My main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are mostly just running applications, web servers, app servers, databases, etc.

I don't have a preference on features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), as I appreciate many of them. While just getting into cloud, I'd say the best feature is YUM, DNF, and related tools, which are simple and easy to use and manage. 

The simplicity of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) benefits my company in general since we're under many audits and regulations that allow us to track any discrepancies we may find in the reports, as to remediate those vulnerabilities and apply the necessary patches so that we can be compliant with our systems.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps me solve pain points through vulnerability management, and its Satellite has been a really good tool to help us track vulnerabilities as well as patching the server.

We are hybrid, so we deploy Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) both in the cloud and on-premise. For our cloud needs, we use both Azure and AWS. We have a good track record with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and security, due to their ability to produce Day 1 patches, quick responses, and great customer support when we face problems.

When it comes to provisioning and patching, we usually manage our Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) patching in a monthly cycle, using Ansible to help update our monthly downloads from Red Hat Enterprise Linux, move it to our satellite, and then push it out to our servers.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) supports our hybrid cloud strategy. We mostly use both Windows and Red Hat, making it our primary Linux operating system for applications, and we've been using the Red Hat images that we've created for cloud, deploying them there with the necessary utilities and applications.

I assess the knowledge base offered by the Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) system fairly positively, especially for support questions, however, the only issue I have is that often, you have to log in with your provider ID; in some cases, I understand. That said, there are others that are not just generally support specific to Red Hat, which is a problem.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped to mitigate downtime and lower risk through our ability to patch quickly, with relatively fast reboot times, and the amount of changes applied that don't affect systems much, especially with patching, so everything works as designed with very little incompatibility issues.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) can be improved by offering more on the Ansible side, with more integration with Ansible Satellite and all their tools for a one-stop area that manages both vulnerabilities and image deployments in a workflow pipeline.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) since Red Hat 4, which was a long time ago.

Its stability and reliability are fair and stable, with not too many issues encountered as long as no one is messing with the kernel configuration.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales really well with the growing needs of my company, as long as we have licenses.

I find customer service and technical support for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) better than most; it's good.

Positive

Before Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), we were using SUSE Linux, starting originally with Red Hat, then switching to SUSE 10 and 11, and ultimately switching back to Red Hat 7.

My experience with deploying Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has gotten easier over the years, especially with Ansible, as it has become more automated, replacing a lot of the tasks we used to do by command-line interface with more Ansible playbooks and workflows.

From my point of view and a technical perspective, the biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the ease to spin up the instances and the fact that many people still prefer the command-line interface, which has significantly less overhead than a Windows system.

Regarding the pricing, setup costs, and licensing of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I'm not really involved with the budget, however, it seems to be okay for what we currently have.

A while ago, we considered SUSE and looked at Ubuntu before we ended up choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as our solution.

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

To make it a ten, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) would need to allow systems to remain operational even if licenses expire, especially on a virtualized platform, and perhaps also improve Ansible integration.

Our primary use case for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) revolves around running and managing critical enterprise workloads. We rely on RHEL’s stability and security to support key applications, including Oracle databases, EBS (Enterprise Business Suite), and NMS (Network Management Systems).

One of the standout advantages of RHEL in our infrastructure is its integration with Ansible, which allows us to automate configurations, streamline patch management, and reduce manual intervention across multiple systems. This automation helps us maintain consistency, enhance security, and minimize downtime.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has significantly enhanced our organization's efficiency, security, and automation. As the foundation for our enterprise workloads, RHEL provides a stable and scalable platform that ensures high availability and performance across critical applications. One of the biggest improvements we've seen is through Ansible, which has helped us automate configuration management, deployment, and patching processes. This has not only reduced manual workload but also minimized the risk of human errors, leading to a more resilient infrastructure.

One of the most valuable features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for our organization has been its simplicity and automation capabilities. Managing enterprise workloads can be complex, but RHEL streamlines this through Ansible, allowing us to automate configurations, deployments, and patching. This has significantly reduced manual intervention and improved operational efficiency.

