We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux for our on-prem VM infrastructure. Recently, we got the OpenShift platform to help with containerization on-prem.

Moreover, containerization is one way we're trying to get rid of any legacy. We don't patch. We try to have a fresh build with the newer version of the patch. We try to use those Red Glue deployment strategies and remove whatever we find in misconfiguration or vulnerability instances rather than fixing them. We redeploy it.

In terms of improvement within the Linux environment, especially for a non-IT company like ours, where we have a limited number of Linux administrators and specialists in Linux hardening and security, Red Hat Enterprise Linux plays a significant role. 

It eases the burden by restricting the use of open-source Linux and preventing the development community from obtaining their own images. This is crucial for maintaining a secure supply chain and ensuring the lockdown of live Linux packages.

However, when it comes to security compliance, I have not been exposed to the Red Hat Enterprise Linux security; we got the advanced cluster security from OpenShift, which has some vulnerability tracking within the cluster. Within Red Hat Enterprise Linux, I have not experienced the security console yet.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has affected our systems and our security. It helps us achieve security standards. It's one of the hardening requirements so, it helps with that compliance requirement.

With standardization across the environment, we don't have to generate multiple artifacts for compliance, and having a single Linux platform management like Red Hat Enterprise Linux helps to satisfy auditors a little faster.

From a security perspective, the overall hardening of Red Hat Enterprise Linux is good. It has been effective in enhancing security.

Image management and hardening are essential, so we don't have to procure open-source Linux images that developers can get themselves. It adds a layer of security with signed images.

The knowledge base is pretty good.

From a cloud perspective, I'm looking for more integrations with native cloud services. For example, the ability to use native Azure Key Vault instead of Ansible Key Vault or Red Hat Key Vault. 

Additionally, integrating image services from Red Hat into native image repositories such as Azure, Google, or third-party image repositories like JFrog is crucial. The key focus is on integration. 

Red Hat should not become Microsoft and lock down functionalities within Red Hat. 

We have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for two years.

We have premium support, so it is pretty good.

Positive

We are a mix of some other cloud virtualization technologies. The overall cloud information will define how we look down the road.

With Linux management, the pros are that it makes management a little easier. Overall, it is just a single view of the images we deploy in the organization. 

The cons are that the integrations are a little tricky sometimes, and then we have to make exceptions to our policies. Better integration, more native service using more credentialless authentication, and authorization like using service principles or managing these over-store credentials would make it better.

Currently, the emphasis is on on-premises solutions.

Overall, I would rate the solution a seven out of ten because it needs more integrations.

We use Red Hate Enterprise Linux in our infrastructure, which consists of VM and Linux. We use it to create clusters. 

I would like to see the GNOME system monitor feature, which shows CPU usage and other aspects. It will help to save time. 

I have been working with Red Hate Enterprise Linux for eight years. 

We have a separate team that handles any issues. We inform them whenever we encounter issues. 

I would like to see user training sessions that last about one to two hours on new features and releases. 

We have a separate team that creates dashboards for us. I rate the product a seven out of ten. 

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux as an operating system for hosting Oracle databases.

Compared to Windows as a server operating system, Red Hat Enterprise Linux seems more secure, and we've had fewer intrusions onto our systems. That one, for us, is the single most important thing. In a few instances where we've had intrusions, we've been able to detect them very quickly and get patches that fix those security holes very quickly, thus preventing further intrusions.

In the cases of clients I've worked for, I've never been involved in a ransomware attack or a significant reportable data loss. That is why we continue using either Red Hat Enterprise Linux or Oracle Linux.

The most valuable features are its stability and resilience in that we rarely have to take down the systems completely to patch them.

The operating system configuration and function selection could be improved. Configuring the operating system and selection of options takes a lot of expertise. I'm now going to retire, and I've been doing this for many years. Trying to train people to make those choices is proving to be difficult. However, to get applications to run efficiently in those environments, those selections are absolutely crucial.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux should include simpler storage management.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for 20 years.

I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux a nine out of ten for stability.

No system is infinitely scalable in a linear manner. As you scale up anything, the fact that you're scaling adds overheads. If I were to compare Red Hat Enterprise Linux to Windows, I would give Windows a seven because you run out of scalability much faster on the Windows side.

I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux a nine out of ten for scalability.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux's technical support team is not that great.

Negative

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is expensive, but it's hard to quantify. Oracle doesn't have a license. You just download Oracle software and use it, but their support is way more expensive. So they're about the same. With these types of operating systems, you need to have some support. With Red Hat Enterprise Linux, you need to pay a massive upfront licensing fee in order to get support. You don't have to pay a licensing fee for Oracle, but then you pay a massive support fee to get the support.

