In our environment, we primarily use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for managing customer environments and our own. The customer environments are mostly Apache web servers. Some customers have databases, like Postgres, running on Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Others run native Docker on it to manage application dependencies.

We run containerization projects in the OpenShift environment based on Red Hat Enterprise Linux OS because that's more suitable for containerized workloads. You can do some machines on Red Hat Enterprise Linux, but not all of them. Your worker nodes need to be Red Hat CoreOS, but your master nodes can be Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

I was more experienced with other Linux distributions and Docker. It's open source, so you can fetch Docker and run it, but they don't have support if you have questions or if something isn't working as expected. Podman is similar to Docker. I don't primarily use Red Hat Enterprise Linux for containerization, but I set something up in Podman on Red Hat Enterprise Linux. It isn't used that much. Tinkering and development are the main reasons you would use Podman on a single centralized Red Hat Enterprise Linux machine. If you want to orchestrate on a larger scale, you use OpenShift.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has made significant contributions to our business continuity and compliance efforts. If a critical vulnerability is spotted in the wild, Red Hat fixes it most of the time. It's usually within a day if it's a zero-day vulnerability. Log4J was a bit more difficult because it was not a single package, but it was mostly shipped with other products. It's hard to analyze which application is vulnerable and whatnot. The solution lets us centralize development. We use Ansible to orchestrate the tooling deployment or to fetch a lot of information.

Red Hat always clearly describes the vulnerability on its security pages as a CVE score. You can fix errors by patching or mitigating them. If the patch hasn't been released, you can mitigate it to prevent the vulnerability from being exploited. Red Hat Enterprise Linux helps us guide the data and ensure it is correctly placed. I was monitoring it daily, but it was a bit too frequently. Now, we get vulnerability notifications weekly or monthly about a vulnerability or exploit that's been discovered. I also look on Reddit directly to see if there's a fix or a mitigation we can implement.

Sometimes, when upgrading or migrating systems, there are differences in the repositories of the versions that aren't one-to-one replaceable. For example, there are significant differences in the repositories from version 7 to 8. We needed to upgrade Red Hat Enterprise Linux from version 7 to 8 because it had reached the end of its life. A Postgres database was running on it that used a Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 package, allowing some database or reporting features. When I upgraded to Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8, it was not in the repository. I needed to install it with some workaround. Of course, it was installed with some minor incompatible dependencies.

I have mixed feelings about the built-in security features. SELinux must be configured correctly for the port and directory, or applications won't run, so we primarily disable it. Sometimes, we enable it and tinker with legacy systems deployed long before I joined the company. However, chances are it will break something if you enable it.

We have been using RHEL for three years.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has performed very well for our business-critical applications, with minimal downtime.

We don't need to dynamically scale our application because of our workloads, as we mostly use Red Hat Enterprise Linux for our internal tools. We don't have much demand to scale out. Containerization lets you quickly scale out your application with some bots if your hardware supports it, and you have enough resources.

In VMs, we didn't need to dynamically hot plug some service to compensate for the load. It would be vertical scaling by adding more resources. Sometimes, we need to do that for databases that consume a lot of memory, CPU, power, etc.

I rate Red Hat support eight out of 10. It depends on the priority of the requests. We had to launch several P1 requests because something wasn't working in our OpenShift environment, and we were stuck. The support response was quick.

However, we were annoyed that most of the support was based in India. Sometimes, they don't know what the problem is and need to escalate it to an expert in the US or or Germany. It prolongs the ticket resolution, but once it gets to the expert, they fix the problem instantly because they know more.

We previously used other Linux distributions with Docker. We prefer Red Hat Enterprise Linux because of its enterprise support capabilities, which open-source distributions like Debian or Ubuntu lack.

I'm unsure what the standard Red Hat Enterprise Linux license costs for one machine. We pay for premium support that guarantees a response in two hours.

I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux eight out of 10. If applications and package installations work correctly, I would give it an 8.5. It's a pleasing OS to work with, especially Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 and 9, which are more polished than Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7. I briefly interacted with Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6, I'm 27, so I know I'm very young, but I know colleagues who worked with Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4, 5, and 3.

