Currently, I see that everyone is looking into Linux. People are migrating to Linux from different proprietary hardware systems, which are often more expensive than x86 systems. This is the reason for moving to Linux.

When it comes to Linux, if I have Exadata and all Oracle Linux operating systems, these are what I deal with. Nutanix, with hardware offering software-defined storage, also helps me. For clients with unlimited licenses, the advantage of HXIT6 hardware is that the license is not a constraint, prompting them to switch.

Oracle consistently performs better, like with Oracle Solaris. Linux systems are similar, however, Oracle Linux offers an unbreakable system. Oracle has just started this from version eight, which is distinct.

Addressing room for improvement in Oracle Linux, some applications supported by other operating systems are not supported, which is a pain.

I've been working with Oracle Linux and Linux Red Hat since version five.

DP is present in all infrastructure sectors because it's open-source. Testing determines stability, as continuous Linux use and installations reveal more bugs. Unlike stable products like Solaris, open-source products are not fully tested, which is common.

It is easy to scale.

I find that Oracle is always good in customer service, but it depends on the backend. The initial support request handling is crucial. Not all support engineers at Oracle are the same, so sometimes I experience good support that resolves issues quickly, while other times, it loops. This is common. That said, overall, Oracle support is good.

When comparing Red Hat and Oracle Linux, people often focus on popularity, and both are almost the same. Mainly, I notice that the popularity varies. The difference lies in their marketing and presentation.

One person is enough to deploy everything from infrastructure to the operating system.

Ultimately, Oracle Linux as a product rates nine out of ten. It's very easy to use. For Linux, it's nothing too complicated. Taking care of the necessary tech accounts, subscriptions align similarly. The focus is on what is used on top of Linux with the move towards database 23, which incorporates AI, testing and migration are ongoing.

When comparing operating systems like Solaris, support for new versions is diminishing, forcing migrations to Linux, such as Oracle Linux or Red Hat, both being popular. Depending on preferences, some support Oracle Linux, while others favor Red Hat, which is more popular initially.

Our primary use case for Oracle Linux is that we are using it on Oracle Cloud. Our ERP is on Oracle Cloud as well. We downloaded a PDF to compare Oracle Linux with Ubuntu Linux for a vendor request on a project.

Our objective was to move from on-prem infrastructure to cloud infrastructure. By selecting Oracle Linux instead of Windows or Red Hat, we reduced costs significantly since Oracle Linux is free.

Additionally, having Oracle application and operating system from the same vendor makes things easier and provides a single point of contact for resolution.

First of all, the cost is a significant advantage of Oracle Linux. The platform is stable, and there is no risk of viruses, unlike the Microsoft platform. We moved from Windows platform to Oracle Linux because it is free, leading to a reduction in costs.

Also, since it's from the same vendor as Oracle applications, it's easier to manage issues, making not just the solution cost-effective but also streamlined in management.

The user interface for Oracle Linux could use improvement. Coming from a Windows environment, switching back to command-line interface is time-consuming. Having a user interface would make tasks easier, saving time by avoiding the need to remember command-line instructions.

We have been using Oracle Linux for more than a year now, and it has been stable without issues in our production database and application.

Oracle Linux is stable. I would rate its stability as eight or nine out of ten.

The technical support for Oracle Linux is just okay. It is not as helpful or friendly as their application support. The response is not as useful, and it could be improved.

We were previously on Windows platform, and we moved to Oracle Linux since it is free and reduces costs.

I am unable to answer how the initial setup was as it was done by our implementation partner. They handled all the initial setup before handing it over to us.

Our implementation partner created all the virtual machines and handled the initial setup and migration project.

Oracle Linux contributed to reducing our operational costs by about ten percent by saving us from the operating system and license costs we would have had to pay Microsoft.

The cost of Microsoft OS is pretty high, and switching to Oracle Linux, which is free, reduced our costs by about 20% to 25%. For about ten servers, this was a significant saving.

The core engine of Oracle Linux is based on Red Hat, making it a stable solution quickly. It is relatively better for enterprise customers rather than individual users.

Oracle Linux is stable and cost-effective. I would rate the overall solution as eight out of ten.

With improvements in support and user interface, Oracle Linux should continue to improve. I would recommend it depending on cost factors and enterprise suitability.

I was using it in a production support scenario with an Oracle database installed on Oracle Linux.

It is very compatible because it's from the same product family, so it makes the work very easy.

Managing upgrades, especially moving from one version of Oracle Linux to another, can be challenging. Unlike some systems that offer a straightforward, plug-and-play upgrade process, Oracle Linux requires more effort. You need to ensure proper backups of applications to safeguard against potential issues during the upgrade. This aspect of the experience could benefit from improvement, as other operating systems have streamline their upgrade processes.

I have been using Oracle Linux for eight years.

The product is stable. I rate it’s stability a ten out of ten.

In terms of scalability, Oracle Linux requires proper sizing of your infrastructure to handle your needs effectively. If the sizing is done incorrectly, it can lead to challenges. While Oracle provides robust solutions, it’s up to you to ensure your infrastructure is appropriately scaled to accommodate data and information growth. Proper planning is essential to manage potential issues and ensure smooth operation.
150 users are using this solution.

