Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) basically runs the bank's apps as my main use case.

I like the feature Satellite the most because it has services to manage my multiple Linux servers.

Satellite has no parallel in the Linux distro world, especially for an enterprise, enabling me to manage my servers, patch them, create content, get them binaries, updated security updates, and all that. It makes it easier for admins and reduces the need for a lot of manpower, especially with Ansible that enables me to do configuration management of 20,000 Linux servers.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales with the growing needs of my organization very well as we are expanding ourselves.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped mitigate downtime and lower risk because the servers can run for more than 300 days of uptime. I do have to reboot them for patching, but otherwise, they are a very stable operating system that doesn't crash for no reason. If I experience kernel panics, it often involves EDRs or agents such as CrowdStrike, but otherwise, it's very stable with proactive features. We had issues with CrowdStrike; they identified the issue with their kernel drivers that used to crash my OS and provided a patch to address it, so they take care of us.

The implementation had challenges like whenever we bring out new products, there's always one issue: Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)'s documentation is not complete. I have to really have an enterprise account because I get access to their support, which sorts me out since every environment is unique. It's not a cookie cutter; I would deploy RHEL 8 in a way different compared to a retail store. So when it gets to those niche deployments, they don't have anything documented. I really have to get hold of the support, saying, "Hey, I'm trying to do this. It's not working," and then they will give me a solution, but I would expect that a document would have solved that issue without raising a ticket. That's my only complaint.

The area for improvement in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is documentation. I don't have any other suggestions. I think it's just the documentation that needs improvement. Otherwise, technically, I don't have anything to suggest.

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

I have experienced downtime or security incidents as a result of the solution when proper practices are not followed, especially if I am using any third-party security. You have to manage kernel options; otherwise, the base OS itself is very stable.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales with the growing needs of my organization very well as we are expanding ourselves.

I would evaluate customer service and technical support based on my experience. I felt naive about being a small enterprise versus a big enterprise, but the response time of tickets is consistent. I haven't seen a difference; I thought I would have a slower response being on a small account, but the speed of our calls is the same.

I considered other solutions before choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), but it was a default choice for us. I see that they have expanded; earlier, it was just a bare-metal OS and not an ecosystem, but now they are in OpenShift, providing Kubernetes and everything.

I wasn't using another solution to address my needs prior to adopting it.

The upgrade or migration is straightforward if I have applications that depend less on what the OS is, but in our case, it was not that simple. We had a business requirement, so we had to shut down the older one, provision a new one, and move everything.

I have seen ROI from using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in terms of uptime itself.

My experience with pricing, setup, and cost of the solution is that it's a service based on how many cores, not sockets.

My deployment model for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is on-premises, but I am just starting off with cloud.

For security requirements in the cloud, I don't do SELinux; I just depend on my ACLs because my servers are not internet-facing. We trust Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) with the binaries, with nothing on the base OS such as firewalls or SELinux.

I use AWS and Azure as my cloud providers.

I manage my Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems for security, updates, and patches with Red Hat Satellite, which makes it very easy.

I have been involved in upgrades from RHEL 6 to 7 and from 7 to 8.

My assessment of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)'s FIPS and security compliance features is that it's the best in the industry. They have FIPS, which I think is more for federal clients, and although I haven't used it, I know they offer it by default on their Linux.

My upgrade and migration plans are to always try to stay on the current version all the time, unless there's a legacy application. Any apps I manage are always on the latest Red Hat release, and we keep migrating them as Red Hat provides the first-ever release out, which is a requirement for our Satellite to support the latest version.

The area for improvement in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is documentation.

I would assess the knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as paywalled, so if you don't pay for it, you wouldn't be able to access their system. The KB is pretty good, but you need to have a Red Hat account.

My advice to a company considering this solution is to go for it. It is supported by enterprise support from Red Hat, which I don't think any other enterprise can offer. While I know Canonical does it for Ubuntu, SUSE is another good option; however, the adoption is not there, and you don't have a lot of sysadmins. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is a bible due to the abundance of resources in the market. I would rate this solution a 10.

The main use case for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is to manage the database and the server.

The solution helps solve pain points for monitoring servers, for example, databases and servers.

The most valuable feature of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the security and also the performance for scheduling and tasking for the memory.

These features benefit the organization because we have hundreds of servers, databases, and many files, and we have the ability to use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

I am interested in migrating to the cloud platform, so we are trying to implement that in the organization.

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

I have not experienced any downtime, crashes, or performance issues with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales well to meet the growing organizational needs.

We are looking for containerization for scalability, and it is easy to scale out and scale in.

We have expanded usage and tried manually to increase the number of servers, and we see the disk increasing exponentially, which is why we are looking for scaling.

I would evaluate customer service and technical support as quite good, since I technically get 24/7 support if I encounter issues from updates or new features.

I would assess the level of support from Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) team as very informative; we learn a lot from the documentation from the Red Hat support team.

Before selecting Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I considered the availability of resources and security, as we have files and a lot of data with not enough time to handle that from the internet, and distribution is mostly for security.

The experience deploying Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) was easy, as we use different methods, such as installing or using some source files by using some servers to deploy.

The most common challenges faced with the deployment are mostly enterprise related, such as resource compatibility and making automation instead of active compatibility.

The opinion on pricing and its cost-effectiveness for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is that it is quite good for production on-premises.

The advice I would give to other organizations is that they should mostly rely on the Linux operating system; it is quite reliable and easy to use, install, deploy, and manage, so I would advise them to use it.

I would rate this product a 10.

I am the backend support for RHEL. We develop the stage for the application user.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has benefited my company greatly because it is open source, making it very helpful to adopt.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps us solve pain points because every script and everything in RHEL is very human-friendly. We can automate processes, make changes according to our needs, edit files, add directories, and implement any modifications. Even in the RPMs, we can make changes according to our application needs, which is very helpful for us.

One of the features I appreciate most about Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is its user-friendly interface. We have been using it continuously for this reason. As they are automating processes and introducing new methods, especially in RHEL 9, I thoroughly enjoy using the platform.

The GUI mode of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) needs to be improved compared to the CLI mode.

I started using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) at the beginning of my career. I have worked with RHEL versions 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9. We will begin using RHEL 10 very soon.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has not helped me to mitigate downtime and lower risks.

I have experience with customer service and technical support from Red Hat. When we encounter issues, we open a ticket with Red Hat, and they provide very good solutions.

When it comes to provisioning and patching Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems in our environment, we use Red Hat Satellite to carve out the image. We build our own image from Red Hat Satellite.

I have been involved in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) upgrades and migrations from on-premises to the cloud. The migration process was straightforward without any difficulties. We performed both hot migration and cold migration successfully.

Reliability is key with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), and the backend support from Red Hat is awesome. It is much easier to develop our own environment through Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) compared to other platforms such as Windows or Ubuntu. It is very human-friendly and easy to manage.

My assessment of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)'s built-in security for simplifying risk reduction and maintaining compliance is that, compared to other vendors such as Ubuntu and Debian, Red Hat is more familiar with these aspects. We love to use RHEL.

Overall, I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a ten.

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.