Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Reviews

Our company uses one of the solution's varieties, mostly CentOS. We are restructuring and moving to the licensed version of RHEL and its derivatives. 

We use both RHEL 7 and 8 mostly in the cloud but also have a small data center where the solution is used on bare metal. Our team does a lot of AIML work where we set up instances to run simulations. 

We are moving a bit into Redshift because we do not have many staff members with containerization or Kubernetes experience. 

We run most things on the solution and its impact has been huge. We do have a few items on Ubuntu but question its use. Conceptually, Ubuntu is for amateurs and RHEL and CentOS are for professional organizations with hardened security. 

The YUM repository is valuable. We are in an interesting situation because we cannot have access to direct YUM or browser repositories so we have to copy to a Nexus server and pull from there. From what we have seen, pretty much everything is available right there. 

The solution's use of Kubernetes as an internal or core process on the system is brilliant. You eventually get to Kubernetes whether via Redshift or other tools and do not have to worry about your hardware because you deploy and push to the infrastructure without worry. 

The Cockpit makes it very easy to maintain systems because you do not have the overhead of running gooey but still have the interface. I am a Linux person and had issues with Windows because they required gooey on servers when it was not necessarily needed. 

The solution is moving away from CentOS and there are growing pains from the customer's perspective. It was purchased by IBM and they are for profit which everyone understands. There is a huge shake up right now because customers who run CentOS do not know what to do with all their systems. One of the reasons CentOS is used for government offices is its security feature that does not change because it occurs after route. The solution placed CentOS in the middle so government customers do not trust it. The way the rollout occurred caused a lot of mistrust with Red Hat. 

The SELinux is great but the Amazon security features cause issues. For example, we run RHEL and CentOS on AWS but they control the cloud and do not give us access to security features. We have to go through multiple layers to deploy an instance. Something that could be controlled with a firewall or blocking ports is now controlled by security groups inside AWS that we cannot access. 

I am newer to the solution but our company has been using it for a long time. 

I previously worked with an Intel customer who used a lot of CentOS, so I am aware in that sense. I am very familiar with the YAM and DNF. I have even played a bit with Rocky which is not specific to the solution. 

My work in systems and software supports one of our teams. 

Technical support staff are personable and quick to get to problems. Support is better than other vendors and I rate it a ten out of ten. 

Positive

I used to work for a government organization that was heavily into AWS. One of the reasons they embraced open source was because Oracle was too expensive. They put everything into AWS rather than open source, so they will soon be in the exact same position where everything is proprietary. 

The solution is easy to set up but sometimes there are issues with custom software deployments. For example, we want to use Ansible in RHEL 8 but the software is only supported in RHEL 7. We question whether we should install an old version of Python to get things to run. 

The solution is pretty easy to troubleshoot. 

Our organization is huge but I handle the setup for instances in our small data center.

I do not deal with money, but I see an ROI in terms of the engineers' skills because they can reapply them to multiple RHELs and incidents. 

The solution is moving away from its open source roots and licensing is a little bit of an issue. 

We use Ubuntu, but not much. 

Primarily, we are dedicated to RHEL and CentOS to the point that we do not see Windows as a viable server option. Microsoft's cloud is getting traction but it only makes sense if you have a solution meant for Windows. 

We also use Redshift and Cockpit. There is consistency across products so they are backward compatible with familiar operations. For example, you could use RHEL 8, YUM, or DNF because the syntaxes are identical.  

The solution is very into Ansible and we are trying to drive everything to it.

Look at the security features of the solution and compare them with other options. Open source is great, but at the end of the day, you need someone supporting the product. Another option is to just listen to groups that write on the internet, but you have to decide if you trust that along with their adversaries. 

Government offices have to worry about adversaries from other countries because the code they use is unclear. The idea of open source is to be able to evaluate the code but it is not clear if anyone actually reviews it. 

I rate the solution a ten out of ten. 

We have various use cases with about 12,000 instances across four data centers and three different clouds. In general, it's for the adoption of and standardization with other vendors, so that other vendors' software is known to work. We're doing lift-and-shift of existing hardware infrastructure that is onsite into the Cloud.

It enables us to deploy current applications and emerging workloads across bare-metal, virtualized, hybrid cloud, and multi-cloud environments. Typically, there haven't been a lot of issues in terms of the reliability of applications across these environments.

