I'm working on OpenShift in a Red Hat environment with Red Hat Linux. I'm working on a Linux platform, using the product as Linux, and the product I'm using is OpenShift.

I'm using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL); that's correct.

We are working on microservices, so we are using OpenShift for the deployment of the application's microservices approach. OpenShift provides good features to create Docker files and deployment. It's a unique product where we are not very worried about the Docker file and repository configuration; everything is in one place. We only need to be worried about the source code. It is a good product. Even in the market, people are likely using all solutions from one vendor. The speed of resolution of problems is also very smooth. Sometimes, if there is any technical issue, the Red Hat team also works in parallel and provides a solution very frequently and quickly. Overall, even though there are multiple products for Kubernetes available, like AWS, GKE, and AKS, OpenShift is more user-friendly, and everything is in-house. People are very happy to use it and are adopting it. Support-wise, they are not looking at multiple vendors. Only one vendor will fix all kinds of issues.

Security requirements are useful for me in choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in the cloud; it has also fulfilled security-related use cases. I am very happy, and the features Red Hat provides are very useful for real-time scenarios.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is very easy to use, and the support services are also very good from the Red Hat side. This is why people are moving to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). Upgradation, security, and everything are upgraded from time to time. As a client and as a vendor, we are adopting and using the enhancement approach that Red Hat provides from time to time.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) makes it easier to manage my hybrid cloud environment because it is not much different from what other vendors will provide. It is very useful. From what I know and have observed, for upgradation, security, other patches, or other versions, they are enhancing and providing quick solutions and new features. It is very useful, and this is why we prefer it. They also timely provide us with documentation to upgrade the older version to a new version. The documentation part is also very good, and if we upgrade from a lower version to a higher version, it is very simple and will update the cluster within a second. I feel that OpenShift is better than other vendors.

I'm not feeling much difference with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and any other vendor because Red Hat is OpenShift. Only their security features and new functionality are managed by Red Hat. If we are not aware of something, they will document it and provide guidance and training. It is easy to understand and implement in real-time. This is the difference we are getting with other vendors: training and documentation. But as a production or any implementation, because they are also providing content and documentation, implementation-wise, for a new feature or new technology, if we are looking into it on the Linux platform, we will integrate easily and implement our application easily into Red Hat.

The AI part is coming into the picture as generative AI and agentic AI; multiple parts are there. Security might be the biggest challenge for AI right now. Red Hat needs to enhance for the AI-related applications because sometimes it is an open kind of environment, like ChatGPT. Privacy needs to be maintained. Overall, from a security perspective, whatever they have provided, I'm satisfied with. Going forward, the AI thing is increasing, and data leakage may happen later on. Red Hat needs to consider all the parameters related to AI, and if they are providing any solution, it needs to be very secure because right now, people are creating AI-related applications, but from a security perspective, there is not much. If they consider that and provide a solution, they might get more value.

Functionality-wise, I feel that Red Hat has done a tremendous job. Functionality-wise, I will not suggest anything because they have covered whatever their competitors have. Red Hat also has a similar approach, and they have a solution. The only consideration part right now is the AI security kind of application. No other company is also providing any fixed solution as of now, a generic and fixed solution for it. If people are working with a security perspective, then it is better, and Red Hat might be a leader for the others.

I have been working with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for around three years.

The technical support from Red Hat is the best part, and I am totally satisfied.

I confirm that I have experience with IBM Linux, and it is the same functionality with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

I have worked on IBM Linux with different other vendors, so I feel that documentation, training, and perspective, Red Hat is much better than any other Linux. That is the key. Support-wise also, if anybody is facing a challenge, the support system is very reachable, and they will support immediately.

I confirm that I have experience with IBM Linux, and it is the same functionality with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

The initial setup for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is very simple.

Price-wise, I feel there is a difference. Red Hat will charge a bit more. But they are providing value, so it is fine if people are using a very secure environment and an in-house solution. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is very useful, but pricing-wise, there is a difference from other vendors. It might be because they are providing an all-in-house solution; that is the reason. I don't know the exact reason, but that is the thing I have considered.