Security is another critical factor, and RHEL’s robust vulnerability management ensures continuous updates for Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVEs), keeping our systems protected. The integration of Red Hat Insights allows us to proactively identify and mitigate risks, strengthening our overall security posture.

Additionally, the stability and scalability of RHEL have been essential for supporting key applications like Oracle databases, EBS (Enterprise Business Suite), and NMS (Network Management Systems). The long-term support and extended lifecycle maintenance ensure smooth operations, minimizing downtime and disruptions.

Overall, RHEL’s combination of automation, security, and reliability has enabled us to optimize infrastructure management, improve security, and maintain seamless operations for mission-critical applications.

One significant area for improvement is SAP certification and compatibility. Many large enterprises rely on SAP workloads, and RHEL’s limited official certifications for certain SAP solutions create challenges for businesses looking for seamless integration and performance optimization. Expanding certification coverage and tuning RHEL for SAP applications would strengthen its positioning in enterprise IT landscapes.

Another key improvement would be user-friendly patch management. While RHEL provides strong security updates, further enhancing the patching process—especially with live-patching options—could minimize disruptions and make the update workflow even more intuitive for IT teams managing large deployments.

Additionally, expanded cloud-native support would be beneficial as organizations continue shifting toward hybrid and multi-cloud environments. Strengthening native integrations with cloud service providers, optimizing containerization tools, and improving Kubernetes compatibility could boost RHEL’s efficiency in cloud deployments.

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

One of the key contributors to its stability is the predictable release cycle and long-term support. Red Hat provides extended lifecycle maintenance, allowing organizations to run workloads without unexpected disruptions. Additionally, the continuous security updates and proactive vulnerability management reinforce system integrity, reducing potential risks and downtime.

Moreover, RHEL’s robust package management system, combined with Ansible automation, further enhances stability by ensuring consistent configurations across multiple deployments. The ability to automate patching and system updates significantly reduces errors that could impact performance.

Overall, RHEL stands out as a highly stable and dependable solution, making it an excellent choice for enterprises seeking a secure, scalable, and resilient operating system.

The knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is excellent. You just need to search for your concern, and the answer is right there most of the time, and it's accurate. If something isn't there, support is also good. If you log a ticket, the response and the level of attention that you get on a support ticket is very good.

Positive

We are in both the cloud and on-premises with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). On the cloud, we use Azure. On-premises, we have VMware and Nutanix.

I wasn't involved in discussions about considering other solutions before choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for my company, however, if that decision came to me, I would have chosen Red Hat since I have previous experience with Red Hat in my last organization. 

We did have SUSE before we chose Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). We still have SUSE since SAP workloads run on SUSE, as they have better collaboration between SAP and SUSE. We tried changing that to Red Hat maybe a year ago, however, the response from the SAP team was not supportive as they wanted to go with SUSE due to some licensing and support models that were not clear to me.

The transition is straightforward. The documentation is great. It's accurate. If you have a Red Hat account, you have access to knowledge articles. 

We're on the cloud and on-prem.

We don't use AWS for purchasing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

One of the key areas where we see ROI is through automation with Ansible, which has helped us streamline deployments, patching, and configuration management. This has significantly reduced manual effort and minimized human errors, leading to higher productivity and cost savings.

Another major factor is security and vulnerability management. RHEL provides continuous updates for Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVEs), ensuring we remain protected against emerging threats. The ability to implement proactive security measures has reduced downtime and the costs associated with mitigating security incidents.

When considering setup costs, pricing, and licensing for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I always advise others to evaluate their organization's scale, workload requirements, and long-term support needs.

RHEL follows a subscription-based model, which ensures access to continuous security updates, patches, and support rather than a one-time licensing fee. While the upfront cost may seem higher compared to some alternatives, the value comes from its predictable pricing, enterprise-grade security, and extensive support ecosystem.