They're about the same overall. I don't really make that choice for my clients. I ask them to ensure that they do have some support from someplace. If they suffer a breach and need someone to help fix the problem, they should have something up and running when it happens instead of running around trying to arrange it.

Most of my clients have particularly sensitive information. We tend to run on-premises rather than the cloud because of security issues for those highly sensitive databases. We disconnect those databases from the internet so they are ultimately secure. That is something that you cannot do in the cloud.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux doesn't have any particular standout security features, which the other Linux tools don't have. I've also used the Oracle version of Linux, which seems very similar to Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Both seem to be as secure as the other. If I have to give a score in relation to stability, Oracle's version of Linux might be slightly more stable than Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

All the customers I've worked for have been using those operating systems for a long time. For instance, one of our customers has been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux since it was first available over 20 years ago. A return from that is difficult. They were using Unix rather than Linux. The applications they ran were ported from those environments, and migrating them to Red Hat Enterprise Linux was relatively painless. We did those migrations back in 1995 to 1997.

We tend to use the environment for running databases. So, we have very few real users directly connecting to the system. The people who connect to the system do so by applications.

We haven't needed any maintenance for a long time. My last company was a large organization, and we had the internal expertise to provide support. Some net contributors have fixed bugs themselves and contributed those bug fixes back into the Linux open-source community. It was a huge organization, and its IT department was as big as some software consultancies.

Overall, I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux a six out of ten.

My main and only usage of Red Hat Enterprise Linux is for the on-premise workload. We use it for running Red Hat Ceph Storage and running automation using Ansible. Other than this, I use it for doing any auto test that I would like to do on a Linux-based machine.

From a security perspective, the most valuable feature is SELinux. SELinux provides good security. It's doing a good job of protecting my real estate.

The portability of applications and containers built on Red Hat Enterprise Linux is great.

It has its own ups and downs. Most of the time, it's pretty stable, but sometimes, you'll find some weird bugs that could affect the availability of your running machine. Red Hat can improve its operating system by making it better from the quality assurance perspective. Users do find bugs, which they, of course, shouldn't encounter. A better QA would probably make the job a lot better. It would make the product a lot more stable than it's today.

I've been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for over three years.

It has its own ups and downs. The operating system itself is pretty much stable, but there could be some bugs that could affect your availability. While running the Red Hat Enterprise Linux operating system, I did experience some bugs from time to time that did affect the availability on my machine.

Overall, it's pretty stable, but when you do something more hardcore or special, then its stability could be affected. I can't recall anything that I faced in the last few weeks or months, but as you go around production with Red Hat Enterprise Linux and have lots of machines running on it, you can get stability issues or kernel issues. A machine might suddenly be rebooted for no reason. That's my experience with Red Hat Enterprise Linux's stability.

It's deployed at multiple locations. Approximately, there are 200 people using this solution.

The support in Israel from the guys sitting in Israel is great, but when contacting the support engineers across the globe, the support level just decreases, and the reliability decreases as well. The support guys locally in Israel are great, but the support guys worldwide aren't that reliable. Overall, I'd rate them a seven out of ten.

Neutral

I used Ubuntu and Fedora, but mainly Ubuntu. Ubuntu was a great operating system. We had to change from Ubuntu to Red Hat Enterprise Linux due to subscriptions. The enterprise had more and more need for container orchestration, so we ended up purchasing the Red Hat OpenShift container platform, and the use of Red Hat Enterprise Linux in the organization grew significantly.

The security features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux are aligned with the entire industry. They do not have any higher advantage over other competitors, such as Ubuntu from Canonical, so security-wise, it's okay.

It was pretty much straightforward. Deployment of the Red Hat Enterprise Linux operating system didn't take longer than two days.

It was deployed in-house. Three to four people were involved in its deployment.

In terms of maintenance, it just works unless you do anything special with it.

It's pretty expensive, but I'm not familiar with the pricing of other vendors for their operating systems. I'd rate it a seven out of ten in terms of pricing.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux's main advantage is the support that you get by purchasing their subscriptions. 

We looked at OpenSUSE, but we eventually ended up with Red Hat Enterprise Linux because of the support that Red Hat has in my country. In Israel, Red Hat is a lot bigger than OpenSUSE, so we ended up going with Red Hat Enterprise Linux because of the available support in the country.

If you're evaluating this solution, I'd recommend having your own architects discuss your architecture with the local Red Hat personnel in your state. Red Hat Enterprise Linux is a good product, and it could be even better if you know how to integrate it based on the preferences of your organization. So, my advice would be to have your guys discuss your IT architecture with the local Red Hat people and then decide how to specifically integrate your IT infrastructure with the Red Hat software.

Overall, I'd rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux a seven out of ten.