I can provide a rating of ten for the scalability part of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

Price-wise, I feel there is a difference. Red Hat will charge a bit more. But they are providing value, so it is fine if people are using a very secure environment and an in-house solution. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is very useful, but pricing-wise, there is a difference from other vendors. It might be because they are providing an all-in-house solution; that is the reason. I don't know the exact reason, but that is the thing I have considered.

Majorly, the company will provide a portal for Red Hat, and everything is managed by the market portal. The costing part is taken care of, but for estimation, calculation, and suggestion, we are suggesting which one is better and which one is not. The final call depends on the manager and discussions with multiple factors, and even the client, regarding which cloud or which Linux to use.

Majorly, I have worked on the AWS and Azure platforms for deployment with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

It is very simple to migrate from the cloud to on-prem with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). Upgradation has no problem. Even with migration, we need to follow some rules and concepts. In that situation also, they are using Linux. So, we can deploy the same into Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) also. We are not seeing any major changes or differences for the migration from other Linux to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). It is the same. No problem with the migration.

It is not my part, but I participated sometimes in the Red Hat Linux Image Builder. I was not creating any images. But cloud-wise, there are also provisioners which will provide specific services for Red Hat, and in it, it will build the different applications with the Red Hat OS. It is done by the developers, but I feel that it is very simple and is done by the provisioner facility. It will also provide it with the help of Ansible, with the help of Terraform, and multiple other tools.

I don't feel any pain points with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), but it will provide a good support system and whatever functionality is majorly in the market, it will also provide. It is not very far from the market. Whatever the market has, it will provide. I feel that it is a good product.

It is very good with the knowledge base offered by Red Hat; whatever product we are using, they are also well-documented, and they will provide that before using anything. It is fine. There is no need to provide unnecessary documentation. Whatever they are providing is more than sufficient for the implementation. Whenever any developer, support team, or DevOps engineer is facing any challenge, they raise a request with the support team, and they will provide an immediate solution. They will also provide a customized solution. It is better support-wise and document-wise. I feel there are no suggestions for enhancement or anything additional.

I don't see any kind of gap regarding how Red Hat helps to mitigate downtime or lower risk, but I feel some solutions with Terraform or something similar are not providing proper documentation. I have observed that one time. But when we raised a request, they immediately provided a solution. With a new technology, like AI coming into the picture, for the pros and cons and how to implement and what kind of applications it is supporting, they need to provide very crisp and simple documentation. This way, as a support team, DevOps team, or any developers, they will create their applications and deploy them seamlessly into production.

I can consider Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as a rating of nine point five, and zero point five percent is an enhancement that is needed everywhere. I would rate it as nine. My overall review rating is ten.

I primarily support servers in general, including a lot of virtual machines that support everything from telemetry to software development and business applications. I work in a small corporate IT environment, so I mainly focus on supporting the developers and the applications they create to keep the business running.

Our infrastructure is mostly on-premises, but we are starting to explore cloud solutions in Amazon Web Services (AWS) and are currently in the early stages of that transition.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) compared to other distributions helps me trust it more because of the security and the name behind it. Red Hat has maintained a good reputation for customer support and providing security patches, and it is a vendor we can point to when there is a vulnerability or issue, knowing they will take our needs seriously and support us.

I appreciate the philosophy behind Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in that it is slow-moving and stable. The newer features have been valuable, especially Podman for containers and the package manager, which is simple and just works.

I use Satellite a great deal. We use Satellite to have a comprehensive view of all systems and their vulnerability states, as well as using the OpenSCAP scanning that is built into Red Hat Satellite. This gives my security team insight into how well we are performing in terms of security.

I started using system roles back with Red Hat 7, and I have found them and the image builder to be really beneficial. We run Nutanix for our virtualization infrastructure, and it is valuable to be able to build a new template image from a trusted source and know that it is minimal and easy to manage.

Recently, we have started using the STIG security settings that are built into the Red Hat installer as a good starting point. I have found it is much easier to build a system that is secure from the ground up than to add security after the fact.