For organizations with large deployments, leveraging Red Hat Satellite and Ansible automation can help reduce administrative overhead, making the investment in RHEL more cost-effective in the long run. Additionally, Red Hat provides different pricing tiers based on usage—ranging from standard support to premium offerings, allowing businesses to tailor the subscription to their specific needs.

For startups or smaller teams, I often recommend exploring Red Hat Developer subscriptions, which provide access to RHEL for development and testing at a reduced cost. Similarly, cloud-based RHEL instances through AWS, Azure, or Google Cloud offer flexible pricing models, allowing businesses to scale efficiently without heavy upfront infrastructure investments.

Ultimately, I advise organizations to conduct a cost-benefit analysis, factoring in security, automation, and long-term stability rather than looking solely at initial setup costs. RHEL's value extends beyond pricing—it’s an investment in reliability and enterprise support."*

No

We use a lot of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for developing products for our customers. Since Red Hat is known as a popular option for many of our customers, it provides a standardized platform for us to deliver products on. 

Ansible has helped my company by managing disparate systems, allowing us to configure for specific use cases and providing common configurations, so it helps us wrangle all the disparate situations and configurations that we have across various different product teams in our labs.

When working with the Linux system, especially dealing with thousands of systems, Ansible is probably the most helpful tool. It has helped my company by managing the complexity of disparate systems, allowing us to configure for specific use cases and providing common configurations across various product teams in our labs.

My company is not particularly happy with the current pricing models that are available. We have been starting to diversify so that we can deploy machines quickly onto Foxconn or other platforms. We will probably use Oracle Linux instead because we don't want to deal with the licensing issues of putting Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) up and then tearing it down a week later. Our management chain is not satisfied with the current pricing model.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for at least a decade.

There are always bugs in any software product, but it seems pretty stable.

The technology of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales greatly, but the pricing doesn't scale as effectively.

The customer service and technical support are outside of what I deal with as a system administrator. I use the Red Hat support through the website most often to look up technical issues, which works effectively. If I were to rate that support from the website on a scale of one to ten, I would give it an eight or nine.

Positive

We transitioned to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) from Fedora approximately a decade ago. More recently, we've decided to diversify so that lab compute loads that are internal, which are going to be kicked over repeatedly, are moving to Oracle Linux. We have also acquired several companies whose systems are set up to run on Ubuntu, so our environment is diverse.

We manage our Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems with our own internal Ansible playbooks for performing upgrades and patching, so it's all integrated for us.

Our upgrade and migration plans to stay current are a continual process. People in our labs prefer to maintain what they have because they want to stay at steady state indefinitely, but that isn't possible. We are continually working on eight to nine upgrades simultaneously.

I see a return on investment when using this product in general, as it helps us support our product development teams, which generates revenue.

I have not been involved in any cloud migrations because that's handled by a separate team. Regarding upgrades, transitioning from version six to seven was more complex. We are currently in the process of upgrading much of our version seven base to versions eight and nine, which is progressing more smoothly.

I haven't purchased Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) on AWS Marketplace, as that falls outside of my responsibilities and would be handled by the cloud team.

Regarding Red Hat management for security, we have dedicated security teams that assist with evaluations, and we partner with them for implementing solutions to security issues. 

Overall, I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) an eight or nine out of ten. The pricing structure is the main factor preventing it from receiving a perfect score, as improved pricing would enable more ubiquitous use.

Our use case involves modernizing applications for our clients. We take the application, extract the main functions and features, and modernize them to have those features in the cloud with a new customer experience. One way to do this is to prepare a new platform or solution in the cloud. Then we get the data from their on-premise services and move this data to the cloud. 

We mainly have customers from the public sector, telecommunications, and fintech, and these customers require many systems to modernize because most of them are 15 or 20 years old, and that's why they need to modernize for a better customer experience and journey.

It's almost a standard for us because all of the infrastructure in the cloud is based on Red Hat Enterprise Linux. We are using OpenShift as an orchestration platform. We work with several orchestration platforms, such as Kubernetes and EKS from AWS. In the case of Red Hat, we are using OpenShift. The main feature of OpenShift for us is the continuous integration, continuous delivery, and security; the granularity of security is important for us. They have a lot of features on top of Kubernetes. 

