I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) regularly in my current role since 2021, and I leverage RHEL for our daily Linux administrator administration tasks, orchestration tasks, patching, monitoring, and self-healing, while ensuring compliance with all security standards. From a product perspective, RHEL's robustness allows us to use Ansible, Jenkins, and ArgoCD to optimize our CI/CD processes, and we manage more than 50 clusters across five regions: Amer, Paris, Hong Kong, North Singapore, ensuring all deployments are secure. It is reliable and offers enterprise support, making it suitable for scaling workloads in both on-prem and cloud environments.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) on a daily basis as a foundation for my DevOps and Kubernetes infrastructure tasks, where it stands out as a primary tool for managing clusters. I regularly monitor system administration tasks such as patching, performing OS level troubleshooting on RHEL servers, and executing kernel updates on a monthly cycle, all while leveraging automation using Ansible. For monitoring, we utilize Prometheus, Grafana, and Kibana to visualize performance metrics, health checks, and set up alerts for CPU, memory, and disk usage on RHEL nodes. Regarding container orchestration on Kubernetes, we are responsible for deploying and maintaining workload shifts on OpenShift and Kubernetes clusters, which are built on RHEL nodes to ensure stability and scalability. Thus, RHEL is a core VM for both Kubernetes and OpenShift, with OpenShift being the main focus to ensure our infrastructure is stable and ready for daily use.

The best features I have seen in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) include its scalability, enterprise-grade security, and stability. It incorporates features such as SELinux, kernel live patching, and RBAC systems, making it very reliable for production environment workloads, allowing for automated cycle processes akin to Kubernetes, which can manage itself over long-term stability, demonstrating good, consistent performance along with integrated Linux support via Ansible and OpenShift. Thus, RHEL is a trustworthy platform.

Compared to other operating systems, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is specifically designed for production environments. It integrates tightly with OpenShift, Ansible, and other tools that others cannot deeply support. RHEL seamlessly works in hybrid cloud and container platforms, and in comparison to Windows, RHEL provides greater flexibility for containerization and DevOps-related tools, making it a more reliable option.

In Societe Generale, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped us maintain a secure environment across our container platforms through SELinux and kernel patching, which has directly lowered the risk of downtime and improved trust in the system. Notably, the ability to automate server patching and manage cluster upgrades has eliminated the need for manual intervention, significantly reducing errors and saving several hours of work. As a result, our team can focus on more innovative topics rather than repetitive tasks, leading to improved deployment times and increased reliability by around 20 to 25%. Overall, RHEL has made scaling applications in hybrid cloud environments much smoother, positively impacting my organization by providing a stable and secure platform.

By using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), our team saves approximately 10 hours per week on routine patching and monitoring housekeeping tasks, which allows us to focus more on innovation topics. The time saved has led to improved knowledge among the team on how to create pipelines and better support application teams, thereby positively influencing delivery timelines and productivity.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is stable and secure, but I think one area for improvement is that licensing should be automatically updated, particularly in multiple environments. Additionally, a faster GUI experience would save time, which would enhance usability.

From the suggestions for improvements, I would advocate for simplifying license management and providing a more efficient web console that can run RHEL faster. Furthermore, built-in tools for monitoring and automation should be made easier to grasp, as we create many dashboards using Grafana, which are much needed.

I have been working in my current field for more than four years.

I have only used Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and did not evaluate other options, as RHEL is very stable and designed according to its lifecycle. My consistent experience with RHEL underpins its foundation for OpenShift and Kubernetes clusters, supporting critical applications without unexpected failures, especially with Ansible handling our patching, which contributes to better stability.