The AppStream feature provides access to up-to-date languages and tools in a way that interoperates with third-party source code. It makes it a lot easier to maintain that, as well as keeps our developers happy by having newer versions of development languages available.

In addition, as we roll into version 8 and, upcoming, 9, it makes the migrating of older applications into these environments easier.

We also use Red Hat JBoss Fuse and Red Hat Insights, the latter being a part of RHEL. Red Hat products integrate greatly with the OS itself. We're pretty pleased with that. The integrated approach simplifies our operations to a great extent.

The most valuable features are the

• flexibility of the OS itself
• reliability
• support model.
  

Also, the two versions we use are fairly standard. Most of our applications work with versions 6, 7, and 8 meaning migration and maintainability are pretty good.

In addition, we run multiple versions of the same application on a specific operating system, between different instances. RHEL is great at managing and maintaining those different versions. It's so much easier, and it does it without destroying the operating system itself.

I don't see anything that needs improvement with RHEL itself, but there is room for improvement of the support infrastructure for it. The management and updates to Satellite, which is the support update, have been cumbersome at best, including releases and changes to a release. Communication on how that will work going forward has not been great.

I've been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for about 20 years.

We chose Red Hat for the stability.

The scalability is really good too. In terms of increasing our usage, I can only foresee it becoming greater in the environment.

Sometimes the tech support is hit and miss, but most of the time they're really responsive and knowledgeable. If the first-line tech doesn't know something, they will escalate quickly.

If I were to compare the tech support from Dell, HP, and Red Hat, Red Hat is probably our best support structure.

Positive

I've been with my current company for 10 years. We've used other UNIX platforms, like Solaris and AIX, but those are for different use cases. The company I started at, which was bought, had seven different implementations and I standardized them on RHEL, before the acquisition.

We switched to RHEL because those seven different operating systems were supporting a single team and none of them had a great management infrastructure, or they were just plain open source with no support. And getting to a single, supported, managed environment was the goal.

Red Hat's open-source approach was a factor when we chose the solution. I'm a big fan of the entire open-source consortium. The more people there are who can look at the code, validate it, and make sure it works as it moves upstream into the solidified package that Red Hat supports, the better. It gives you more visibility, more transparency, and you can customize it more. Whereas with closed code, you have no idea what's going on in the background.

The initial setup of the solution is relatively simple. It's pretty much click, click, click, done. And the single subscription and install repository for all types of systems make the purchasing and installation processes easier.

Depending on the platform, deployment of a single RHEL instance could take anywhere from  five to 30 minutes. Bare metal is going to take longer than deploying the cloud.

The licensing is a subscription model and the only product whose model I don't like is Ansible. At $100 per server, with 12,000 servers, it adds up.

My biggest advice would be to read the documentation and reach out to Red Hat, or even just search the internet, so that you understand what you're getting into and what you're implementing.

I can't think of very much that needs to be improved with RHEL. The model that they have for maintaining patching, and their cadence on Zero-day attacks is fantastic, and their support is really good. I don't see any issues.

When we are looking for Linux servers or developers need Linux, we have standardized around Red Hat Enterprise Linux. We do not use Ubuntu or any random flavors of the day. If it is a Linux deployment, it is Red Hat.

It helps with standardization. If someone comes to us and requests a Linux server, we have one product offering. We have a couple of different flavors of it, but people know what they are getting from us. The consistency, reproducibility, and standardization of it have been fantastic.

We are using Red Hat Enterprise Linux on-prem and on the cloud. We have it in Azure, VMware, and on-prem. We have it on bare metal. It is all over the place. Our operations are simpler, more efficient, and easier to handle. Our Linux team now supports one OS rather than a whole bunch of flavors that everyone has brought in. It has just made things more efficient and simplified.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has enabled us to centralize development. Those developers are now developing on Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Previously, we had people who were developing on Ubuntu and trying to push Ubuntu to production, but we did not necessarily support it. Red Hat Enterprise Linux gave us a clear path to production. Our developers also get an easier experience. They know which OS to use and what they are using from day to day. There is less confusion for developers.

We are using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for containerization projects. It has helped with simplification. We do not have to create too many of our own custom container definitions and do our own thing. We use minimal images and whatever is provided is supported under our subscription. It simplifies things and puts guidelines around things.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux's built-in security features are good when it comes to risk reduction, business continuity, and maintaining compliance. We use Red Hat Satellite to manage our Linux. That makes it all very simple. There is a feature called OpenSCAP. We use it for security scanning. All the features that they provide on top of the base OS make it very easy to manage.