Red Hat is a good partner for us, and the service and support guides are really valuable for understanding and improving our knowledge in this area.

The main benefit of Red Hat is the huge community. They are delivering better quality by constantly updating and adding features for different products. The stability and quality of their service are very good.

I believe they need to improve in terms of compatibility between services. I know that it's difficult to follow the different versions and maintain compatibility. For example, in OpenShift, they have several internal tools that are not completely compatible with the product, and that's an area they need to work on. Supporting different versions and ensuring compatibility between these versions is necessary for us to continue putting effort into this.

We started on-prem about 15 years ago, and we have been working with Red Hat Enterprise Linux on the cloud for five years.

The quality of their services is high because they have people internally working on improving features every day.

Red Hat is a good partner. I would rate their support an eight out of ten.

Positive

Two of our clients switched to Red Hat because they have support from the organization. The management of their products, in terms of documentation and processes for installation and configuration, is well-documented. It's not like other open-source products in the market that lack the full support of an organization. This is the main reason they pay for licenses or subscriptions; there's an organization behind the products supporting them.

Upgrades or migrations are pretty straightforward and not complex, according to our experience.

We require a small team of between three and five people for upgrades or migrations. For such projects, we mainly have developers and cloud engineers. For the data itself, we also have data engineers.

Pricing is sometimes an issue for our clients because it's not a cheap solution. The different licenses have a high cost, and perhaps they could improve by offering different kinds of discounts or lowering the price to make this solution more appealing compared to other cloud providers.

Moving workloads between centers depends on the knowledge of the data and the frequency of synchronization. It depends on different factors, but normally, it is a matter of knowledge about the data structure and the different mechanisms and techniques for moving this data. It's not only a matter of tools; it's related to understanding how the data is structured and how often it changes.

We don't manage Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for provisioning and patching because we work with the cloud directly. These services are managed by AWS.

We move workloads between on-prem and the cloud using Red Hat Enterprise Linux. For this, we are using other tools, such as Divisio, which is also supported by Red Hat. We have Apache NiFi and Kafka for messaging delivery and integration between the services.

If you have a multi-cloud strategy, Red Hat is a better fit. However, if you only use one cloud service like Amazon or Google, I'm not sure if Red Hat provides great benefits compared to the cloud provider. Our clients have had only one cloud provider.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

We mainly use Red Hat Enterprise Linux for general applications. We have Red Hat Enterprise Linux for identity management. We use it for NTP services. Most of the bank services that run on Linux run on Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Our core applications include bank cards solutions.

It is a stable operating system, and that is why we use it. We have many team members who understand how to use Red Hat Enterprise Linux, so it's much easier to use this version of Linux to deploy services.

There is ease of use. A lot of resources are available online if the team wants to understand something. There is also the ability to use various automation tools to run multiple tasks.

For risk reduction and compliance, we have CIS benchmarks. There are various configuration files that we are able to update and change. Using the benchmarks available from CIS, I can have a template and automate that across multiple machines using automation features such as Ansible. When examining permissions for file systems, enabling login, and enabling file integrity, these are the items we would use for security.

The simplicity of patching Red Hat Enterprise Linux is most valuable. We just use the DNF update. We use the Red Hat satellite for our patch repositories, which is quite simple. I look at it at an infrastructure level because I'm in the infrastructure team, not in the application team.

The knowledge base is good. When we troubleshoot or have issues, we go to the Red Hat website. There are a lot of documented issues. They have a good knowledge base.

Identity management could be simpler. Red Hat Enterprise Linux has Identity Manager, but it is not as simple to use as Microsoft Windows Active Directory.

I have been working with Red Hat Enterprise Linux for a very long time, approximately 15 years.

It is stable. I would rate its stability a nine out of ten.

So far, I have not been affected by significant issues in terms of security.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is scalable, so I would rate its scalability a nine out of ten.