From an organizational perspective, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) pricing is justified for entry-level support, especially given the long lifecycle of kernel patching. Once deployed, RHEL demonstrates smooth operations that considerably reduce long-term operational costs. Utilizing RHEL with automation saves both time and money by preventing manual patching and minimizing downtime, allowing users to focus on more valuable tasks. Despite the initial setup effort, once implemented, RHEL significantly delivers savings in both money and time through automation, resulting in smoother daily operations.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) exhibits high scalability, as adding more CPU, memory, and storage to a single system is seamless within my organization, enabling applications to scale easily across on-premises clusters. I could rate its scalability between 8 to 10 on a scale, as it provides enterprise-grade stability and flexibility for workload scaling in various environments, whether they consist of a few servers or thousands. The primary area needing improvement is the speed of scaling operations.

My advice for others considering Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is to take full advantage of its automation capabilities and how the system is set up. Utilizing tools such as Ansible can save considerable time across patching, upgrades, and other administrative tasks. I recommend focusing on RHEL's scaling capabilities compared to other operating systems and highlighting the efficiency of the monitoring tools available, such as Prometheus and Grafana. Thus, I believe RHEL is an excellent choice for facilitating organizational growth and enabling smooth scaling without issues. I rate this solution 9 out of 10.

I have completed RHCSA and RHCE certifications. In my day-to-day work, I mainly use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for basic installation of Red Hat OS, configuration, MariaDB setup, Apache setup, and cluster management.

Regarding my main use case with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), it is an open source OS which allows us to modify the system as per our requirements. It is also secure and user-friendly.

The system is user-friendly because we can use it through both CLI and GUI interfaces, which provides flexibility, and the ability to modify the OS helps me in my daily work.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has positively impacted my organization because we can check for vulnerabilities, and when we have internet access, we can directly install packages. The system provides easy access to internet resources when needed.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has potential for improvement, though currently all features are working well based on my experience. Different versions have increased security measures, which is beneficial.

Regarding needed improvements for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), increasing its cloud capabilities would be beneficial. Additionally, it would be helpful if they provided direct RPM package downloads via the Red Hat site without requiring a Red Hat subscription.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for more than five to six years.

I used a different solution before Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) when I was working at SBI, where they had a Galera cluster. Sometimes servers would unexpectedly remove themselves from the cluster, which caused major issues requiring troubleshooting and node verification.

My advice to others considering Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is that compared to Windows and Mac, Red Hat is very comfortable to use.

I currently use both Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and CentOS as tech products.

In my particular case, we have some development and testing environments that we run on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), and we currently produce specific software for financial entities that is developed and certified for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), with clients running it in production and us delivering support to those clients.

Stability and performance are what I appreciate the most about it.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) makes it easier to manage hybrid environments because it is widely compatible with all kinds of platforms and protocols, allowing integration with various systems. It is very convenient for me since I have both on-premises installations and cloud installations. A few years ago, we transitioned several machines from baremetal systems to the cloud, and the process was very smooth. One of the advantages of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is that it operates consistently across different platforms, meaning you don’t have to change your processes or tools when working with various environments. This reliability is particularly beneficial for my operations.

One improvement could be more radical removal or disabling of obsolete, non-secure features, specifically regarding hardening the system. While I'm not sure if this is different on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 10, my team has installed the first one today.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for 10 years now, and I have been working with Red Hat as an older brand for about 25 years.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is very stable, and I don't recall the last time we had an issue that was not caused by a user.

The scalability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is very good because it allows changes to be introduced on the fly without having to reboot machines, and it is very stable. We have reached a maturity level in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that is very efficient, giving us a lot of confidence in the product.

I haven't contacted technical support or customer support regarding Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in the last few years.

While not exactly comparable, we also work with AIX from IBM as another platform, which is currently provided by the same group because IBM owns Red Hat. I have worked in previous years with other Linux distributions, such as Debian, Ubuntu, and Slackware, although I haven't worked with them for a while.

I have a very strong empathy for open-source systems, and Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) runs on an open-source kernel, which I appreciate because it allows for innovation and development of the system itself based on collaboration from different inputs. AIX is more closed with its own benefits, and Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) runs on more platforms, while AIX is IBM-based.