Other open-source Linux distributions might work if they have high levels of community involvement so the community can identify and fix vulnerabilities quickly. Alma and Rocky Linux are all upstream from Red Hat Enterprise Linux. If you want to go with an open-source distribution, I will point you to Alma and Rocky because they are the one-to-one replacements from CentOS. You don't need a subscription.

We are a big company with many customers, so we prefer a stable platform with support. You can't open a ticket for open-source distributions like Debian or Ubuntu if you have a problem, ticket. With Red Hat, you can open a ticket if you discover a bug. That's included in your support subscription. You also get regular patches, so we can show our customers we are compliant, etcetera. It's a no-brainer to use an enterprise distribution with support instead of something open source where you don't have a support subscription.

Our core business is delivering IT services to public companies, and most of the applications run on Red Hat Enterprise Linux. We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux to host machines that various teams of developers use. Most of the time, we use Red Hat Enterprise Linux to run websites and various software applications, including CMS tools like Drupal, SIP, and Azure CMS. We also run business-critical applications on Red Hat Enterprise Linux. We're still looking to migrate everything on the mainframe to Red Hat Enterprise Linux, and our middleware databases run on it.

While we don't have any containerization projects yet, we have a few in the pipeline. We plan to add some new Docker clusters and Kubernetes clusters with OpenShift. The presentation on AI workloads looked interesting, but we must implement OpenShift containers first and enable AI tools.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is quite good for business continuity. The system has supported some applications and businesses fine for years without any patches. It's highly robust, which is one of the main reasons we continue to use Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

Red Hat is based on Linux, so the security is more stable than in other systems. For instance, we cannot reuse machine credentials. We use key certificates to connect to the machine. It's not like a user password. Without a key to access the machine, you cannot do anything. There are specific controls on user access, and you can limit the privileges.

Using Red Hat Insights with a Rapid7 tool, we've avoided breaches by detecting and patching vulnerabilities early. Now, we're using the Ansible Automation platform to manage the system better and provision new VMs more efficiently.

We've built scripts that have not performed well internally. They can cause problems, but we're using the Ansible Automation Platform to avoid such problems. For instance, a script for creating VMs on VMware and deleted some. That has no longer happened since we implemented Ansible.

Although we are happy with the current capabilities, we would welcome new features, particularly in the AI domain.

I have used Red Hat Enterprise Linux for about five years, but my company has used it for around 10 years.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is very robust and stable.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is scalable, and provisioning new setups is more efficient with the Ansible Automation Platform.

I rate Red Hat support eight out of 10.

We joined the company when Red Hat Enterprise Linux was already selected, mainly because of its support and security aspects.

The robustness and support provide the biggest return on investment. It ensures stability and security for critical applications and helps deliver IT services effectively. The support behind it is excellent.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux lowers the total cost of ownership. We have 65 percent of our VMs running on Red Hat Enterprise Linux and 65 percent of the business we provide to our customers is based on the platform.

The pricing and licensing, especially for options like the Red Hat Enterprise Linux Ansible Automation Platform, are quite expensive.

I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux nine out of 10. I recommend going with Red Hat Enterprise Linux because it's excellent. I asked a security team colleague why they don't use Red Hat Enterprise Linux, and he couldn't say why. It's one of the best from our perspective, and the support behind it is superb.

We are a telco company hosting internal applications on the OpenShift platform. It's for general IT workloads, such as backend systems for billing. We are also using it for containerization projects.

With an open-source solution, there is no vendor lock-in at the OS layer, so it's more flexible. I am happy with the value Red Hat delivers, so we don't see a reason to change that.

I like open source and prefer it over some closed proprietary software. In my early days, I was involved in the open-source community of the Red Hat Directory Server, communicating with developers to ensure password policies were implemented and asking questions. It showed me the power of open source.

While the built-in security features are excellent, we don't use all of them. It has many available capabilities, but it's not always up to the infrastructure people to decide what to use for security.

I'm happy with the value Red Hat Enterprise Linux delivers, but there's always room to improve.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for almost twenty years.

I've never heard of any issues with Red Hat Enterprise Linux's performance on business-critical workloads. If there is a problem, it's mostly on the application layer, not the operating system.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has native containerization, so it can scale. It uses open-source technology and has Kubernetes underneath, which gives you the scaling you need. .

