include OpenShift. These features have benefited my organization through working on on-premise cloud migration.

Some of the high sensitive data cannot go to the public cloud, so we are trying to use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for the internal migration. We got rid of the VM maintenance and related tasks.

Security requirements were a key consideration in choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in the cloud. We are from the financial industry, so customer data is one of our big responsibilities. When it comes to managing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems for provisioning and patching, we currently work with our middleware team for upgrades, however, the plan is to work with AWS or the Red Hat team for future upgrades.

My assessment of the built-in security features is limited as I'm from the development side. Our upgrade and migration plans to stay current involve recommendations from our vendors.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped to mitigate downtime and lower risk. Our restart used to take considerable time initially, but through optimization, it now takes significantly less time. I would assess the knowledge base as good. We received dedicated training this summer from Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), with trainers coming to our office for two days, which was very beneficial.

The pain points that Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps me solve include the transition from a Microsoft background, where I had a habit of everything with a GUI. I see very few GUI elements in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and many command lines. I'm not proficient in that, which makes me struggle sometimes. Overall, we have the tools, however, there should be drag-and-drop, window-type functionality.

I've used the solution for 11 years.

I would assess the stability and reliability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as very good. As a developer, I have never seen any downtime, so it is working perfectly fine from the middleware side.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales efficiently with the growing needs of my organization. They consistently release new versions. The scalability has been going well.

We have expanded usage, and the process was smooth. In the beginning, we had very few applications, and now I can see many applications running on that side. It is definitely expanding.

I would evaluate customer service and technical support as very proactive.

Prior to adopting Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I was using Microsoft Windows Server. Now our focus is more on this area. The factors that made us want to change include transitioning from Microsoft technology, moving to Pega and Java side. This technology is much more supported on this platform.

The initial deployment was very good.

I have been involved in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) upgrades or migrations, and due to our many internal dependencies, it takes time, however, we successfully completed it.

I have seen a return on investment with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) because we have many critical applications running without any issues. There is significant ROI on that.

The other solutions I considered before choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) include using three or four vendors as a business continuity plan. We have Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), AWS, Windows and others. We cannot rely on one vendor; we have to work with multiple vendors to maintain business continuity.

The advice I would give to other organizations considering Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is that it's a really good tool to use if they have applications in Java, Pega, or IBM workflow or Lombardi.

On a scale of one to ten, I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a nine out of ten.