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.
My main use case for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is hosting applications.
My company benefits from using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) by having more secure workstations and inviting more beginner users.
The feature of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that I appreciate the most is the new Boot C that's coming out. That's been pretty interesting.
RHEL helps me solve the pain point of feeling disconnected from the community. I've been feeling more involved and considered. Previously, a lot of documentation was for connected instances, and I work for an air-gapped network. Now I appreciate seeing that the documentation actually has disconnected settings. It's neat to be included in there.
I appreciate the documentation. The knowledge bases are pretty good. Usually, when I have an issue and find a Red Hat knowledge base, it addresses the issue.
Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)'s built-in security features are really well designed for simplifying risk reduction and maintaining compliance. I see many new technologies coming out are geared toward security or enhancing security. It's neat that it's continuing to evolve.
My upgrade or migration plans to stay current with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) involve leaning on our unclassified environment before we can upgrade, as I'm in a disconnected network. As soon as we're able to, I'm trying to upgrade as often as we can. It's because I want to utilize all the new tools coming out in 9.6 and now 10. We just got to RHEL 8, and I'm already ready to leap RHEL 8 to get the newest features.
Improving Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) can be tough, however, a significant area is collaboration tools. We have many Windows users that use Outlook and Skype or Teams to collaborate on our network. They want Linux desktops due to the fact that they want to use containers. Their biggest complaint is, 'I need two workstations to do my container work and one to collaborate.' If somehow RHEL can start introducing or collaborating with Teams and Outlook so their users can work with their Windows peers, that would be great. But I don't think that's available yet.
Regarding pricing, setup costs, and licensing, there needs to be more of an education piece to it. For instance, when purchasing 10 or 100 node licenses, they could suggest, 'We also offer this 1,000 node license instead, and it'll save you specific amounts.' Just more education on their offerings would be helpful, because usually, we're coming out with the requirements, and then they just provide it to us. They could inform us about saving by bundling it differently or using alternative approaches.
I've been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) since 2012, which is 13 years now.
The stability and reliability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) have been pretty good. We haven't had any issues, major crashes, or anything similar.
The scalability of the Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) platform has been able to meet my company needs for servers. The workstations are a little difficult, but overall it meets our requirements.
Regarding customer service and technical support of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I really enjoy it.
With many other vendors, I have problems with support and back and forth, getting escalated, routed all over the place. Usually, when a case gets assigned to someone from Red Hat, it's handled in a timely fashion, and it's precise. There's no guessing or reading from scripts. It's direct to the point.
I would rate the customer service and technical support of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) an eight and a half to nine. The only reason for not giving a perfect score is that there could be more knowledge base articles or documents. There's not always a Red Hat instance for what I'm looking for, however, when there is one, it's always accurate.
Positive
Before implementing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I used CentOS and Fedora. The main difference between Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and those prior solutions is the support.
I would describe the experience of deploying Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as pretty simple and straightforward. The GUI is really interactive, and it's really easy to build from scratch.
The biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), from a technical point of view, is that it reduces man-hours.
With Ansible, it definitely reduces man-hours in patching or being able to configure or manage systems across the country with hundreds of systems. The approximate reduction of man-hours that RHEL provides is in the hundreds. I couldn't imagine administering a couple of hundred servers one by one.
We have to implement quarterly security checks and remediations that come out in bunches of 30 at a time. Having to do that on each box would take forever. I could probably only do four or five a day with our few hundred servers.
We did not consider any other solutions while using RHEL.
I have been involved in migrations or upgrades of RHEL, and I just completed a leap upgrade from RHEL 7 to RHEL 8. We manage our Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems when it comes to provisioning and patching by using templates from VMware to deploy our RHEL boxes, and for patching, we use Red Hat Satellite to provide the patches. We also use Ansible platform to run the plays, to kick off the updates and the reboots.
I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a ten out of ten.
My main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) now are mostly traditional workflows, web applications, and web servers.
Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has benefited my company by offering great features such as Satellite and all the enterprise features that provide us value, which enables stability and maintainability.
Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped me solve pain points by providing significant maintainability compared to other Linux distros.
It is very stable and enterprise-ready, giving me substantial stability and manageability.
Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped mitigate downtime and lower risk significantly.