I rate Red Hat support seven out of 10.

We have been a Red Hat customer for over a year, and we are happy with the value it delivers.

I don't know the exact pricing. Red Hat's subscription model is cost-effective because you pay as you go, which is better than paying upfront high license costs.

I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux eight out of 10. If you plan to implement Red Hat Enterprise Linux, make sure you get a vendor who can deliver and support it correctly.

We use the solution internally for developing our software, including running databases and banking applications. These are the kinds of services we provide to customers, as well as our own internal software products.

The solution has helped enormously in terms of development and infrastructure. It enables us to centralize development and improve productivity significantly by providing a stable platform with documentation and best practices for deploying robust solutions.

One of the most valuable features is the ease of consumption and the extensive community-driven resources. The documentation is extensive, allowing users to get started without difficulty.

Additionally, the support and stability provided by Red Hat Enterprise Linux contribute significantly to its value.

The solution requires a lot of prerequisites and understanding of the Red Hat ecosystem before one can get started. This complexity could be improved.

More comprehensive support for OpenShift integrations and a less customized, Red Hat-specific setup process would be beneficial.

We have been using the solution for more than ten years.

The solution has been stable. We partner closely with Red Hat, and the operating system has been reliable for a long time.

I am not directly involved with scaling aspects, so I can't provide specific insights on this.

We have been very happy with customer service and support. Red Hat offers prompt support with a good turnaround time, effectively addressing any issues.

The pricing is competitive. It is not cheap. That said, it provides value considering what it offers.

I would suggest that anyone starting to develop should consider starting with a community-based version, however, for production workloads, it is important to have the support model from Red Hat as it provides stability and quick issue resolution.

We use the solution primarily for simulation and CAD solutions. It serves as the main use for our operating systems.

The openness of the operating system makes auditing a lot easier, plus the tools for auditing make that a lot easier to maintain.

Automation makes compliance a lot easier.

The knowledge gained from using the system completely makes troubleshooting easier and increases the knowledge pool in the company.

The extendibility of the solution and its openness, along with its integration with all of our other open-source projects, are highly valuable.

We appreciate that it is one of the few enterprise-enabled Linux operating systems we can use.

It is very extensible, which aids as our needs change.

We have encountered compatibility issues with certain hypervisors, mainly with Red Hat Enterprise Linux six hosts on the newer versions of FoxMox.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for over ten years.

The solution has performed really well for our business-critical applications and is very stable. I have no issues.

The solution is very extensible, adapting perfectly as our needs change.

Customer support is very helpful and insightful. I would rate it very well, approximately an eight on a scale of one to ten.

The biggest return on investment is the knowledge gained by using the system. The access we have to the operating system increases user involvement and facilitates troubleshooting, thus expanding the company's knowledge pool.

The pricing and licensing are reasonable.

For non-business critical applications, a third-party Linux OS may suffice, however, for something running 24/7, it is advisable to go for stability and enterprise support.

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) to run applications and databases related to the European Parliament's business. For example, we use SAP for financial operations. It's not my domain, but I know the leadership plans to implement AI workloads. We translate every document into 27 languages manually, but we plan to use AI and machine language translation.

Using a Red Hat Enterprise Linux Cluster in the SAP environments gives us high availability and disaster recovery, so our data is safe. I think it's a geo-cluster for the whole SAP environment. Whenever something happens, it almost automatically shifts to the other.

The support for OpenShift and CoreOS is valuable, as we frequently use support services and rely heavily on Red Hat support for assistance.

When we started using Red Hat Enterprise Linux, it was a struggle to install CoreOS because we were used to using a Satellite server with Red Hat. The people in charge of setting up OpenShift and installing Red Hat Enterprise Linux on the nodes had a hard time. I don't know why, but I think it was because the OpenShift cluster included VMs and bare metal machines.

I joined the European Parliament in 2012, and we have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for 12 years.

We do not have any issues with its performance. The system functions well.

Scaling the operating system is transparent. We work with VMware, so whenever there is a need for more RAM and memory, the process is seamless to the customer.

