My main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are on the infrastructure side, including patching, building, engineering, administration, and a little bit of everything.

The feature I appreciate the most about Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is its installation, which includes numerous capabilities. The installation process, especially when automating tasks, provides great satisfaction when it works. These features benefit my company because they enable tasks to be completed quickly.

I cannot identify specific improvements needed for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) at this time. We are currently using version 9.6, and it is performing satisfactorily. I would need to work with it daily to provide specific feedback. However, the documentation could be more user-friendly and comprehensive. Instead of simply stating procedures, it should provide more detailed explanations through multiple layers of implementation. The documentation could be simplified for beginners who are unfamiliar with the system. In our organization, we write our own documentation to address these needs.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) along with CentOS throughout this period.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps me address vulnerabilities, particularly high CVEs with scores of 10 and nine. The build-out capabilities are beneficial, and Ansible integration works effectively with RHEL.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales very effectively to meet my company's needs.

The customer service and technical support are good, though they have declined in quality compared to previous standards. Currently, support often responds by sending PDF documentation, and scheduling direct calls can be challenging.

Security requirements were a key consideration in choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) due to its ease of use, robust security features, and comprehensive experience and support. Support availability was particularly important among these factors.

From my perspective, the biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has been its excellent performance and issue resolution capabilities.

I am not considering alternative solutions to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) at this time due to our current three-year contract commitment.

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a 9 out of 10 and advise other companies considering RHEL to proceed with implementation. They should complete their customer assessment and work with Red Hat representatives. The solution is highly recommended, despite minor support-related concerns.

I am a platform engineer, so I help build out the infrastructure for app owners to use. I manage the OS.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) provides us with a standardized Linux that has controlled package versioning so that there's no scope for issues when we're applying patches. It's pretty stable and gives us stable releases.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) benefits my company overall because compared to other operating systems, it has a lower TCO. It's lighter weight than Microsoft Windows and simpler to use in some aspects, making it easy to use without having to worry about a graphical interface and similar elements.

The features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) I appreciate the most include the management, specifically that Red Hat Satellite is nice. This management feature is great because it centralizes what I need to do to keep an eye on all the systems in the environment. 

There are some features of Red Hat, not just Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), that have a higher cost of entry, which prevents us from trying out things such as Ansible Automation Platform due to its high cost. We are still deciding if we're going to go that route.

There are some positive aspects to the consistent packaging of Red Hat, which is great. However, there are times when the latest and most exciting releases available online are not included in the version of Red Hat that we have. For example, the version included in Red Hat can sometimes feel outdated compared to the open-source versions that are currently available.

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

Its stability and reliability are very good.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped us to mitigate downtime and lower risks, not necessarily due to its nature but because we design our systems to be highly available. We have multiple nodes and we only bring down some nodes, leaving others up, depending on the application, which sometimes dictates how it becomes highly available.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales pretty effectively with the growing needs of my company.

They are pretty knowledgeable. If they don't know it, they know someone who does, so they can always route me and my questions to whomever is able to answer.

I would evaluate the customer service and technical support of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as good, although sometimes opening a case and waiting hours seems excessive, depending on the severity of the issue. It may be a P2 to us, but a P2 with a 4 to 8 hour response seems too long sometimes, and they won't escalate. However, once all that's completed, I would still rate them at least a solid eight.

Positive

My experience with deploying Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) involves lots of scripting and golden images, but there's a newer version of creating the images, and I'm looking forward to using that.

We have a hybrid environment with on-premises and cloud deployments.

We use Red Hat Satellite for provisioning and patching, and I am satisfied with that. 

Upgrading or migrating Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) from on-premises to the cloud went mostly well. However, there were some caveats to consider when moving to the cloud that we hadn't anticipated. For instance, some migration tools had hardcoded values that shouldn't have been fixed in that way. We did encounter some issues that required remediation, but for the most part, the process has gone smoothly.

Our upgrade or migration plans to stay current involve evaluating Red Hat 9 now, and we will be evaluating Red Hat 10 afterwards. I don't think there are any other Red Hat products with a major upgrade upcoming. We are still using Red Hat Satellite, currently at version 6.16, and it needs to get upgraded to the next version pretty soon. The version of Ansible within Red Hat can sometimes feel way behind the version of Ansible that's available open source. Some migration tools hardcoded certain values that shouldn't have been hardcoded.

The biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for me is its consistent nature, as it has stable releases. I don't have worries when patching because everything is backwards and forwards compatible depending on the version.

We don't consider other solutions in our company that do the same thing as Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), nor did we use other solutions before choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). We stick with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), and if anything comes up that looks different from our OS, we heavily push back because we've established a relationship with Red Hat, and we're not looking to introduce a new flavor of Linux and a new support model after all the training we've had already.

My assessment of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)'s built-in security features for simplifying risk reduction and maintaining compliance is that while I haven't used OpenSCAP much, the documentation of their CVEs and vulnerabilities is pretty easy to use through the website. It helps me identify if a CVE is applicable or not applicable, which is useful in case an event occurs and I need to research its impact and remediation.

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

My main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are for our private cloud, so we deploy it and use RHEL extensively for that. We set up the environment and their applications will run on our environment, and I work in that architecture space where we will set up the environment for our customers to come and deploy their applications.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps me solve pain points with all the integrated tools that it brings to us, including all the Ansible Towers that we exceedingly use. My favorite feature of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is Ansible as a tool to work on RHEL. The combination of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) reduces the operational overheads and helps keep us autonomous, allowing us to move faster with less time.

AI features in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) would be an improvement because they reduce operational time and help administrators with features such as finding and troubleshooting issues and resolving them automatically.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for about a year.

The stability and reliability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is, so far, very good.

Regarding scalability, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) keeps up with our demands, so I think it is on par, as we've been partnering for a long time.

I would evaluate the customer service and technical support for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as great. From one to ten, I would rate customer service and technical support for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as an eight.

Security requirements were definitely a consideration before choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). The reason security requirements were considered is that it's just part of our bread and butter as a company, and we would not be able to do anything without security.

Currently, we are not in the middle of any migrations or upgrades regarding Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), so it's running what we have right now, and that's what we're focusing on.

I am not directly involved in managing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems when it comes to provisioning and patching, but I have teammates who do that, and they seem to have a very good experience.

From my point of view, the biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the platform itself; I would say it's a good investment that keeps our job running.

My assessment of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)'s built-in security features is that I have had good experiences so far. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped me to mitigate downtime and lower risks, though the specific details are confidential at this time.

The improvements with AI in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are exciting, as I was attending one of the sessions, and RHEL 10 with AI is already coming. In Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 10, I look forward to seeing the AI features they were describing.

I assess the knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as pretty good; there is still extensive documentation that I constantly refer to if I get stuck. My advice to any other company that's thinking about choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as their solution is to try it out and find out for yourself. I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) overall as an eight.

My main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) cover all the tiers from web application to the database.

The feature of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that I prefer most is Insights. I have been using Insights, and it can give me the health of the system, CPU, memory, and everything, allowing me to see everything including security patches, vulnerabilities, and missing patches. 

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps me solve pain points because it is a stable platform, so I don't have to fix many issues because we're using Ansible to automate everything. Since we have a very stable environment and Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is very stable, we don't have much pain. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) benefits my company significantly because by using it, we are using a stable platform, and all our environments are working as expected.

It has excellent features in terms of security. Everything is there. I just need to deploy it, and we have the SELinux, OpenSCAP, and many tools that I can use to configure the system to make it more secure. For upgrade or migration plans to stay current, we're using the automated LEAP process for migrating from a lower version to the latest version.

I see that there's a lot of improvement needed, but I can see that Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 10 has some of the features that I'm looking for.

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

I have peace of mind, so everything with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is reliable and stable.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped me to mitigate downtime and lower risks because we have everything in place to mitigate any issues since we have a failover on the other side.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales effectively; all the needs of our company are being met by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

I have experience with customer service and technical support. The experience with customer service has been pleasant, but some of the features that I am looking for are not met, so they're still working on it. I would rate the customer service an eight out of ten.

The knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has improved now because of AI. Previously, when I searched for something, it didn't give me everything, but now I am more satisfied.