Deploying Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is easy. It isn't a complex process right now, and there is a lot of documentation and information available to support them during that process.

The patching process is currently stable and very efficient, with frequent and scheduled releases that allow us to plan how we roll them out on our side. We have a scheduled patching process every month, even if there isn't anything to do. There are usually updates available, and we also have monitoring features that ensure the system is healthy and working properly, so we don't require live monitoring by a user, just some occasional cleanup in terms of logs and environment since it's mainly a development and test setup.

When you have your own systems on-premises, defining a lifecycle means needing to replace hardware, storage, and acquire equipment beforehand, whereas in the cloud, you don't have to do that because you pay as you use. This makes it easier to acquire new VMs on the cloud and install new images, moving from old machines to new ones without needing to get rid of old physical machines, thus making the cloud more flexible in the lifecycle perspective.

The business value of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) compared to other Linux distributions lies in the full set of systems and services it offers. While I haven't used the service support in recent years due to having a mature team that can solve problems, the support from Red Hat gives us great confidence in the software's quality, patching, and continuous development.

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a 9 out of 10.

It depends on the company environment and client environment. Currently, we are using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for application deployment and server management, and sometimes we use it for DB deployment also.

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for learning purposes for new things in Red Hat technology.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) offers a very easy-to-use experience in the Linux environment apart from any other flavors, and it's a very easy, systematic structure that provides easy support from Red Hat if any complex issue arises, which is the best point of RHEL, along with its affordable subscription model.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) saves time, saves money, and it's very easy for automation purposes; we support third-party tools for automation, so it's very beneficial.

I see a return on investment from using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) because patching is very easy; it supports third-party tools such as BMC or BigFix, so it's very time-saving for patching and performing any operation to fetch data from multiple servers.

To improve Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), they have to provide a playground for their OS for free or for some time, or they have to provide OpenShift multitenant clusters for improving skills in Red Hat technologies and in RHEL also, which will be very easy for a growing career in technology and providing support in an organization.

They have to make it easier to raise a ticket for Red Hat. Currently, when we raise a ticket, they show multiple options, so they should provide a direct option for raising the support cases.

They should provide patches on a quarterly basis instead of monthly, as patching every month makes it a burden on us.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) since my career started in 2020.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is stable. In my last five years of experience, I haven't encountered any stability issues when everything is done properly.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has good scalability, and with the RHEL OpenShift tool, we use the scale up and scale down features.

Customer support for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is very quick and provides support on call. It's easier to get support from RHEL compared to other enterprises such as IBM.

We did everything manually before Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), but since working with RHEL, we use automation, which saves time and costs.

I am not aware of billing, but for the setup of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), it's very easy because we directly get a golden image and replicate to make a new machine, so it can be set up in very little time.

Before choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I evaluated other options such as CentOS, Rocky Linux, and Ubuntu. However, RHEL is an enterprise OS that provides multiple features and support, with a very systematic structure.

The Ansible tool is very nice, and currently, they have released OpenShift, which is also a very nice product provided by Red Hat.

I would advise others looking into using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that if they don't have budget issues, they should go for RHEL; otherwise, they can consider AlmaLinux or Rocky Linux, which are also open-source products.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is a very nice Linux distribution that provides quick support, and in my last five years in the corporate world, I found it to be a very good OS, but they should lower their charges for mid-scale and startup companies in countries such as India, Bhutan, and Nepal, as they can't afford that much amount in dollars.

On a scale from one to ten, I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a ten.

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux to host web applications written in the Java programming language, along with an Apache server. We deploy applications using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for both internal and external customers. Additionally, we utilize Red Hat Linux to host our Oracle database.

It provides us with long-term stability, meaning we often don't have to reboot servers for months. This contrasts with Windows, where we typically have to reboot every week. Red Hat Enterprise Linux offers long-term stability and security, allowing for prolonged periods without reboots. Moreover, the Linux operating system is regularly patched, ensuring a secure environment. We receive timely updates from Red Hat whenever there is a new patch available.