We are using it across two sites. We have 6,000 people.

I have contacted tech support of Red Hat Enterprise Linux for some questions. Their tech support is quite good compared to other companies.

Positive

Before working with Red Hat Enterprise Linux, I used CentOS and Microsoft Windows. While comparing CentOS with Red Hat Enterprise Linux, I see stability as an advantage; Red Hat Enterprise Linux is quite a stable operating system.

I have done cloud deployments and upgrades.

It does not require a lot of maintenance. For managing Red Hat Enterprise Linux systems, when it comes to provisioning and patching, we use Ansible, which allows us to patch multiple machines. We normally use Red Hat Insights. Once we configure our machines to talk to Red Hat Insights via Red Hat Satellite, it can tell us the vulnerability status of various machines in the environment. Then, we can decide which machines are most vulnerable and patch accordingly. We can use automation tools such as Ansible to run various patches across the environment.

We have used Leap to do the upgrades from Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 to Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8. Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 was going end of life. Upgrading from one version to another can be a bit complex. It is sometimes an issue because of multiple compatibilities. You need someone who is a bit skilled on the operating system.

We did the deployment ourselves, not through an integrator, reseller, or consultant.

We have four people involved in maintenance because we have many servers.

The cost of Red Hat Enterprise Linux is reasonable.

I would recommend it for mission-critical applications. It's a good operating system to run mission-critical applications.

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux a nine out of ten because of the support, stability, and ease of use.

Our primary use case involves running custom applications on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). We mainly deploy it on-premises, with applications and custom-made solutions running on RHEL for our customers.

The most valuable features include the classical operating system features, extensive community support, and the integration of open-source with enterprise support. Our customers often choose Red Hat because they receive support for open-source software, which is a major reason for its use.

I am not sure what needs improvement as our customers haven't shared any specific feedback. Perhaps some minor enhancements like a more user-friendly knowledge base and faster technical support could be beneficial.

I have been working with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for over ten years, with a recent focus on it in the last few months.

I find that Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is highly stable, and I would rate its stability nine or ten out of ten. It is a fully enterprise-grade operating system, and stability is crucial for our customers.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is very scalable, and I would rate its scalability at nine or ten. Scalability is vital for our customers as they often expand their infrastructure.

While the technical support could be faster, the Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) community service is excellent. The technical support from Red Hat could be rated six out of ten because of the slow response times.

Neutral

The initial setup was very easy and straightforward. I didn't experience any problems during the setup process, similar to other operating systems.

The deployment process depends on customer specifications. After discussing and agreeing on the specifications, we proceed with the deployment. We guide customers and provide recommendations as needed.

I do not have specific knowledge about pricing as I am not a seller. The price varies depending on the customer and the project. Therefore, I cannot provide an exact evaluation of pricing.

Overall, I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) nine out of ten. The knowledge base could be improved to be more user-friendly as it currently requires getting used to.

I typically use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in my federal government contracts. Federal government customers are the only ones that use Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

Most government agencies use Red Hat Enterprise Linux because they have a requirement for commercial support. That is the only reason why Red Hat Enterprise Linux gets used over any other Linux distribution.

The only reason our clients use Red Hat Enterprise Linux is because Red Hat offers commercial support. 

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is a solid product. They have decent support, although not the best. They have a good knowledge base and a well-developed ecosystem.

Recently, Red Hat did a strange thing where they took over the CentOS project and changed several things in their pipeline. I don't believe that I, or the vast majority of Linux systems engineers out there, are fans of their development process for the operating system.

The way that Red Hat used to work was that they had a free version. It was the community version called CentOS. Everything that Red Hat developed, they backported to the CentOS community. About four or five years ago, they took over the CentOS community and they killed off CentOS. They were pushing the Red Hat Enterprise Linux stream variant, which was supposed to be the replacement. I wish they would just go back to the way it was before. I do not like the new development process and the new hierarchy. The vast majority of people in the Red Hat open-source community also do not care for it much.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux since its inception. I started using Red Hat Linux in 1999, but I do not remember what year it became Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

They are typically slow to respond. I feel their first-line support is lacking in knowledge.