I rate Red Hat support eight out of 10. Customer service and support are excellent. Support is available depending on the priority and the support package. I am happy with the service. However, navigating through documentation can be challenging.

We started with Mini Solaris and gradually migrated to Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

Initially, setting up OpenShift and the installation was somewhat complicated, especially when dealing with bare metal machines.

As a nonprofit business, we do not focus on return on investment in monetary terms. However, a big community makes it easy to gather opinions and help from outside sources, which is a return on investment.

We compared Red Hat Enterprise Linux and SUSE. While SUSE is generally the preferred Linux distro for SAP, we chose Red Hat Enterprise Linux because we had more in-house knowledge of the platform and better support.

I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux eight out of 10. I used to be an AIX system admin, and I still prefer that operating system. I would recommend considering Red Hat's benefits, such as support. I used to work in IBM support, and Red Hat has a significant advantage in this realm. Also, many corporations merge firms and combine workforces, and RHEL can adapt to these changes.

We run IT and telco workloads and applications on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

Red Hat Enterprise Linux helped us centralize development. We use a complete ecosystem of Red Hat for end-to-end development, deployment, and operations.

Centralizing development is achieved as we have clearly defined platforms to host applications, like OpenShift.

Additionally, the ACS on top of containers scans to ensure they are compliant, reducing vulnerabilities within our software.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux provides a standardized environment with Kubernetes and good support behind it. The end-to-end delivery for developing, testing, and deploying containers in the same ecosystem is a very valuable feature.

The built-in security features are fine, we don't receive complaints about them.

One area for improvement is dealing with specifics developed by Red Hat Enterprise Linux that are now end of life. We have to remediate these changes, which is a disadvantage.

Additionally, better comparisons between different stack providers in pricing and functionalities could help, especially since public clouds often appear less expensive during planning but are more costly in practice.

I have used Red Hat Enterprise Linux personally since joining my company ten years ago. Within the company, it has been used for more than 20 years.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux performs quite well for business-critical applications. Although we have some outages, it's not unusual, and I cannot blame RHEL entirely for it.

Scaling Red Hat Enterprise Linux OS is smooth and without complaints. We are planning to widen its use by moving from OpenStack to bare metal according to Red Hat's roadmap.

The customer service rating varies at around an eight or nine out of ten.

They conducted tests with Ubuntu. That said, it was less expensive and not as stable or developed as Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

There is a return on investment since we can host our applications on top of Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is quite expensive, yet the technical support, available roadmaps, and services justify the cost. We receive value for the price we pay, including technical support, which enables business continuity and compliance.

We evaluated Ubuntu, but it was less stable.

I would advise trying it out to see for yourself. Red Hat provides great technical support. That said, the pricing may need careful evaluation, especially when comparing with public cloud offerings.

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

Our containerized workloads utilize Docker and Kubernetes and run on Red Hat Enterprise Linux to support Final Shell operations.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux helps to partially centralize our development.

The primary advantage of using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for containerized workloads is the robust support it offers in case of any issues.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has worked well for our business critical applications.

The built-in security features are great.

One of the most significant advantages is having Red Hat behind us. If we encounter problems, we can always call them for assistance, so we are not alone with our problems.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux helps reduce our TCO.

The support from Red Hat is valuable. Having Red Hat behind us provides reassurance, and they deny unauthorized applications the ability to perform actions they shouldn't.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux's SELinux can be challenging to manage and troubleshoot, often causing frustration. While we've resolved these issues, improvements to SELinux would be greatly appreciated. Though not yet explored, Red Hat Insights could potentially aid in resolving broader Linux problems.

I have been using the Red Hat Enterprise Linux for about ten years.

We have yet to encounter problems related to Red Hat.

We install a new server if needed, and it works seamlessly.

Red Hat provides proactive support, including monthly check-ins and arranging calls to address any issues that may arise.

We do not have any other realistic options besides Red Hat.

The greatest return on investment lies in the platform's user-friendliness. Red Hat seamlessly manages all aspects of versioning and security, eliminating the need for my intervention.

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

If your budget allows, I recommend testing Red Hat Enterprise Linux. It's quite easy to install, with Red Hat providing a comprehensive setup that eliminates configuration concerns.