The OpenSCAP system profiler allows us to audit the state of those systems and ensure everything is locked down. Using Ansible to apply security controls across our systems gives us something we can point to and demonstrate that the systems are actually secure.

I am confident that installing an update will not break anything, and it will make our systems more reliable than other distributions.

It seems the engineers are on top of improvements. I am not sure how I would improve it at this point other than reducing service interruptions, however that could be accomplished.

I have been using this solution for approximately sixteen years.

The stability is the main benefit, and it is one less thing to worry about. Knowing that the supply chain as far as updates is trusted helps prevent our developers from adding random repositories and untrusted sources. Overall stability is the main thing that stands out.

Scalability has been better than ever, especially with image mode and the image generation tool that allows me to create a good template to scale easily and then use Ansible to configure everything. The scalability is definitely present, and all you need is the compute resources to allocate to it.

I would give Red Hat customer service a solid nine. I usually only reach out to customer service when I am facing a very complex problem and I am at my wit's end. Red Hat does a good job escalating to people who really know their materials. I do not feel stuck on the lower tier of customer service or with someone following a script. The person I speak with is experienced and knows the product, so it has been a good experience.

In my career, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has always been the solution used at the company since I arrived.

The installation experience is easier and more pleasant than installing Windows. I appreciate that when I install Windows on a device, I am bombarded with advertisements and calls to action to buy additional products, whereas Red Hat does not do any of that.

We do not have significant setup costs. We have a relatively small environment, and I believe we are covered pretty much by the Red Hat Satellite subscription, which also gives us enough entitlements to run all of our virtual machines. The pricing seems good from my perspective.

There has been talk of going with an open-source alternative, either a Red Hat fork or something like Debian or Ubuntu. However, the lack of a good support path is the main reason for not pursuing that.

We have looked at a couple of systems that we are using for artificial intelligence inference, but it is nothing I would call production. At this point, the cost of hardware is holding us back, and the company is probably going to end up using more cloud inference or Software-as-a-Service products for our artificial intelligence needs rather than investing in an on-premises solution, though that may change in the future.

The ability to ensure all systems have uniform updates and seeing the view of the status of CVEs or bugs on the system is invaluable. Using Satellite for this purpose provides a lot of value.

The knowledge base is excellent, and I appreciate the work they are doing with artificial intelligence, which makes it easier to navigate and surface relevant information. Red Hat's knowledge base has always been very valuable for solving any issues I encounter, and it is usually the first place I look.

I have heard people discussing artificial intelligence-driven upgrades, and that is certainly of interest to me. We have a lot of Red Hat 8 systems that will eventually need to be upgraded, so it is something I would be curious about pursuing.

I would rate this review as a ten out of ten.

My main use case for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is as a server for our database servers, our middleware servers, and the application servers. Everything besides SAP falls into this category. SAP is currently running on SUSE Linux.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps me solve pain points by being a quite integrated system. Working together with Ansible and the Ansible Automation Platform, we did a lot to have a standardized platform, including consistent hardening and everything in a very good managed way.

The features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) I like the most are its central management, which is really good to have, including some connections to our CMDB to see what is in our inventory, what is used and so on. That is quite beneficial.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) can be improved by enhancing its central tools side. We use a lot of automated discovery for CMDB topics through Satellite and the facts. It would be really interesting to have a more consistent inventory already in place that we can access to pull into a CMDB because we have a highly automated approach there, and there is some room for improvement.

I have been working in this field for twenty years.

Regarding the reliability and stability of the platform, I have not experienced any downtime or crashes on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) side. We are quite stable and do not have major issues with that.

The scalability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is more based on our hypervisor level; we mainly use VMware, so the scalability is essentially at this level. We do not have any issues at the OS level itself.

The customer service and technical support of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is quite good. We also did some projects with the consulting of Red Hat directly to bring in the OpenShift features, and we are very happy with how they manage that. I would rate the customer service and technical support a nine out of ten.

Prior to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), we used AIX, which was replaced. We also used HPUX, which was replaced. We still have SUSE in place for our SAP systems, which we maintain as well.