Positive

My experience with deploying Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is smooth. We are using an automated process; we're using VMware VRA and Ansible to customize the environment. Everything is smooth in building Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) because we have the process from end-to-end, it's very well-defined, so we don't have any problem deploying Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

We have a hybrid environment with on-premise or cloud deployment. We use all cloud providers. 

When it comes to managing my Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems for provisioning and patching, we're using automation with Ansible Automation Platform, AAP, and everything is going smoothly, and I am satisfied with that experience.

I am looking to make the deployment much easier because there's the Image Builder that I prefer, and in building using the Image Builder, all the packages or repositories that I need are inside that feature. 

The biggest return on investment for me when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is peace of mind; I don't have to worry about the operating system because it's running smoothly as expected.

Security requirements were a consideration when choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) because since we're in the government, I'm the one that set up the compliance requirements, and I deployed using the OpenSCAP, but I cannot tell the profiles as it's confidential.

While using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I have not considered other solutions; we are working on moving to OpenShift, which is still Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as a nine out of ten; I don't give a ten because it's a perfect score. 

My advice to other companies that are considering Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is that it is the best operating system currently, so they can use it in deploying their system, wherever they want to deploy the applications.

My main use case for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is as the operating system for all of our applications. I'm our Ansible SME, so we install on top of that and then use that application to manage the RHEL for the enterprise.

The features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that I most appreciate include the easy package management and the straightforward upgrades. The stability and support are also impressive.

The benefit that my company sees from these features is significant. In my particular applications, it's not allowed to be down for more than five minutes consecutively, so it's helping me meet my requirement.

When considering how Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) can be improved, I would say for the enterprise, having easier hooks for these air-gapped lab environments would be beneficial. The reason why these lab environments are air-gapped is we want to test new things, and we can't have it interact with the rest of our network until it's fully vetted. That's why we have these labs to fully vet those types of things. It's normally a hassle to get RHEL up in those environments until we work out the right treatment.

The improvement would be if there's an easy way to, through that air-gapped environment, entitle the RHEL images.

In terms of assessing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)'s built-in security features, I find that out of the box, we are able to manage golden images and that keeps us in compliance.

It is very easy to manage.

I haven't had experience with customer service and technical support for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) items, but I have on the Ansible side.

The portal is excellent. They integrated OpenShift AI, so sometimes when I'm filling out the ticket, it already has the solution there and I end up not opening the ticket. When I do have to open the ticket, I get a good response. That's on the Ansible side, but I'm sure it's the same on RHEL if I ran into something.

We have considered different solutions, not so much Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) itself. Our company started with mainframe way back and has been long time RHEL customers.

We have looked at different container solutions and things in the Red Hat ecosystem, and Red Hat came ahead in those.

From my point of view, the return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is definitely significant.

If we were not able to meet our regulatory impact, we would not be able to do business. It is table stakes.

The advice I would give to other companies that are considering Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) right now is to do a comparison and get feedback from their engineers.

They will see that this is a much more stable platform with a lot of support. I would rate RHEL a 10 out of 10 because it's how we do business.

My main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in this company include running some mission-critical databases, which include Oracle, and one of our document imaging applications.

The best feature of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the easy virtualization on any of the VMware platforms, and now we are also trying on OpenShift, which is very helpful. These features benefit my company by reducing the downtime, which is the main help.

I describe my experience with deploying Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as a bit challenging because it is very advanced on the AIX side or HP-UX side in terms of creating the image and directly building a new server or recovering a server; that is still a challenge on the Red Hat side with that rear image, but now they are improving upon that, and I'm hoping Red Hat 10 will have better options. 

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) can be improved to keep pace with the dynamic world of IT, especially as artificial intelligence and other technologies evolve.

So far, we are very satisfied with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)'s built-in security features when it comes to simplifying risk reduction and maintaining compliance. However, we are exploring further, as there are always challenges, especially when it comes to well-known bugs that need addressing before deployment. I’m expecting more automation in this area. Ideally, it should be handled automatically, allowing us to say, "You don't need to do anything; I’ll take care of that."

