External reviews are not included in the AWS star rating for the product.
Our primary use case for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is hosting enterprise applications that rely heavily on databases and middleware technologies.
The platform supports both application hosting and large-scale data collection, enabling us to manage and process significant volumes of data efficiently. RHEL provides the stability and reliability required for running these critical workloads in our environment.
Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has significantly improved our organization by providing a stable, secure, and standardized operating environment for our applications.
Its reliability has reduced downtime and improved performance consistency across workloads.
The strong security features and regular patching process have enhanced our compliance posture and reduced operational risk.
In addition, the scalability of RHEL allows us to support growing data collection and application hosting needs without major infrastructure challenges.
Overall, RHEL has helped streamline system management, improve efficiency, and provide a solid foundation for our critical business operations.
The most valuable features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for us are its robust security capabilities, stability, and enterprise-grade support. These features ensure that our production environment remains secure and reliable, which directly reduces operational risks.
I have been involved in several Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) upgrades and migrations, both on-premises and in the cloud. In my experience, RHEL’s built-in security features greatly simplify risk reduction and compliance management. Our team works closely with the security group on daily scans and vulnerability reports, and RHEL enables us to address findings quickly by streamlining patching and updates. This process has proven reliable, allowing us to remediate vulnerabilities and apply fixes in a timely manner.
RHEL has also helped us mitigate downtime and reduce risks during system changes. While I personally prefer replacing production systems with thoroughly tested builds in lower environments rather than in-place upgrades, RHEL provides the flexibility and stability needed to support both approaches.
One of the key differences compared to other platforms is the reliance on command-line operations. While Windows environments tend to emphasize GUI-based management, RHEL encourages working directly in the CLI. This has been a positive shift for our team, as we continue to expand skills across both Linux commands and PowerShell.
RHEL consistently provides the stability, support, and knowledge base required to keep mission-critical systems running smoothly. With excellent vendor support and strong documentation, it fully meets our enterprise needs.
Additionally, RHEL has addressed key pain points related to security and usability, making it one of the strongest platforms from a service-level perspective. We have also recommended RHEL to clients, particularly in cases where migrations from CentOS are required, as it provides a trusted and stable foundation for critical workloads.
From a hands-on experience perspective, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) could be improved in terms of user experience and ease of adoption, especially for teams that are still building their knowledge of the platform. Enhanced usability tools, more intuitive configuration options, and improved documentation or guided workflows would help reduce the learning curve.
For future releases, additional features such as built-in automation templates, more advanced monitoring dashboards, and tighter integration with hybrid cloud environments would further increase productivity and make system management more efficient.
I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for approximately two years. Our adoption began with multiple environments, and it has since become the standard platform for our current operations.
Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is extremely stable and well-suited for production workloads. We have run hundreds of instances across a wide range of applications, and the operating system consistently delivers reliable performance with minimal downtime. Its predictable update and patching process, combined with strong vendor support, ensures that our critical systems remain secure and available.
Overall, RHEL provides the stability we need to confidently support mission-critical operations.
Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales very effectively across both on-premises and cloud environments. We run hundreds of instances supporting diverse applications, and the platform has consistently handled growth without major performance issues.
Its flexibility in supporting small workloads as well as large, mission-critical deployments makes it a reliable choice for enterprise scalability.
Our experience with Red Hat customer service and support has been excellent. Support teams are responsive, knowledgeable, and provide clear guidance for troubleshooting and resolving issues.
The initial setup of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) was moderately complex due to the need to configure multiple services, integrate with existing databases and middleware, and ensure security compliance from the start. However, the clear documentation, enterprise support, and guided best practices provided by Red Hat made the process manageable.
Once the initial environment was established, ongoing configuration and scaling have been straightforward, allowing us to reliably deploy and manage production workloads.
The implementation of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) was carried out by our in-house team. Our staff handled the installation, configuration, and integration with existing systems, leveraging Red Hat’s documentation and support resources.
The ROI of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is reflected in reduced downtime, improved system security, and streamlined operations. By providing a stable, supported platform, RHEL minimizes operational risks and resource overhead while enabling faster deployments and easier maintenance.
The subscription model is cost-effective, as it provides enterprise licensing and also includes access to Red Hat support and training resources. This combination has improved our team’s knowledge of RHEL features and enabled us to adopt new capabilities with confidence.
I would confidently rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a ten out of ten for its reliability, security, and enterprise support.