Security requirements were significant consideration in choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux. As a bank, security and performance are our top two priorities. We are promptly notified by Red Hat whenever any zero-day security vulnerabilities or loopholes are discovered. This allows us to quickly inform our team and make decisions on whether to apply patches immediately or to wait. We prefer not to experience any downtime during the week, so we typically wait until Saturday to perform any necessary shutdowns for patching. For some patches, Red Hat offers hot patching, which means we don't have to shut down our servers. This allows us to apply patches while the servers are still running, minimizing downtime.

Multithreaded environment is a standout feature. It enables Java to execute multiple workloads simultaneously, which speeds up processes. Instead of executing tasks sequentially, we can handle them in parallel. It allows us to deliver more code execution in the same period through parallel execution, providing real-time benefits. We can monitor our progress in real time.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) can be improved, particularly in the documentation side.

I would also suggest improving performance and allowing the OS to be run on Intel and optimized for Intel as well as AMD CPUs. Improving compatibility with hardware is also important so that we can run on any hardware.

Additionally, we would appreciate Red Hat offering a built-in monitoring solution so that we don't have to depend on third-party tools such as Dynatrace and others. Better integration with built-in solutions would increase reliability on Red Hat.

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

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has indeed helped us mitigate downtime and lower risks. We can run for months without needing to reboot, which contributes to its stability.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales efficiently with the growing needs of our company because we have a recovery time objective. We have Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) installed in our primary data center as well as in the disaster recovery data center. When we do a failover and fail back, it meets the timing that we specify.

If we run into issues, such as OS-level issues, we raise Internet tickets with the Red Hat team. We have a dedicated account manager who helps track the ticket status to ensure it is resolved within a timely manner.

I would rate them an eight out of ten because sometimes we get very experienced people. They resolve issues quickly, but sometimes we get a junior person, so there is a different level of response. They can offer a consistent level of service. Rather than mix junior and senior engineers in the same team, and just give us more senior engineers.

Our overall experience deploying Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has been positive. However, we sometimes encounter challenges with documentation, as it may not always be up-to-date. There are occasions when our OS version is ahead of the corresponding documentation. We patch our OS, and that version may be newer than what the documentation reflects. This can lead to inconsistencies, so we often request that they refresh their documentation to ensure it is in sync with the OS. On the plus side, another benefit is that there are many online discussion forums available due to its wide usage, where we can seek answers if we encounter issues.

We operate on-premises due to regulations and compliance requirements, as we are a bank. We handle many personally identifiable sensitive information, which we cannot deploy to the cloud, so everything is hosted on our servers.

We host Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) on our servers and use VMware to virtualize them. On a single physical server, we can run three or four virtual servers. This approach enhances server utilization and allows us to manage more workloads on the same hardware.

I've participated in upgrades from version 6 to 7, 7 to 8, and 8 to 9. The only issues we encountered were related to the Samba file-sharing system, where we had to uninstall and reinstall it instead of migrating directly. This was frustrating because we expected everything to be backwards compatible. Additionally, we faced challenges when upgrading from version 6; we couldn't jump directly to version 9 and had to go through intermediate versions, which was a pain point for us. We wish we could upgrade from version 6 to 9 directly instead of having to go from 6 to 7, then 7 to 8, and finally 8 to 9.

Regarding our upgrade or migration plans, we recently migrated to version 9, which is a long-term service version. We plan to stick with version 9 for the next year or so.

The biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is that it's a very stable overall operating system and is really optimized for running Java-based workloads, meaning we can get more workloads done. This stability gives us a consistent performance which translates into a strong SLA service level agreement.

We receive volume licensing as part of our IBM relationship. We use many IBM servers, so we get a volume discount. We tend to go through a value-added reseller to secure that volume discount.

In India, we prefer Red Hat because it offers the industry-leading container platform, Open Shift. As a result, we are gradually transitioning away from VMware and exploring other options to better meet our needs.