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for probably fifteen plus years.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped mitigate downtime and lower risks because we used a lot of freeware Linux systems before, which posed challenges when bugs came up, leading to struggles when solutions weren't available. With Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and support from Red Hat, if issues arise, we can get quick support and resolution, making it very helpful.

So far, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales with the growing needs of my company, but we need to see how this next big change towards artificial intelligence will unfold.

The knowledge base on their website and other resources is quite helpful. However, I have faced several challenges with support, not only with Red Hat but also with other vendors. Typically, when we open a support case with Red Hat, it is assigned to the first level of support. Even when we clearly outline the issue and request a timely response, the case often takes longer than expected to resolve. Sometimes, the support team asks unnecessary questions that are not relevant to the issue at hand.

I believe this is not just a problem with Red Hat; many vendors exhibit similar behaviors. There are knowledgeable individuals on the support team who could assist effectively, yet the initial support level often asks basic questions that do not pertain to the problem we're experiencing. It would be beneficial to streamline the process to ensure that appropriately skilled personnel are assigned to cases more quickly.

My experience with customer service and technical support has been mixed; sometimes it has been excellent when we get the right person at the right time, but otherwise, it is always a challenge, even though we pay for the highest support and have a special Account Executive or Account Manager assigned to us.

Neutral

We mostly used free Linux, but our critical systems were on Red Hat ever since we started migrating from HP-UX, which is not Intel-based, but rather RISC-based systems, even AIX.

I expect to see a return on investment once we start migrating from VMs on VMware to Red Hat or OpenShift.

I have not considered switching to another solution that does the same, but there is always pressure from the company to reduce costs. They question why we don't just use free Linux, Ubuntu or other flavors, which we are using, but not for our critical applications. The main difference is support.

Security requirements are always a consideration before choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) because we are living in a different world. I always have upgrade or migration plans to stay current and we are very aggressive about it, except when the application vendor says it's not supported on the new version yet, which is the only bottleneck.

For the management of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems, a lot of processes are currently manual, although we are using some features and trying to do a lot of automation with Ansible, which we just started implementing, to complete the automation process.

We are always very aggressive with upgrades, except when an application states that it does not support the new version. That's the only drawback we face.

For someone considering Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for their company, I advise conducting some kind of PoCs to understand how it works, and I would then recommend going ahead as it represents the future.

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

My main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) at this company include the development environment, where the dev environment is all in Linux. It's a server where you connect to via PuTTY, and it's currently running on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 7.

My favorite feature of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is that it's a Linux server with Linux commands. These features have benefited my company by making it feel lightweight. If you know Linux commands, you can connect to it and still be able to navigate within that Linux environment. The benefit is that if you onboard a new developer and they know Linux commands, they could just jump on it immediately.

From a user standpoint, every time they do an upgrade or they bring down the Linux server, I have to re-clone all my repositories. Perhaps they could just migrate them over so I don't have to do all that cloning again, because I have three different repos that I have to clone. This has happened twice. I am uncertain how Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) can be improved beyond this.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) at my company for two and a half years, ever since I started.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped mitigate downtime and lower risk for what we use it for because we use it to host a Docker container and for the development environment. From my standpoint, it has been beneficial because we're using it as a development environment to test out new features, which helps mitigate unwanted bugs.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales with the growing needs of my company because there have not been any issues with deploying different servers.

I have worked with Goldman Sachs and Bank of America, and they all use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for their Linux servers. I haven't heard of any other solutions being used, though I haven't worked on the DevOps side to set up these systems. In all the environments I've used that are Linux-based, it has been Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 6 or Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 7.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps solve pain points by being very easy to connect to, and it has an easy setup, though I didn't set it up as the DevOps people handled that.

I don't manage the Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems when it comes to provisioning and patching; there's a DevOps team that handles that. When there is an upgrade, they handle all that after work hours. They bring everything down and then bring up the new servers.

My advice to a company that's thinking of getting Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is, as a user, go for it. I don't know any other product besides Linux and Ubuntu, but I think Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is good. 

On a scale of 1-10, I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a 9 out of 10.

Primarily, our use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are web hosting, but we have a lot of other IBM products running on the machine.