I am still working with Red Hat. I work with other Red Hat products as well, mainly with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and OpenShift, and I also use Red Hat JBoss, but JBoss is now deprecated. We are moving our applications to OpenShift. I would not improve anything because we are using RHEL mainly for system functions, virtualization of system virtual machines, some system parts of OpenShift for control plane and infrastructure nodes, and some technical virtual machines such as HAProxy, and we are satisfied with it.
I find the most valuable feature to be stability, as it is important for me, and we have all the functionality that we need because we are using mainly the KVM for running the virtual machines, along with other packages that are part of the operating system, such as HAProxy, Nginx, or other modules.
The knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is very good; not only is the knowledge base excellent, but also the documents and the reported issues along with solutions on their website are very helpful.
The technical support could be improved to be quicker and of higher quality. For me, it is better when I can speak in my language, in Czech, and sometimes I need to discuss it with someone who does not speak Czech. However, I understand this is difficult; to have the support only in Czech for such a company as Red Hat is challenging.
I have been working with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for several years, maybe longer than 15 years.
We are using mainly the command line interface, and we do not see any issues regarding the interface or scalability.
I am satisfied with the technical support provided by Red Hat. I would rate their technical support as nine out of ten.
Positive
I think it is easy to deploy it in our system; however, it might be difficult for me to answer all of the questions because I am not the only one who works with it. We are a team of several technical people, and I am the team leader, so maybe they would have more information.
I have not seen any return on investment.
I find the pricing reasonable.
I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as a product a 10 because I do not know about any issues or problems.
Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) serves multiple purposes in our enterprise environment. It's used for running containerized workloads, third-party software, and tons of automation. RHEL predominately runs critical production systems because its versatility makes it suitable for various enterprise workloads.
One feature of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that is most valuable is its sophisticated update strategy. The system allows for staged updates rather than requiring all changes to be implemented simultaneously. This approach is crucial for maintaining system stability, ensuring that packages remain compatible during upgrades, and preventing software failures during operating system updates.
The security benefits RHEL provides are particularly significant to most customers. There's a reassuring confidence that comes with Red Hat's support and commitment to system security. What sets RHEL apart is Red Hat's proactive approach to handling vulnerabilities - they not only identify security issues but also provide clear solutions and upgrade paths. This level of support and accountability is unique compared to other operating systems, where such comprehensive security guidance isn't always available. Additionally, RHEL's robust security architecture results in fewer vulnerabilities overall, making it a more reliable choice.
From a technical standpoint, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) performs exceptionally well - it's reliable, straightforward, and functions as intended. The only significant concern isn't about the product itself but rather its pricing structure. Red Hat's recent changes to their pricing model have prompted some customers to question the cost and explore potential alternatives. While I can't speak to the business aspects, the feedback I've received consistently indicates that cost is the only notable concern. The product itself meets or exceeds expectations; it's purely the financial aspect that has raised discussion among users.
Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the industry standard operating system for businesses. Based on my experience across multiple companies, RHEL is widely adopted because of its long-standing reputation for stability, security, and reliability. Most choose RHEL specifically for those three reasons.
What can I say? Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) just works. The system consistently performs as expected, and on the rare occasions when issues arise, Red Hat's response is swift and effective in both identifying and resolving problems. This reliability stands in stark contrast to other operating systems like Windows, which has experienced high-profile failures - such as airport system outages - due to problematic updates. RHEL's track record of stable performance and minimal disruption makes it a trustworthy platform for critical operations.
Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)'s scalability is effectively enhanced by the cloud infrastructure running it rather than RHEL itself, but the operating system works seamlessly in the cloud. When additional capacity is needed, new RHEL instances can be automatically provisioned to meet demand. The combination of RHEL's reliability and regular updates, along with cloud platform flexibility, ensures customers can confidently scale their operations as needed.
I would evaluate the customer service and technical support of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as great. I am a former Red Hatter, so I might be a little skewed. But when I talk with customers, they love it. That is never a concern.
Security requirements were a primary consideration when choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for the cloud. We have Amazon Linux as. Red Hat is often the requirement, so we have to follow this path.
For many customers, security requirements drive them to choose Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). For example, while Amazon Linux on AWS is an available option, security policies and third-party software often specifically require RHEL. This compliance requirement effectively determines the path, making RHEL the mandatory choice in some situations.
My management of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems is streamlined through AWS Systems Manager, particularly for provisioning and patching operations. The cloud environment simplifies this process significantly, as I have access to pre-configured Amazon Machine Images (AMIs) and built-in management tools. The system's orchestration and automation capabilities handle most of the work automatically, reducing the manual intervention to mainly scheduling tasks. This cloud-based approach has greatly simplified what was traditionally a complex system administration process, making RHEL management more efficient and less labor-intensive.