Their knowledge base is pretty decent. It is pretty standard. Linux is such a mature product now that the knowledge bases for all the major distributions, even the open-source free ones, are so vast. I do not know if any Linux distribution offers any real advantage over others when it comes to the knowledge base.

Neutral

I have worked with all operating systems. I have been doing this for 30 years. In the military, I was a Windows and Linux systems administrator. I was using Solaris Unix back then. I have been using Windows for about 30 years, and then I have used all Linux distributions such as Ubuntu, Debian, Red Hat, Mandrake, Yellow Dog, etc. If there is a Linux distribution out there, I have probably used it in a project somewhere.

The only reason that I, or anybody else, uses Red Hat Enterprise Linux is because it offers commercial support. That is it.

The Red Hat package management system is inferior to most other package management systems in the Linux world, mostly to the Debian-based ones that used the App system versus the Red Hat RPM package management systems. Red Hat is also not as unified or as streamlined as other distributions.

The setup is pretty simple and very straightforward. I would rate it a seven out of ten for the ease of setup. Its upgrades are moderately straightforward.

The management depends on where those systems live. On-prem ones are managed differently than the cloud ones. Cloud-to-cloud ones are managed differently. Red Hat is slightly more work-intensive than other Linux distributions. I feel that Debian-based distributions, such as Ubuntu, Devuan, and AntiX, are easier to manage than the Red Hat-based distributions, and obviously, Red Hat Enterprise Linux is the flagship for all those distributions.

It is used just to meet requirements. Being government agencies, they do what they have to do to meet requirements. It helps them meet the requirements of having commercial support, and that is about the extent of it.

I am not a big fan of Red Hat Enterprise Linux. I use it because government customers have a requirement to use it, but outside of that, I would never voluntarily use it. In fact, I recommend against using it. 

We do not use features that are proprietary to Red Hat Enterprise Linux. We do our best to avoid proprietary tools. We stick to open-source tools. Typically, we use things like Ansible to achieve those goals.

I am a consultant, so I have worked with both on-premises and cloud deployments. I have used it in both Azure and AWS. It is client-defined. Our workloads are not hybrid workloads. They are usually dedicated. If we put a workload in the cloud, it is all in the cloud. If we put a workload on-prem, it is all on-prem. I do not know if Red Hat necessarily provides any special features to support hybrid workloads, and if it does, we certainly do not use them. We try to stay away from Red Hat-integrated tools and utilize industry-standard tools. We use Terraform and Ansible. Ansible is now owned by Red Hat, so it is technically a Red Hat tool, but it is also an open-source project.

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux an eight out of ten. It is good for commercial usage, but I would never use Red Hat Enterprise Linux in a startup environment.

Our primary infrastructure operating system is Red Hat Enterprise Linux, predominantly RHEL Eight. While some products utilize RHEL Seven, RHEL Eight point Zero is the standard for most of our operating systems and servers. However, server choices may vary based on specific industry requirements. Our underlying infrastructure relies almost exclusively on Linux distributions.

Our primary Linux installations use Red Hat Enterprise Linux in an on-premises VMware environment, with some instances deployed on AWS.

The built-in security features simplify risk reduction by allowing direct control of the root system's access.

Red Hat's knowledge base is excellent.

While Red Hat Leapp and Insights are helpful tools, they are not part of my daily workflow.

The web console is a good feature.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux enhances uptime and security, boasting faster boot times than other operating systems.

The most valuable feature of Red Hat Enterprise Linux is its security, which is more secure than Windows. 

Integrating certificates from third-party clients into Red Hat Enterprise Linux can be challenging due to the operating system's stringent security policies.

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

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is stable.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is scalable.

The technical support team was professional and quickly resolved our issue.

Positive

We use Oracle for our database, Ubuntu in our testing environment, and Red Hat Enterprise Linux in our production systems due to its increased stability.