The difference between those products and Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is that I think Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is one of the biggest players. I am trying to find a reliable player in the market for the future. We obviously tried to pull out these niche products. AIX is now a niche product. HPUX is dying, and all those products are from the past. We had to maintain them to a certain point as the applications were there, but now we have migrated most of them to the modern platforms, which helps with reducing costs as we do not have to maintain many platforms.

The deployment process for us is straightforward; we now have a fully automated process, so that is quite easy for us.

The biggest return on investment for me when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), from my point of view, relates to standardization, allowing us to have fewer operating systems. We are currently using just two OS providers on Linux, which makes maintainability easier.

My experience with the pricing, setup cost, and licensing for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is that the pricing is acceptable for us. As a big company, I would say it is fair pricing right now. We have to observe that a lot of companies are increasing their prices significantly over the last decades, like VMware and so on. We keep a close look at that, but currently, it is acceptable pricing.

I have not considered switching from Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) at any time since purchasing it.

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) on-premises.

We also use Lightspeed.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has not yet helped our AI workloads. We do not have many AI workloads right now. We are having a couple of pilot projects in AWS on AWS native workloads, but it is just in a starting phase. Therefore, there is not a high demand right now in our company.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) plays a role in our company's implementation of the zero-trust model mainly on the workload side since we have a couple of other products around regarding network and other areas. We are using mainly server functionality from Red Hat in our current setup and not the on-top products.

We have done a major version upgrade with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and the Ansible Automation Platform. We have a quite good life cycle, so we are running through the life cycles each year to the new versions.

The experience has been good. We have not had any major issues. This year, we are also doing in-place upgrades. Before that, we did replacements with new machines and migrations, but since this year we are running in-place upgrades, which is quite good and causes less trouble than expected.

Our company's process for managing regulatory compliance is more related to the auditing we obviously have with NIS2 and all this in the EU. Each year, we have a couple of audits ongoing. However, the audits themselves do not really look into the Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) implementation; it is more on a higher level. We are obviously pulling reports for the audit of the hardening compliance and so on of our systems to prove that the things are implemented.

My overall experience using the Ansible Automation Platform has been quite good. We come from an infrastructure where we had a lot of managed service providers using their own automations. About five years ago, we decided to stop that and build our own automation platform. All our managed service providers have to use that. We developed that, set it up, and it is a really good success story as we now have all our automations internal. We have full responsibility for it, which works out quite well, allowing us not to change anything if we have to change a provider in the backend.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped to mitigate downtime and lower risks at my company mainly through controlling planned downtime. This means if we are doing patching and so on, we have a good setup with our CMDB to maintain controlled patching cycles and reboot cycles over our whole environment in the agreed timeframes and windows. It does not really help to mitigate downtimes, but it makes the planning of downtimes better.

The knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is quite good and has improved a lot. We can quickly find what we need. My team uses it a lot.

My advice to other companies considering Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is to focus from the start on having automation in place. Do not wait too long, as it makes things much easier if we implement everything through automation from the beginning rather than doing it manually. My overall rating for this review is nine out of ten.

We are a service provider and support provider for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is used for OpenShift management; Linux is the base for many IT companies, providing them with the management of their applications using the Linux operating system. In the Linux space, Red Hat is the leading company, so we utilize it.

Cloud provisioning becomes easy with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) because they offer satellite automation and image builder, which simplifies the process. They also provide DHCP servers for IP allocation.

In managing hybrid cloud environments, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) plays a crucial role; the OS is a core feature for managing solutions across AWS, Azure, and on-premise setups. It provides unified management and supports the Ansible automation platform. With customized image builders, you can build OS images based on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), making it beneficial for hybrid cloud deployments, whether on AWS, Azure, GCP, or physical servers.

There are a lot of capabilities in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that I find valuable, as it is provided by the leading company, Red Hat, which is a top Linux operating system provider. Their support, documentation, and overall offerings are significantly better compared to others, such as Ubuntu and other open-source Linux operating systems that lack proper support and documentation.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) support is among the most valuable aspects. Linux is similar everywhere, such as Ubuntu, but Red Hat's Linux offers substantial benefits, including strong support, proper documentation, training, and labs. This capability is more beneficial than what other options provide.