With Satellite and everything else, we can effectively control which patches go to specific servers and reduce risk with different CVEs and insights, providing us with substantial control.
We manage our Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems using Satellite, which works really effectively, and we also use Ansible Automation Platform.
My assessment of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)'s built-in security features shows many cool features in the new version. From what I have used in 8 and 9, there are good features such as built-in firewalls.
Although SELinux is complex as it does a lot. I cannot fully understand it, so that could be simplified. The only thing that I really have difficulty with is SELinux, so perhaps there is room to make it more accessible.
I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for approximately ten years.
Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has been able to scale to the growing needs of my company. We are not a huge company, so it works effectively.
The customer service and technical support for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is pretty good. We have used them extensively and they work effectively.
Positive
Before choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), we were using legacy systems running on AIX, but all new implementations are now on RHEL. The main difference between AIX and RHEL is the support from third-party applications. When installing third-party applications, there is always support for RHEL and almost never support for AIX.
I would describe the experience of deploying Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as really easy. It is similar to other systems, and I am really excited to explore Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 10 and try Image Builder.
The biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the manageability we receive, with numerous features in the packages that free up substantial time from the operations side of things.
The pricing, setup costs, and licensing for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are within normal operating system pricing ranges.
While using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I did consider other solutions. There are always many other options, such as another RHEL distribution, but RHEL is the only one that has extensive support for numerous other systems.
We have not fully implemented Ansible Automation Platform yet, but we are starting to integrate it and we really appreciate it.
I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) from one to ten overall as probably a nine.
My main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are everything from research computing to hosting websites. We've run a gamut of different things with RHEL.
I used to use it a lot for a healthcare company and healthcare software. Now predominantly, it's research that is very statistically intensive. So anything where we have to do data computations, data rates, we need to synthesize data, aggregating it from instruments all over the world or within the lab itself. We take all of that, and we also use it to produce applications for people, whether it's just interacting with it via a website or an actual homegrown application where they can go through, search, look at the data, and do their own data manipulation.
My favorite feature of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the ease of use; it is streamlined, making it very intuitive to do things.
The ease of use of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) reduces time for my company. It reduces the time to do things, allowing us to do very complex tasks in a very short period, since it is very straightforward and makes it easier to get things done.
It has been around for so long, and it's such a standardized platform that the knowledge base from the employee perspective is usually pretty high compared to other enterprise Linux distributions. Therefore, the overall time savings with RHEL is huge.
Our upgrade or migration plans to stay current with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) involve adhering to a rule: once a version reaches end-of-life, we do not enter the extended life cycle. We plan that out ahead, ensuring that all of our systems get migrated and updated about a year before the end of life of any version. Some systems get migrated to the latest version while others remain and just get updated to whatever is current. It depends on the application and its external dependencies, but it's just a solid plan we follow.
Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped us mitigate downtime and lower risks, as we've utilized virtual machines and process load balancing to minimize issues. While we've had downtime with any systems, there tends to be a lot less with RHEL. We have had some systems running just for fun for three years without any downtime, which reflects their stability. I would say that RHEL has reduced risks by at least 80% compared to open-source distributions based on experiences in recent years.
To improve Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), the biggest thing is the availability of some tools that unfortunately have to be paid for. While I understand that you have to pay for resources, it would be nice to have a centralized location where you can easily find those tools.
I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for close to 20 years.
Regarding the stability and reliability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), we have systems that we've kept running for years without any downtime, so I have never had a problem with stability or reliability.
Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has scaled right along with our growing company needs; the only exceptions to that are with supercomputers, but that's a whole different animal.
My experience with customer service and support from Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has been good so far. I haven't needed to use it often, which goes back to its reliability. Whenever I've had issues reaching out, they've responded quickly with appropriate information.
The deployment experience with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has been very easy; we've been doing it for years. The automation that they've built over the years to do the deployments just makes it easier and easier every year, transitioning from kickstarts to using things OpenShift. I'm excited to see how this Image Builder works with that, too, so it has continuously improved.
The biggest return on investment for me from using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is just overall time saved.
We have looked at other solutions while using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), such as Debian, Ubuntu (a Debian spinoff), FreeBSD, and some others. We keep going back to RHEL due to its reliability and available resources.
I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) overall at least a solid ten out of ten.