The primary return on investment (ROI) from Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) comes from two key areas: robust security and reliable support. The platform's strong security features protect daily operations, while Red Hat's consistent and dependable support ensures expert assistance is available whenever needed. This combination of security and readily available support creates significant value for the investment, providing peace of mind and operational stability.
My experience with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has been largely positive, though there was a significant shift in their pricing structure last year. That change caused considerable discussion among customers. While I'm not familiar with all the specific details, this pricing change became a major talking point, particularly because it resulted in increased costs for many users. What's noteworthy is that customers' concerns were solely focused on the new pricing structure - never about the product's quality or performance. This pricing change led some customers to reevaluate their commitment to RHEL, purely for financial reasons rather than any technical considerations.
We only consider other solutions before or while using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) if it is a requirement, for example, if they have to have Windows, then nothing we can do. If that is the requirement, but other than that, I think it is pretty much the default in most cases. There are other players, Amazon Linux, of course. It just depends on what the use case is and what the requirements are. That dictates which way to go. In most cases, we go with Red Hat because that is what is required.
Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the default operating system in many cases, but alternates are considered when requirements allow. For instance, if a system explicitly requires Windows, we have no choice but to use that instead. While other options exist, our operating system selection is primarily driven by specific use cases and requirements. Most frequently, customers implement RHEL because it's either mandated by their requirements or is the most suitable choice for their needs. Their decision-making process is straightforward: RHEL is the go-to solution unless project specifications or technical requirements specifically demand an alternative.
Regarding system updates, our approach has evolved away from traditional upgrades. Instead of updating existing instances, we follow a more modern deployment strategy: we create new instances with the desired specifications and simply decommission the old ones. This approach aligns with container methodology and works well with our automated infrastructure. The process is efficient and straightforward, eliminating the complexity of in-place upgrades.
As for rating Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I would give it nearly a perfect 10. Its reliability is exceptional - once deployed, it runs consistently and dependably. RHEL has established itself as a trustworthy platform, similar to IBM's reputation in the mainframe world. Users can count on both the product's performance and Red Hat's ongoing support.
I use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) to manage applications and for system administration. The latest version is Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 10, which has AI with Red Hat Lightspeed inside the operating system, where you can write natural language in the terminal. I am using artificial intelligence inside Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). I am working with Ansible, which is an automation tool from Red Hat. I install Ansible inside Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and make many automations.
Red Hat Insights helps in monitoring Linux servers, providing CVEs that need updating in the operating system, and giving information about server security.
In the latest release, there are three important new features: Red Hat Lightspeed with AI integration, image mode capability allowing Red Hat Enterprise Linux to be imaged and transferred to another VM, and Quench-key cryptography for enhanced security. The AI integration through Red Hat Lightspeed is particularly significant as it differentiates it from other operating systems.
SELinux is valuable for security purposes. SELinux is very good because we can give the correct permissions to the employees.
Red Hat Lightspeed, added in the latest version, and image mode features are also significant features.
Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is already good and perfect. They can continue to improve the AI features.
I have 10 years of experience working with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). I worked as an operating system specialist for five years, performing administration tasks such as managing LVMs, users, groups, disks, and performing troubleshooting inside the operating system.
Their support is very good.
Positive
I worked with SUSE and changed to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) because I worked at IBM for five years, and IBM bought Red Hat. All systems were integrated into Red Hat solutions.
SUSE is very similar to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), but I prefer Red Hat solutions because their support is much better. I believe that the support and updates from Red Hat are superior. For example, Red Hat has a feature called Red Hat Insights, which allows me to proactively manage incidents and identify vulnerabilities. SUSE does not offer these features.
The deployment is easy.
Red Hat saves time with integration with tools such as Ansible for automation.
I am not involved in the pricing, but it is not very expensive.
I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux a ten out of ten.
The most valuable aspect of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is its reliability. The support is very good.
The knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is excellent. It is very easy to search for solutions to problems and apply new features.
The main concern is the price.
I used Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for five years recently, and about ten to twelve years overall. The last time I used it was last year.
It's reliable. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) did not help much with our uptime or security.
The support with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is good, and it is similar to Oracle.
Positive
In the bank, we use Oracle Linux, but previously we used CentOS.
It was easy to manage in terms of provisioning and patching. We used other products to update the systems, though I don't remember the name. I had other teams to manage the environment. I was satisfied with the management process and the management experience.
It's expensive.
I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a ten out of ten. I would recommend it to others. It is very stable.