I believe improvements in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are required. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) should explore integrating AI, as many systems are currently incorporating AI. I believe that Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) should implement some AI-driven command systems for enhanced functionality.

I have been working with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for the past one and a half years. I am still working with it.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) provides a lot of scalability; its architecture depends on NUMA optimization, thread support, and it has a TuneD daemon for performance adjustment, allowing us to manage kernel parameters and handle high-demand workloads, such as SQL and NoSQL databases. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 9 also offers good network efficiency.

I would rate the scalability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) between 8 and 9. I would say it is closer to 8.

I often communicate with the technical support of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). I would rate the support of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as a 10 because it is significantly better than any other options.

I have had multiple interactions with Red Hat support, and usually, when you submit a request or ticket on their support platform, they reply immediately due to their strong and large team of experienced professionals. Any issue will get resolved, and if it is not solvable by the lower-level team, they quickly escalate it to higher-level support.

I did not use a different solution before Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for these use cases. When I joined and during my college studies, I simply learned about Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). I have a basic understanding of other options but did not try them.

I participated in the deployment and initial setup of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). For the initial setup process of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), we first need their ISO. Then we create a bootable media using that ISO; depending on whether deploying to the cloud, on-premise, or bare metal servers, we create one VM for the deployment of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). Numerous internal configurations follow in the Anaconda setup, including language, time setup, NTP servers, IP, hostname setup, and the main task is to register it using the Red Hat Enterprise Linux subscription manager or satellite.

I do not have any challenges during the initial setup because I have completed two Red Hat certifications in college, making me familiar with the process.

Regarding return on investment, since I am the technical person, I do not know much from a business perspective.

I am happy with the pricing that Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) offers. I come from a technical background, so I do not have much insight into the business side, but Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) offers many advantages with its support, official documentation, training, and various sessions. I think it is user-friendly and its cost will be beneficial compared to other operating systems within similar budgets.

I have not used Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Image Builder yet; I have basic knowledge about it but have not utilized it.

The management experience with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is good; as newer versions are released frequently, such as currently Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 10, updating and patching is quite easier and not a complex task.

With the provisioning of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I think it depends on the environment, whether physical, virtual, or cloud.

Security requirements were a consideration in choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in the cloud for me, as Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) provides enhanced security. It comes with Red Hat's internal security features, making it more secure than alternative solutions. Additionally, since Linux is open source, anyone can create their own operating system using Linux base code, but Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) stands out for its security.

The upgrade was straightforward, moving from Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 8 to 9, moving from 8.6 to 9.

I use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) System Roles. System Roles were very helpful during my use of Ansible. The help from System Roles was particularly significant when using Ansible automation, as specific permissions are granted to specific roles assigned to users or groups, which can then be utilized for folder management, automatic deployments, or task performance.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) saves time effectively. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps me save time, especially through automation features with Ansible, which streamlines management tasks. It also provides a ready-to-run environment with a pre-built ISO, allowing direct deployment after making some role changes and setting IP and networking configurations. By using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), if another Linux distribution takes one week, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) accomplishes the same tasks in three days.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps reduce downtime and risk. I do not think the OS significantly impacts downtime, as that is primarily dependent on application usage, such as CPU and RAM consumption. However, it does support increasing CPU thresholds and creating resource pools within the OS, allowing for alarms that help mitigate downtime. I do not believe it helps much in reducing risk.

Red Hat's knowledge base is excellent, providing labs, manuals, and constantly updated documentation. They also have a community that offers a wealth of information, along with releasing books and PDFs regularly. In addition to using the official documentation, I also engage in the Red Hat community. In the Red Hat community, people communicate with each other about the problems they encounter, and there is a wealth of official documents available for everything.

I do not face a lack of information when I encounter issues or seek to learn about Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). I can contribute to the community, where others may have experienced similar issues and already found solutions. Pain points that Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) addresses include security, reducing time, and providing automation. I have given this product a review rating of 9 out of 10.