I would recommend Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) if you're looking for a very stable operating system and if you happen to run Java-based workloads and you want high performance, high stability, and high availability. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has been around for more than 20 years, and you're looking for an excellent track record. If a bank can trust Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I'm sure that all other industries can trust it because we require the most stable, secure platforms.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

I am a platform engineer, so I help build out the infrastructure for app owners to use. I manage the OS.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) provides us with a standardized Linux that has controlled package versioning so that there's no scope for issues when we're applying patches. It's pretty stable and gives us stable releases.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) benefits my company overall because compared to other operating systems, it has a lower TCO. It's lighter weight than Microsoft Windows and simpler to use in some aspects, making it easy to use without having to worry about a graphical interface and similar elements.

The features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) I appreciate the most include the management, specifically that Red Hat Satellite is nice. This management feature is great because it centralizes what I need to do to keep an eye on all the systems in the environment.

There are some features of Red Hat, not just Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), that have a higher cost of entry, which prevents us from trying out things such as Ansible Automation Platform due to its high cost. We are still deciding if we're going to go that route.

There are some positive aspects to the consistent packaging of Red Hat, which is great. However, there are times when the latest and most exciting releases available online are not included in the version of Red Hat that we have. For example, the version included in Red Hat can sometimes feel outdated compared to the open-source versions that are currently available.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for 15 years.

Its stability and reliability are very good.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped us to mitigate downtime and lower risks, not necessarily due to its nature but because we design our systems to be highly available. We have multiple nodes and we only bring down some nodes, leaving others up, depending on the application, which sometimes dictates how it becomes highly available.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales pretty effectively with the growing needs of my company.

They are pretty knowledgeable. If they don't know it, they know someone who does, so they can always route me and my questions to whomever is able to answer.

I would evaluate the customer service and technical support of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as good, although sometimes opening a case and waiting hours seems excessive, depending on the severity of the issue. It may be a P2 to us, but a P2 with a 4 to 8 hour response seems too long sometimes, and they won't escalate. However, once all that's completed, I would still rate them at least a solid eight.

My experience with deploying Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) involves lots of scripting and golden images, but there's a newer version of creating the images, and I'm looking forward to using that.

We have a hybrid environment with on-premises and cloud deployments.

We use Red Hat Satellite for provisioning and patching, and I am satisfied with that.

Upgrading or migrating Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) from on-premises to the cloud went mostly well. However, there were some caveats to consider when moving to the cloud that we hadn't anticipated. For instance, some migration tools had hardcoded values that shouldn't have been fixed in that way. We did encounter some issues that required remediation, but for the most part, the process has gone smoothly.

Our upgrade or migration plans to stay current involve evaluating Red Hat 9 now, and we will be evaluating Red Hat 10 afterwards. I don't think there are any other Red Hat products with a major upgrade upcoming. We are still using Red Hat Satellite, currently at version 6.16, and it needs to get upgraded to the next version pretty soon. The version of Ansible within Red Hat can sometimes feel way behind the version of Ansible that's available open source. Some migration tools hardcoded certain values that shouldn't have been hardcoded.

The biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for me is its consistent nature, as it has stable releases. I don't have worries when patching because everything is backwards and forwards compatible depending on the version.

We don't consider other solutions in our company that do the same thing as Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), nor did we use other solutions before choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). We stick with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), and if anything comes up that looks different from our OS, we heavily push back because we've established a relationship with Red Hat, and we're not looking to introduce a new flavor of Linux and a new support model after all the training we've had already.

My assessment of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)'s built-in security features for simplifying risk reduction and maintaining compliance is that while I haven't used OpenSCAP much, the documentation of their CVEs and vulnerabilities is pretty easy to use through the website. It helps me identify if a CVE is applicable or not applicable, which is useful in case an event occurs and I need to research its impact and remediation.

I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) an eight out of ten.