Our main use case for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) at the moment is for our dev machines, as we do software engineering for automotive, and we have a lot of developers who need Linux. We had a bunch of systems and other things, and we are now rolling them all to be standardized on RHEL.
The management dashboard, RHEL satellites, Ansible, and all those integrations have been the most valuable features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that really help us.
The features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) allow our company to standardize our fragmented ecosystem, which consists of a lot of Windows systems and different development environments, so that we can move away from the 'it works on my machine, it doesn't work on your machine' issues.
We are deploying workstations with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), and we also look at deploying on-prem. We already have some cloud deployments through third-party contractors, and we are trying to tie it all together into one system. We also have high-performance compute on-prem for doing GPUs, CPUs, and simulations, and we have workstations on-prem with potential cloud workstations as a migration area.
We are migrating some workloads, such as local development tasks, to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), but we haven't really started with the servers yet. Currently, we manage our Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems using the cloud portal to build a custom image for our machines, but we want to move toward satellites and use that as our comprehensive management and patching tool.
Utilizing all the security features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is really important for us as an enterprise with a lot of security focus in automotive and intellectual property, and we are easing into some features such as different security profiles to ensure a secure experience for our users.
We have been trialing on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 9.5. We are now looking at moving towards RHEL 10, which is going to be one of our migrations before we go full production launch on this, and we're looking at doing incremental upgrades as we go to have the latest stuff available.
With Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), there's a lot of fragmentation in the documentation across different versions, and ensuring that the right version is being read can be challenging. Features such as AI assistants would provide a more unified experience, which is really helpful for IT teams who may not be Linux-centric.
I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for just a couple of weeks as we are starting to deploy it. We originally did not have any Linux systems with us and are now moving forward with that whole process.
The stability and reliability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) seems to be rock solid from our perspective, as we have workloads running continuously 24/7, and the only reason we shut it off is to install a full reboot update or if the workload fails due to our own issues.
Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is definitely going to scale with our company's growing needs. Other elements of the company have been using RHEL in production, and from our perspective as a small R&D center, it provides the flexibility to manage multiple sites in California, Michigan, and keep them all synchronized, reducing the need to send IT individuals to California to fix problems.
I would rate the customer service and technical support of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a ten out of ten. We really felt that with our Red Hat partner, there's personal service that has helped us build better solutions for our team; it has been a truly awesome experience.
Positive
I have only been with the company for a year and a half, so I'm not aware of anything they've done with other Linux OS solutions, however, we have primarily been Windows from a developer perspective, and now we are starting to get into using Linux systems on a daily basis, focusing on workstations for now.
We purchase Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) through a roster indirectly, and that will be our deployment methodology for any AWS deployments of RHEL AMI images. My assessment of the pricing, setup costs, and licensing for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is that our finance team handles it, and I've been hearing good feedback; they find the licensing model much easier to understand.
For us, the biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has to do with standardization and the ability to manage a fleet of devices, whether on-prem, in the cloud, or servers, through unified portals using standard processes and reducing fragmentation among machines.
Before choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), we looked at Ubuntu Pro and a couple of other options, however, we decided that RHEL fits better into our ecosystem, particularly in our adoption of OpenShift for DevOps, as it's best for our developers to have the same development environments from end to end.
On a scale of one to ten, I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a nine.
My main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are for the core banking systems. It is a much more stable OS than other competitor operating systems, especially with Databases.
Most banks in Iraq use Linux, whether it is free like CentOS for a UAT environment or enterprise like Red Hat.
The Red Hat Satellite makes my life much easier when it comes to managing my Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems for provisioning and patching. Before few years ago, each server had to have internet access to make updates or deployments. After joining the Satellite, it's just one push, and all the patching is done. And all the datacentres prohibit having external access. So we can create a local repository at our Red Hat Satellite and then push it to other servers, with the option of choosing a specific version to push for all servers.
Furthermore, the IDM, which is FreeIPA, is great. I appreciate how it makes the management much easier for me, even when managing more than 500 users same time. Like when someone leaves the company or someone joins, it's easier for me to onboard or respond to other things. It makes my system more secure by monitoring all the user's activity, which is another important point since no one can have direct access to the server without being authenticated and authorised by the IDM.