Oracle is not known for its straightforwardness and often requires a certain level of skill, especially in the Linux environment. For someone setting it up from scratch, it took nearly a full day to get the server running by the end of the day.

In terms of development, Oracle offers a rich set of tools and resources that developers can use to build their products. They also invest heavily in security, making their solutions strong in the security domain. Expertise is another key benefit, as Oracle relies on knowledgeable resellers who provide excellent support for clients. Additionally, their reseller program includes training opportunities, allowing clients to access training credits and ensure they fully benefit from Oracle’s offerings.

It is very expensive.

Oracle Linux is a Linux distribution known for its strong kernel security, which helps ensure the kernel remains resilient against various threats. It provides regular security updates to maintain a secure environment for applications and server operations. Its compatibility with Oracle databases enhances performance and integration. Additionally, as a Linux-based OS, it supports automation through scripting, which aids in managing routine tasks effectively. Overall, Oracle Linux is recognized for its stability and reliability.

Oracle is highly focused on security features and regularly performs necessary tests on its Linux version. If any vulnerabilities are identified, Oracle promptly releases patches. This proactive approach helps ensure that applications running on Oracle Linux are securely maintained and protected.

Oracle is a great product if you have money. I would suggest exploring other open-source options to better manage costs, unless you have specific compliance requirements or other constraints that necessitate using Oracle Linux. In most cases, open-source solutions can be more cost-effective. However, if budget is not a concern, you might consider sticking with Oracle Linux for its robust features.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

We use the solution for application servers. Linux offers many features, including CPU monitoring, memory management, hard disk monitoring, process management, and log management. We rely on command-line tools and shell scripts rather than graphical interfaces for these tasks.

It can be integrated with almost any other product. We use standard methods to make it more compatible with any flavor of Linux.

Patches and upgrades for Oracle Linux are readily accessible. The package management system is streamlined and well-organized. Oracle Linux provides a more integrated approach to package management, consolidating resources and minimizing the need to search for various components separately. This centralized system simplifies the process of maintaining and updating the operating system.

They keep increasing their license prices, making it increasingly costly. So many banks and customers are moving away from Oracle Linux. They are going to other flavors because they are cheaper.

You can add things to it, but Oracle may have added extra stuff that is not supported by other Linux. Then they don't get used to it because we have to work with standard Linux features.

I have been using Oracle Linux for 15 years.

It's very stable. I rate the solution’s stability a nine out of ten.

The scalability is good. You can scale up using more processors, memory, and a hard disk.

You can have 10,000 users on our system.

I rate the solution’s scalability a seven or eight out of ten.

The deployment is similar to CentOS and takes an hour to complete.

I rate the initial setup an eight out of ten, where one is difficult and ten is easy.

Oracle Linux is probably the most expensive one.

I rate the product’s pricing an eight out of ten, where one is cheap, and ten is expensive.

I recommend the solution because it is one of the most stable systems.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

We strategically use it in specific cases, leveraging it as a cost-effective substitute for Red Hat due to favorable license agreements with Oracle. In virtualized Oracle database scenarios, it helps meet licensing requirements by pinning workloads to specific cores. For customers with oversized machines, we employ it to ensure compliance, partitioning virtualized clusters to license only necessary components for Oracle databases. Sometimes, it coexists with another management solution, serving solely for core-pinning and compliance, while a separate solution manages virtual machines which optimizes licensing costs and aligns with Oracle's requirements for workload isolation and core-pinning, particularly in scenarios with larger-than-needed virtualized clusters for specific database workloads.

The main business advantage is maintaining compliance with Oracle licensing, avoiding non-compliance issues, and license revisions. Technically, it closely resembles Red Hat Enterprise Linux for bug-for-bug compatibility.

There is a desire to include ZFS as a supported file system from the installation phase. I find it to be an excellent file system that significantly simplifies storage management on systems. Unlike other setups where you need both a file system and a volume manager, ZFS combines these functionalities into a single package. It provides a proven and stable solution, eliminating the need for continuous testing with different technologies. ZFS is enterprise-proven and, compared to other Linux file systems, stands out in terms of management efficiency. While some file systems may offer slightly faster speeds, ZFS excels in overall performance, manageability, and reliability, making it a top choice in the Linux world. Another notable aspect that could be improved is minor compatibility with Red Hat. This is crucial for customers seeking ISV support. ISVs often limit their support to a select few distributions, typically Red Hat, and maintaining compatibility is vital for application functionality.

I have been working with it for more than twenty years.

In terms of availability and stability requirements, it competes well with other major Linux distributions like Red Hat Enterprise Linux and Ubuntu.

It is scalable, catering to a diverse range of systems—from relatively small setups to significantly large ones. When dealing with substantial workloads, especially on the x86 platform, I often find that Oracle Linux outperforms other solutions, showcasing its efficiency and capability to handle larger workloads more effectively.

