My main use case for AlmaLinux involves using it for web servers, mail servers, and local development servers, and also for Docker. My web servers use AlmaLinux to serve websites to inform my customers using Apache, MySQL, or PostgreSQL, and Docker is being run on different application servers, hosting a myriad of applications.

The best features AlmaLinux offers include long-term support, which was the main reason I switched from Ubuntu to CentOS. I was shocked when they killed support for CentOS 8 within a year, even though they had promised about nine years. I am very glad AlmaLinux stepped up and still provides that level of support.

The long-term support provided by AlmaLinux helps my business by ensuring that we do not have to renew our servers every four to five years. Migrations can be quite labor-intensive, so being able to have a server run for as many years as that is excellent, giving us enough time to spin up new servers to slowly migrate information. In the meantime, Ubuntu has started supporting or giving longer support terms as well, thanks to Ubuntu Pro or ESM, but that was a little bit too late. So mainly, we do not have to migrate servers every four or five years, allowing us to focus on projects other than simply spinning up new servers and migrating data.

I would like to add that the ability to use the DNF package manager and different modules, such as various versions of PostgreSQL and external repositories like Remi for different PHP versions, is a great feature. I found that to be much easier to support several versions than I was able to on Ubuntu.

One area for improvement with AlmaLinux is the use of SELinux to secure and harden my server, which I find to be a complicated beast. Better documentation on that part could be useful, although there is a lot of material out there.

I choose a nine because nothing is ever perfect. For example, coming from Ubuntu, I found their firewall software easy to use, while with AlmaLinux's entire ecosystem, I always have to look up how to use firewall-cmd. These are just little preferences. I cannot think of anything else AlmaLinux could improve; it serves me well, and I have not been missing anything.

I have been using AlmaLinux since about the time Red Hat, or IBM I think, killed off support for CentOS 8, so shortly after that. I am not sure which year that was.

After switching to AlmaLinux, I experienced that with Ubuntu, services would not reboot, restart, or start automatically when rebooting a server with the same installs and configurations, but I have not encountered such issues with AlmaLinux, making it very stable.

I have no issues with the scalability of AlmaLinux.

I have not needed customer support for AlmaLinux.

I previously used Ubuntu before moving to CentOS for its long-term support, and then I switched to AlmaLinux because CentOS was killed off.

I have not seen a return on investment in terms of needing fewer employees since I am a single-person business, but moving over to AlmaLinux saves a lot of time because of the long-term support, meaning I do not have to support the latest version every couple of years.

AlmaLinux is free, so there are no costs there. The open source licensing helps a lot, and the setup cost is just my own time invested in learning the platform.

Before choosing AlmaLinux, I evaluated Rocky Linux, but it seemed to have the same organizational issues that CentOS faced. I found AlmaLinux to be a safe bet for the long run as it is supported by a foundation without commercial interests. I also contemplated moving back to Ubuntu, but that would have required rewriting all of our configuration scripts, which I did not have time for after just doing that for CentOS.

My advice for others looking into using AlmaLinux is to probably try looking up or learning about this flavor of Linux, their package managers, and SELinux. At the end of the day, it is mostly the same with a different coat. I have no additional thoughts about AlmaLinux; it is a great overall operating system for servers. I gave this review a rating of 9.

My main use case for AlmaLinux is to use it for our servers, maintaining it as the backbone of our infrastructure, such as the data centers for our system, our web server, our application server, and everything else we do, making it the backbone of our system and infrastructure architecture. We use AlmaLinux for our business case.

The best features AlmaLinux offers focus on enterprise service, such as a server engine for our database, as well as compatibility with other external environments, being useful for Red Hat and CentOS, and very ideal for our company, where we also have DevOps, making it the backbone of infrastructure for the CI/CD pipeline and Docker deployment and everything else, plus security, as we use it for firewalls, intrusion detection systems, and monitoring services such as Prometheus and Grafana. We specifically use AlmaLinux because of its stability, its binary compatibility with RHEL, and the additional promotions for everything else.

The most valuable feature I find in AlmaLinux is the binary compatibility with RHEL and the long-term stability, which makes it a predictable, rock-solid system behavior, while also having small and safe packaging for subsystems or systems that run twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. It is also very useful for long-term projects as a company's software for release, with a huge ecosystem, which is why I appreciate it so much, along with the security, as it offers a stable kernel API with timely security patches. The tooling stability for DevOps is also significant, allowing easy use of infrastructure as code with Ansible or scripting playbooks that remain valid for years, making it especially important for the CI/CD pipelines.

AlmaLinux has positively impacted my organization by being the backbone of our system, which is vital for our revenue as the backbone of our data center.

I am not certain how AlmaLinux can be improved since we simply use it and do not face any security issues.

If AlmaLinux could provide ten to twenty years of fixes, that would be an improvement because I do not want to update the system all the time, as it becomes more challenging for me as a system administrator to track all the patches and everything I should patch on the system. If it could remain very stable, I would appreciate that consistently.

I have been using AlmaLinux for about five years, from two thousand eighteen until now.

The positive outcomes I have seen with AlmaLinux include very few system failures, where updates do not randomly break our servers due to the configuration and binary compatibility. Systems can run for months or years without rebooting, which is ideal for production, laboratories, and research, as I use it heavily in my research on decarbonization and carbon footprint in the company, making it very ideal for production and laboratory research, as we look for safe operating system migration and better automation possibilities with tools such as Ansible and Terraform for configuration, which behaves consistently.

Its security is another highlight, providing minimal disruptions, timely security patches, bug fixes, and a reduced attack surface.

My advice for others looking into using AlmaLinux is to prioritize its stability, reliability, predictable behavior, long-term support, and brand compatibility, along with careful planning, automation, documentation, and understanding that security Linux should not be disabled, as SELinux restricts what a user can do, keeping the major security advantages intact. I would rate this product nine out of ten.

I use AlmaLinux as the base operating system for all of our Linux servers. Our environment includes use cases that range from a load balancer on the NGINX platform to our monitoring software, Check Point, on AlmaLinux. We also run Microsoft SQL Server on AlmaLinux.

The most valuable features of AlmaLinux are its long-term support, which is a significant advantage as CentOS lacks it. AlmaLinux has a predictable update cycle unlike Fedora and the frequent updates of CentOS from Red Hat. Additionally, AlmaLinux offers excellent stability.

It is hard to say what needs improvement because I am on the operations side and focus on installing servers and running our software.

I have had experience with AlmaLinux for about five years.

The stability is excellent. So far, I have not experienced any issues with AlmaLinux, apart from problems related to our own software, which is a separate story.

On a scale of one to ten, I would rate the scalability as nine.

I have not used AlmaLinux support at all. I rely on the extensive documentation available online and various forums. Additionally, my team has several individuals who are very familiar with AlmaLinux, and we have been managing well on our own.

I previously used CentOS but switched to AlmaLinux when CentOS started having issues.

The initial setup is pretty much straightforward. I use automation tools such as Ansible for the installation process, making deployment efficient regardless of whether it's AWS or on-site.

I use Ansible to install any servers in my environment.

AlmaLinux is free of charge, which is why I chose this distribution. It offers an alternative to Red Hat, which is free only without support and updates. AlmaLinux provides free updates and security, unlike Red Hat, where support must be purchased separately.

I previously used CentOS before switching to AlmaLinux.

Overall, I would rate AlmaLinux a ten. I would recommend AlmaLinux because it is a stable, simple operating system with a straightforward installation process that I have found reliable so far without any glitches. I rate the overall solution ten out of ten.