The Red Hat Satellite makes my life much easier when it comes to managing my Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems for provisioning and patching. At first, we had to access each server to make updates or deployments. After joining the Satellite, it's just one push, and all the patching is done. All this distribution also helps us as we use it on-prem, and all the data centers prohibit external access. So we can create a local registry at our Red Hat Satellite and then push it to other servers without issues regarding version changes.
I am a big fan of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) built-in security features, which simplify risk reduction and maintaining compliance, and I would just say we achieve 99% success. I remember a few years ago when there was a zero-day attack. Red Hat was the fastest company to respond. We found out about it at six o'clock PM, and the next day at eight AM, they had some fixes and pushed updates. So we could respond directly and implement the fixes. Any security breach with Red Hat, I do not want to speak about others, since we face worse responses from other companies.
My upgrade or migration plans to stay current involve understanding the concept of OpenShift, which has not yet become very popular in Iraq. I try to keep pushing the client to understand the concept of containers and other things. It will take some time, however, it's a good feature to move ahead with OpenShift containerization. Even with the Central Bank regulation, we have to remain on-prem, thus OpenShift supports this point and offers a flexible solution. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped me mitigate downtime and lower risks by about 80%.
I am a big fan of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) built-in security features, which simplify risk reduction and maintaining compliance, and I would just say we achieve 90% success. I remember a few years ago when there was a zero-day attack. Red Hat was the fastest company to respond. They had some fixes and pushed updates in few hours from discovering the security breach. So we could respond directly and implement the fixes. I don't like to mention the other competitors, since we face worse responses from other companies.
My upgrade or migration plans to stay current involve understanding the concept of OpenShift, which has not yet become very popular in Iraq. I try to keep pushing the client to understand the concept of containers and other things. It will take some time, however, it's a good feature to move ahead with OpenShift containerization. Even with the Central Bank of Iraq regulation, we have to remain on-prem, thus OpenShift supports this point and offers a flexible solution. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped me mitigate downtime and lower risks by about 80%.
I can't pinpoint something specific to improve Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). I feel they are doing good. I haven't thought much about what they could enhance to become even better for me.
Currently, I manage an issue not related to the OS. It's more about how to purchase vouchers or training from them. Unfortunately, any MasterCard or Visa card issued by a bank inside Iraq is blocked by Red Hat without a clear reason.
While other vendors like Cisco, Microsoft, IBM, VMware, Veeam, Nutanix, etc., we can purchase learning and vouchers directly without any issue. Only Red Hat it's blocked, so to solve this, I have to travel to Dubai and buy it outside the country. This is a significant issue for me and all Red Haters in Iraq, and that's why I also develop myself with non-official content and stopped pursuing their certification since I must travel each time I need it.
I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for about six years.
Regarding stability and reliability, I didn't face any issues with that. It's 99%. Any issue I face with it is due to some mistake from a colleague or something pushed the wrong script, yet I haven't faced a sudden crash.
Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales to my company's growing needs very effectively; I didn't face any issues with scalability. Before working in my current company (Red Hat partner), I was a work at a payment gateway company. And we made a successful story by scaling out our datacenter and migrating the version from 6 to 8 without any major issues. Also, we did clustering with Enterprise Linux and other things, and all scalability was good, just requires specific knowledge. That said, it's manageable.
In my six years working with Red Hat, I only remember opening cases three times since the technical documentation on the Red Hat site is so comprehensive that if you carefully check it, you often won't need further assistance.
The support itself is satisfactory, and they solved my issues. They understood my concerns about the side effects of some changes, however, and they were perfect in their response.
Positive
I did consider other solutions before or while using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), including Ubuntu, CentOS, and Debian. I am a big fan of Red Hat. This is why I will always choose them. When you love something that much, you just stick with it. That's why I will consistently recommend it to clients as a Red Hat partner.
For the first time, it was a little bit complicated. However, once you know how it works, it's very easy.
My experience with the pricing, setup costs, and licensing for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) it's a little bit higher. I suggest that if they could make the price more affordable, it would be great. Some clients are just startups and when opening a budget with Red Hat, it doesn't cover what they need. Perhaps they could create a specific version for startup companies or offer discounts for first-time users.
On a scale of one to ten, I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a ten out of ten.