The feature I find most valuable about Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is security. For our company, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped us significantly. We used to be on Sun Solaris approximately 12 years ago, and we have migrated to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), on 7, 8 version, and now on 9 version, and I'm trying to go to 10 as soon as possible. This has resulted in faster app migration because we're running an elevation of many IBM products we had at the legacy, and we see significant improvement in how fast they can build services.

From the web app perspective, my experience with the deployment of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is that they are fast to market; when they request a new VM instance, they can do it very quickly, in a matter of minutes. Security requirements were a consideration before choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

Based on my personal observation over the last several years, there is definitely room for improvement on how to collect the troubleshooting logs, especially in live production. Many times my server team has to open a case with Red Hat to collect their dumps, and there should be a better way of live collection without shutting down or restarting the machine. If you restart, you lose the opportunity to capture the issue, and that should be much more improved.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for more than 20 years.

My personal observation is that Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales effectively with the growing needs of our company. We are currently migrating from VMware, which is showing more improvements.

We used other solutions in our company before choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). We had Sun Solaris and also IBM AIX, and currently, we are using both AIX and Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

The big difference between AIX and Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is definitely in how they interact with the application side, as the underlying hardware for IBM AIX runs on P-series compared to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), which runs on the Intel platform. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is extremely reliable.

We are deploying Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) both in the cloud and on-premises. Currently, we are doing upgrades from RHEL 7 to 9 and 7 to 8, but not directly. I manage and own at least 10 to 12 servers.

The biggest return on investment for me when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is not necessarily financial. The command interface and the way it offers faster response times make me feel much more productive working with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

From the OS perspective, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is very good at mitigating downtime and lowering risks; however, certain things when bundled with other components show significant dependency. I definitely recommend using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as long as the financial cost is acceptable.

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) an eight or nine out of ten overall. To make it a perfect 10, from a system admin perspective, my only concern is that for an actively reproducing issue, I should have the provision to collect live logs without needing to depend on a Red Hat support case for minor issues, as that takes time. Other than that, I'm very satisfied with the usage perspective.

I use OpenShift as part of my system because most clients require it. I work as a forward engineer. For ten years, I've worked for companies where I'm deployed to their site to do one-day to six-month projects, similar to Geek Squad for coding. My specialty is architecture, so I've used Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), mostly Ansible and OpenShift. In instances where I'm working with a VPC directly and everything runs Linux and I'm running RHEL, I'll have some workloads. However, I don't manipulate the OS itself. I use the tools built on top of it.

My specialty is finance and medical, so with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), it's all hybrid. Those two sectors have significant compliance requirements, especially medical. I do many hybrid clouds and must build two or three redundancies. That's why all of the nuances of the Red Hat platform stand out to me in a way it wouldn't for someone else. For example, in a hospital system, they have emergency generators for power. The same concept applies to data, HIPAA, and transferring. I notice things that others may not. It means I'm always concurrently running two or three clouds for disaster recovery for compliance. All of the clouds have nine nines, 11 nines, whatever they're marketing now for reliability, but the time from start to production, the shorter that is, and the better it plays with the rest of my tools and system, the better. Red Hat really excels at that.

The main benefit is time savings, which is something that can't be easily quantified. By not breaking or causing problems, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) saves time, headaches, money, anguish, fees, violations, and penalties. This becomes apparent when teams are happy to use a tool that doesn't slow them down. For high producers, having a reliable system that doesn't require extra steps or workarounds is crucial.

There are two big pain points that Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps me solve. First, Red Hat being interoperable and not taking a side is humongous. Every other platform has tricks and questionable behaviors for lock-in. RHEL is the only platform I don't have issues connecting. Everyone is running hybrid multi-cloud environments, so the fact that others make their products purposely not work with others is obnoxious. As a professional who has made money making APIs and connectors, those companies being stubborn benefits me financially. However, from an efficiency or executing on an idea standpoint, it's frustrating. The fact that Red Hat isn't that way is excellent.

The second aspect I really appreciate, and I don't think they get credit for this, is how Red Hat's interfaces, design choices, and options work very well for producers. For example, Amazon Web Services' approach is to add 200 features a year. They throw everything at the wall to see what sticks, resulting in a confusing experience when logging in, using CLI, or setting up a bastion host into VPC with PEM keys. On the other side of the spectrum, some clouds are too simple. Red Hat hits the perfect balance.