In most cases, users have found the support to be reliable. I appreciate their support page and the effective manner in which they handle technical support calls—it's generally quite satisfactory. Often, the questions I encounter are more suited for second-line support rather than the initial, first-line support. I would appreciate a quicker transition to second-line support for more efficient resolution. I would rate it eight out of ten.

For mission-critical operations, Solaris is my preferred operating system, particularly for tasks like running Oracle databases. Solaris is chosen for its exceptional stability, ensuring uninterrupted 24/7, 52-week operations. The development philosophy of Solaris prioritizes stability and capabilities. In contrast, Linux prioritizes introducing new features, often at the expense of compatibility.

The initial setup was straightforward.

The duration is influenced by factors such as the deployment purpose, the platform chosen (virtual machine or hardware), and the specific tasks associated with the deployment. Simple deployments, such as setting up a basic web service, can take as little as ten minutes or even less. However, for more complex configurations like a rack cluster, the deployment time extends, potentially requiring a day or two due to the numerous configurations involved. Typically, installations don't involve utilizing an architect; instead, a single person can handle most of the architect's solution installations. The maintenance process is considered fairly straightforward and well-supported.

The cost is relatively affordable. The license itself is free, similar to Red Hat. There is no direct cost for running it. However, the expenses are associated with the license, which includes support. Typically, we opt for a seven-year database license, and for most of our customers, we tend to commit to periods of three to five years at a time.

If you're seeking a stable and reliable enterprise distribution, it is an excellent choice. It stands out with its stability and a team of skilled engineers within the company. It's a strong distribution worth considering for a dependable and efficient workhorse in an enterprise environment. Overall, I would rate it seven out of ten.

We use the product for Oracle Database and MySQL databases.

We do not use any features specific to the OS. We are more interested in the packages needed as prerequisites for Oracle databases. The performance, feasibility, and flexibility of the I/O subsystem are valuable to us. The compatibility of Kernel with Oracle is much better than other tools.

NTP communication should be more concrete and robust. Time drifts happen frequently, and the database restarts automatically to protect data integrity. The product should give a warning before the time drift happens. It should alert us about how long the time drift will take. Such features will make the product a very good OS.

I have been using the solution for around ten years.

I rate the product’s stability an eight out of ten. The operating system has some issues with the network time protocol.

The scalability is very nice. We can scale horizontally by adding more servers. We can also scale a single server vertically. It depends on the physical hardware that is available. On average, we have 1500 users.

We got a few opportunities to interact with the support team when we had vulnerabilities in Kernel. We contacted the team for feedback on which version to use to fix the vulnerability. We have created four or five tickets. All the tickets were supported very well.

Once, we created a database ticket that required a spin-off ticket to the operating system team. We could easily create the ticket and get both teams to work together. That is the advantage of having both Oracle Enterprise Linux and Oracle Database.

The initial setup is straightforward. Once the first installation is done, we can clone and replicate it for other installations. The solution is deployed on our own private cloud.

We have nine DBAs and two engineers to deploy the solution.

We are not paying anything for the operating system.

We are using synchronous I/O and ASM storage. We are not using any other features. Before bringing in improvements, we want to evaluate RHEL and OEL for better integration of the platforms and the virtual machines we are deploying. We are checking the compatibility of RHEL and OEL with our existing infrastructure.

We want the product to support the database, have more compatibility, and give fewer issues during peak workloads. These are the things we are looking for. We are mainly concerned about library support, security patching, and technical support from the vendor.

I am an end user. I am not aware of the deployment process. The operating system will be deployed as per our specifications, and it will be given to us. We perform the database installation on it.

We do not have much interaction with the development team. We only interact with the team when it needs to create a new database or a user inside it. I recommend the solution to others. Most of the Oracle tools were developed on Oracle Enterprise Linux. Compatibility and support-wise, everything will be under a single umbrella. We do not have to find another vendor. We have an unlimited license for Database. I do not know the terms.

Overall, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

We use Oracle Linux for Virtualization Platform, DNS Servers, Database Servers and IT infrastructure observability tools

Orlacle Linux has provided a redhat compatible open source OS for diverse needs. We smoothly run on Oracle OS; KVM virtualization environment, Postgesql databases, Zabbix, Grafana, Fluentd and other observability tools. We have seen a remarkable improvement as DNS queries are fast and the platforms can be easily secured with no worries of security issues arising due to unpatched systems.

There is full compatibility with RedHat-based operating systems, in particular Centos, which we widely deployed before Oracle Linux (OL).

For usability, the GUI options during the initial setup could be included with advanced OS tuning and optimization, currently as with most Linux systems that can be done via CLI.

We have been using Oracle Linux for more than three years

Very stable

Very scalable, especially with available support options

Haven't used the customer service and support

Centos, migrated after Centos switches to Centos Stream

Straightforward setup, used the free option

Implemented in-house

100%

It's an open source OS freerly available. Support subscription is paid

Yes, Rocky Linux, Alma Linux and OpenSuse

A pretty stable and secure operating system that perfectly serve as an alternative to Centos OS.