The cloud migration from Red Hat Enterprise Linux Seven to Eight was straightforward due to the absence of underlying infrastructure complexities. However, the on-premises migration presented challenges from existing infrastructure dependencies, resulting in numerous errors.

The migration of approximately 200 servers required a team approach to ensure continuous monitoring. Although two people could have completed the migration, a four-person team completed it within two days. 

The migration from Red Hat Enterprise Linux Seven to Eight was done in-house.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux offers a compelling value proposition for corporations due to its robust support infrastructure, which is essential for maintaining enterprise-level systems. However, the pricing model may be less attractive to individuals or small businesses. Compared to cloud-based platforms like AWS or Azure, which offer flexible pay-as-you-go options, RHEL's subscription-based model can become cost-prohibitive for those with limited budgets or smaller-scale projects.

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux nine out of ten.

We utilize Ansible to provision and patch our extensive server infrastructure. Ansible's automation capabilities enable efficient batching and management of security patches across all servers.

We test all the patches for some time before we add them to our production environment.

We utilize Red Hat Enterprise Linux in our private cloud and on-premises environments, but I've observed better performance in the cloud, likely due to the greater availability of resources.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux does require maintenance.

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux to host databases and Citrix desktops on our servers. This allows us to offer virtual desktops as a service to other companies.

We implemented Red Hat Enterprise Linux due to its widespread industry use and extensive resources for assistance. The platform's popularity ensures a seamless experience when installing applications and creating packages, as it's utilized by many and offers ample support.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux offers excellent documentation and resources, including those provided by Red Hat and the wider community. While I don't rely solely on Red Hat's websites for instructions or troubleshooting, experienced users like myself generally find ample support and clear guidance to resolve any issues.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux's widespread use in cloud and on-premises servers is its most significant benefit, providing access to various online resources and support. Furthermore, Red Hat's comprehensive collection of packages and built-in applications simplifies development, making it an easy and obvious choice for many users.

Our workflows have been seamless with our hybrid environment.

Before Red Hat support, we used CentOS without expert assistance. This meant our OS team spent significantly more time troubleshooting issues and installation failures. Implementing Red Hat has resulted in increased efficiency.

One of the most beneficial aspects of Red Hat Enterprise Linux is its performance, combined with the flexibility to install a wide range of available packages online.

Red Hat could enhance its user experience by incorporating built-in automation tools, eliminating users needing to install, set up, or configure external applications. By providing pre-installed, native automation tools within the operating system, Red Hat would streamline processes and improve user efficiency.

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

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is stable.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is scalable.

Our organization transitioned from CentOS to Red Hat Enterprise Linux due to the enhanced security and support offered by Red Hat. The availability of online support for our OS team, combined with improved performance and rigorously tested patches, were key factors in our decision.

Upgrading Red Hat Enterprise Linux is a straightforward process that involves running a single command to update and patch all packages. However, syncing the repository to the new one is a manual step. Despite this, I haven't encountered any issues. To perform the upgrade, I synchronize our Red Hat repository with Red Hat Satellite, execute the upgrade command, and verify the package versions to confirm successful updates.

The required personnel for server upgrades depends primarily on the number of servers and the testing duration. Potential connection issues may also influence staffing needs. Based on previous patching experience, approximately five people are needed for the off-hours patching process, typically conducted between two AM and six AM.

The upgrades were done in-house. 

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux nine out of ten.

Our organization has approximately 3,000 users and operates five data centers in the United States that utilize Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux maintenance is straightforward but necessary due to occasional unexpected spikes in CPU usage and storage capacity reaching its limit. This presents a challenge because storage and CPU load management are not fully automated, requiring manual intervention to address these issues effectively.

I recommend Red Hat Enterprise Linux to others, especially larger companies. Purchasing Red Hat support, while an added cost, saves valuable time and resources compared to extensive independent research.

I have been a sysadmin handling everything about Red Hat Enterprise Linux, primarily for on-premises environments. I have built projects based on Red Hat Enterprise Linux, including development and support projects in the companies. I have handled pretty much everything. Anything you can imagine, I have probably done with it.