The only thing I can think of is the RHEL AI, which has only been announced for a couple of months, so I'm still sorting it out. The way that gets implemented will be very key to the future of the company and the stack. Until I listened to the seminar, I wasn't even sure what RHEL AI meant. What I understand now is that RHEL AI is the regular RHEL with pre-installed, AI-specific tools and tooling. That's fine, but as a company, they should make that more obvious. Additionally, it seems to only save a few minutes of typing in the terminal. It sounds similar to how people took Ubuntu and made flavors, where they changed two apps and called it a distro. Red Hat should make something actually different because they have that capability, and users would definitely use it. The AI implementation is the future, and it's just a matter of how that gets used.

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

I have extensive experience with stability issues in Linux systems. Since 2017, I have run Debian derivatives on my personal machines. However, for work, it's always RHEL. The built-in security, secure groups, and overall architecture make it a more robust and stable system. Linux did not become stable for home users until after COVID, when everyone was at home fixing issues. RHEL's advantage lies in its architecture - it's harder to break the system due to its notifications, invisible files, and pre-reboot checks.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) solves stability problems in two ways: the architecture of the software stack is exceptionally stable, minimizing downtime and risk, and when issues occur, the recovery time is minimal. Using OpenShift, I can spin up new instances quickly and seamlessly.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales effectively. An OS by itself doesn't determine a company's success or failure; it's about the usage. While Windows, Linux, and Mac have their differences, they share basic components such as a kernel and a user interface. RHEL excels in stability, preventing system crashes even when inexperienced users interact with files, which saves time, money, equipment replacement costs, and prevents employee downtime.

I have had limited experience with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) customer service and technical support. I've used email support, which is efficient and quick. I once needed phone support while working in a data center basement without internet access. I called RHEL for assistance, and the service was excellent. I've had no issues with Red Hat or IBM service, whether it's resolving login issues via email or getting help with critical situations in front of clients.

My experience with the deployment of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) tends to work well. Due to the nature of my work, I rarely build from scratch. I typically join existing projects to iterate upon or fix something. I'm not usually the decision-maker, though I can influence clients through my expertise and trust. The migration path is relatively smooth, even when jumping two versions, and it doesn't break everything.

The pricing, setup costs, and licensing of RHEL are reasonable. While some people complain about the subscription model, I understand and accept it.

The main difference between other solutions and RHEL is configuration and security, which helps maintain stability. Since RHEL is used on web servers, both public-facing and internal, security is crucial. While any modern OS can run without crashing, RHEL's advantage is its resilience against external threats and operations that might compromise other systems.

RHEL is a reliable solution that saves users from numerous technical headaches, though these savings aren't easily quantifiable. The system's reliability speaks for itself.

My advice is to dive in and use it. There are no gotchas with RHEL. There's a large ecosystem, many knowledgeable users, and a strong community.

My review rating for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is nine out of ten.

My main use case for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is for all the tasks, which can be utility services or web services, DNS, NTP, or identity service as well as mail service in my day-to-day work.

The best features Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) offers are that it's a well-managed operating system, and I can use anything regarding the system and other features.

It is good for performance, reliability, and updates.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has positively impacted my organization because its improved security helped our team to maintain compliance issues, even though it's a bit complex.

It's acceptable to work with the current system and current initiation regarding how Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) could be improved; I don't have significant frustrations.

The GUI operation needs to be improved, especially for day-to-day desktop operations.

I'm working about 10 years in my current field.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is stable in my experience.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is a highly scalable solution, and it can handle growth and increased demand well.

The customer support for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is exceptional; I have interacted with their support team, and it's awesome.

I rate the customer support for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a 9 out of 10.

We used Oracle Linux before Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), but I prefer RHEL now.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) saved our money and is good, which indicates we've seen a return on investment.

We have evaluated Ubuntu before choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

I absolutely give others looking into using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) the advice to adopt RHEL for their other production systems. On a scale of 1-10, I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a 10.