We currently use Red Hat Enterprise Linux to support various applications, including web servers and databases. Its functionality spans numerous operational aspects, encompassing a wide range of tasks with the exception of AI applications.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has simplified patch management and centralized operations, eliminating the need for multiple distributions across various functions.

It performs well for our business-critical applications. It is a significant improvement over the various unsupported distributions used previously, providing reliable support and standardized update procedures across all deployments.

The built-in security features work well.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux helps reduce risk in our environment by simplifying management, which is critical for maintaining stability and security.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux enhances business continuity and compliance efforts by providing a unified platform for various tasks, simplifying operations and reducing the complexity of managing multiple open-source solutions.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux helps reduce our total cost of ownership through simplified management and comprehensive support resources, ensuring assistance if any issues arise.

We chose Red Hat Enterprise Linux for its broad distribution, enterprise-level support, and robust stability. These factors are particularly crucial for our work in government-related IT, where stability and security are paramount.

I would like Red Hat to focus on continuous improvement.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for a year at this point. Although my experience with Linux is extensive, I am relatively new to the Red Hat Enterprise Linux world.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is stable.

Scaling is mostly about increasing the resources for specific virtual machines, and it hasn't been a problem.

I have not personally used customer service, but it's reassuring to know that support is available if needed. I often try to resolve issues myself to learn new things.

The return on investment lies in the time saved due to simplified management, allowing me to focus on more important tasks rather than maintenance.

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

While not currently using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for containerization, we have a Podman test machine that we use for our clients. We do plan to utilize it in the future.

Red Hat is an excellent choice due to its strong backing and foundation in open source. They have a comprehensive product stack, including not just Enterprise Linux, but also Ansible, OpenShift, and many other offerings. Red Hat also boasts extensive partner integrations with various manufacturers and developers through licensing agreements.

We primarily use Red Hat Enterprise Linux for auxiliary workloads in our larger clusters, such as logging and automation.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux was chosen for its centralized management tools, such as Satellite, which, despite occasional issues, simplifies numerous tasks with a streamlined, efficient approach.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux helps centralize our workloads.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux performs well for all our business-critical applications.

The built-in security features enhance some of our existing functionalities.

We conducted a purple team test and achieved a passing score with only minor issues identified. The robust security features inherent in Red Hat Enterprise Linux, such as its built-in tools, significantly mitigate our risk of cyber attacks by enhancing our overall security posture.

The documentation is excellent. It allows me to upload documents, inquire about specific details, and receive prompt answers, which is incredibly beneficial.

One area for improvement is the Subscription Manager, which is sometimes an inconvenience, especially when it doesn't work well with Satellite. Also, we experience issues with package management since different Red Hat packages may not be automatically obvious regarding their repositories.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for almost seven years.

We appreciate the scalability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux due to its simplicity. Although some automation is necessary, tools like Ansible can streamline deployment to a few clicks, depending on the environment. However, deploying on VMware occasionally introduces additional complexity.

The customer service and support are brilliant compared to other vendors.

I primarily use Red Hat Enterprise Linux at work and Debian at home. Red Hat Enterprise Linux is preferred at work due to its extensive documentation and robust support.

Time saved on troubleshooting issues and readily available support are the main returns on investment from using Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux a nine out of ten, however, its cost remains a significant barrier. Although I don't personally handle the expenses, the price is frequently discussed, especially when dealing with cloud vendors. Due to this cost, we often avoid using Red Hat Enterprise Linux in our cloud environments despite its strengths. It would be ideal to utilize it consistently across all platforms, but the financial implications make it impractical for our cloud clusters.

While we utilize Red Hat Enterprise Linux for some containerizations, most employ alternative solutions.

I am interested in using AI with Red Hat Enterprise Linux, but we are not currently utilizing it.

When considering a third-party Linux OS as an alternative to Red Hat Enterprise Linux, the decision depends on the intended use. While other operating systems might be suitable for testing purposes, Red Hat Enterprise Linux is generally preferred for its reliability and comprehensive support, which is crucial when encountering critical issues. However, if immediate support is not a primary concern, alternative options can offer a cost-effective solution.