In terms of security, it does a lot of things that most people still turn off. SELinux is turned on by default. They have pretty good firewall rules in their defaults. The audit rules always take tweaking, but, overall, it comes out of the box not too bad. I used to write scripts to harden them from there.

There are multiple ways to provision and patch. You have everything from local repositories to doing it by hand.

Their knowledge base is incredible. There is so much information out there. It has never taken me longer than 30 minutes to find an answer to anything, even very tough ones.

One company I worked for was a security company, and we did a lot of patching on everything. It was designed around security and email hosting, and uptime was pretty much whatever we wanted it to be. I have had a couple of times when the uptime was bad, but it was caused by a third-party solution. In fact, the Norton antivirus was definitely the worst. Red Hat had nothing to do with it.

I enjoy the patching processes and the way Red Hat Enterprise Linux has elements set up. I have never had a patch session fail, even when installing a thousand packages at a time. 

Their implementation of Yum is effective. I have used it quite a bit to pull additional information out because, for a while, I was doing security work. It is nice to have all the security information they provide on the inside. Their security library is well-maintained. I have used it exclusively for 15 years now, and I have been nothing but happy with it.

I wish IBM would give them more leeway. IBM seems to have restricted Red Hat Enterprise Linux more since the acquisition.

The organization moved away from Red Hat because IBM introduced paywalls and additional barriers that did not exist before, which made everything a lot harder. They moved from there to the Rocky version, which is a fork of Red Hat. It is run by people who have left IBM or Red Hat engineers who left IBM. Giving Red Hat Enterprise Linux more independence could be beneficial.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux exclusively for about 15 years.

It has demonstrated great stability, with systems running for multiple years without issues. I have no problem with uptime. It is as long as you want it to be.

It offers excellent scalability. The HPC system that the organization runs is a small one, but it has 8,000 computers. Each computer has at least 24 to 72 CPUs in it, and everything runs on Red Hat Enterprise Linux or Rocky. It is eminently capable. They run jobs because they do some of the hurricane forecasting and things. The things that they run on it take 900 nodes and 70,000 CPUs. You walk into that data center, the air comes out of the floor at 50 degrees. By the time it gets through the computers, it is about 110, so they are working them hard. The room itself stays at about 90.

Before the acquisition by IBM, support was incredible. I could directly engage with developers and get immediate assistance. It was great. 

I have not had a lot of experience with them post-acquisition. At this point, the entire department is moving to Rocky. It is not a huge change for me, but a part of the move was the lack of support through IBM.

Positive

The company we are contacted with has just moved from Red Hat to Rocky, which is Red Hat-based. It is a fork of Red Hat, so it is like all Red Hat derivatives. It is binary compatible. You can do anything you want with it. For the things the organization does with the HPC environment, it is a lot nicer because there are fewer restrictions. Open source works best for HPC environments. You have to recompile a lot of drivers and things to get things to work. Being able to do that is critical in that business.

For the most part, upgrades and migrations are very straightforward. In one of the cases, it was very straightforward to install the OS, but it was a lot more problematic to find all the pieces that ran the underlying hardware and get those working right. We had to do a lot of testing between lots of different versions of both the OS and the hardware drivers before we found good combinations. From what I hear, going from Red Hat to Rocky was a lot cleaner than going from Red Hat 6 to Red Hat 7. That was a big change.

In terms of maintenance, for the most part, once you get it set, you can walk away from it.

I do not have any insights, but I know why the prices went up. At the time, it made sense. I do not know what the pricing is like now. Previously, the pricing model was advantageous as it allowed unlimited installations for a single price, focusing on support. The recent introduction of paywalls complicates the cost landscape.

I have used the web console, but I am more of a command-line person. I did not see a lot of use for it, but I have used it in the HPC world because you can do some things that are handy, such as pulling in entire groups of things and building them as a boot group. It is nice to have when you need it.

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