The portability of applications and containers built on Red Hat Enterprise Linux is great for keeping our organization agile. We know we can rely on that middle layer. We can start with the container and then build on top of that. Having a solid and standard foundation makes it all easy to do.

The enterprise aspect of it is valuable. There is security patching, security scanning, and compliance. There are all kinds of features around managing and keeping it up-to-date and secure. Everything is in a box for us from Red Hat which makes it very easy to manage them.

It is constantly improving. It is important to continue to improve. That is another reason I like it. They are using newer kernels, which gives us access to newer hardware. They are already doing that. I cannot pretend to tell them what to do better. They can just keep on doing what they are doing.

Personally, I have been using it for about 12 years. I have only been with my company for about four months, but I know they also have been using it for years.

It is stable.

It is scalable. They define scalability. I am a basic user. I just deploy more VMs if I need to. It is easy to do. Its scalability is great.

They are great. I would rate them a ten out of ten. A big selling point is that when you submit a support ticket, you know you are reaching out to experts. That is great, and that is one of the primary reasons we went with Red Hat.

Positive

In my company, they were using AWX for automation, and we moved them to AAP. For Linux, I was a part of a project to migrate some of the other operating systems over to Red Hat Enterprise Linux. I am on the tail end of the move or standardization to Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

There were a lot of Ubuntu operating systems in the environment, but they had challenges standardizing around it. There were different versions. There was also CentOS, but it was old CentOS. They are naturally moving that to Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

The support and the standardization around it were the main reasons for going for Red Hat Enterprise Linux. CentOS is more of a community thing now, whereas we can call Red Hat and they help us with everything. The support and the enterprise features we needed pointed at Red Hat Enterprise Linux rather than CentOS. It is a better choice for production.

We deploy them from AAP and then we deploy them into VMware. We deploy them into Azure, which is our main provider. We do that all orchestrated through Ansible and Satellite.

We have outsourced support. TCS is a general contractor, but for Red Hat deployments, we generally go with Red Hat Consulting. We just finished a consulting engagement with them for that. I know they have used them in the past prior to me being here. We generally just use Red Hat Consulting.

We have standardization. I know what I am walking into every day. I know there is support behind it. There is the support of Red Hat and the community behind it. I feel confident using Red Hat Enterprise Linux. I might use other Linux operating systems at home, but a lot of the time, there is no documentation for them. There might be three guys in a forum from ten years ago who may have talked about my problem. With Red Hat Enterprise Linux, when I am going to work, I know what I am walking into. I can feel safe and assured using something industry standard that works, and I can get help with it very easily. It makes life a lot easier.

Our total cost of ownership across our enterprise landscape has gone up because we were using a lot of mixed and free open-source solutions. However, there was an extra cost of operations and extra cost of hiring for specialized skills and things like that. With the Red Hat portfolio, I feel that we spend more on subscriptions, and we save in terms of efficiency and operations. I feel that we spent some money to save money on the backend, and I hope that is how it ended up.

I do node counts for the Red Hat Enterprise Linux system. I am gathering data for our decision-makers about how many nodes we need and how many things we need. Once or twice a year, they ask us to true up and find out how many nodes we are using and what the actual consumption is. I then report that, and then the account team usually works on the money part of it. I just work on the count.

We use Red Hat Insights a little bit. I am more of an Ansible guy, and we use Red Hat Insights for our licensing and a few other things. We have not been using Red Hat Insights as much as we wanted to. I know that on the Linux side, they are using it a lot for license count, monitoring, and other things.

I feel we are underutilizing Red Hat Insights. Our account executive has shown how it works and where it is, but we have not committed to it yet. That is coming soon. As we gain more Red Hat products and standardize more, we will have to rely on a single pane like that, so we will be using it more. I know that Red Hat Insights provides vulnerability alerts and targeted guidance, but we are not utilizing it right now.

To a colleague who is looking at open-source, cloud-based operating systems for Linux instead of Red Hat Enterprise Linux, I would say to go for whatever they find to be the best. My standard for an enterprise solution is Red Hat Enterprise Linux. It works very well, but they have to make sure that it fits their use case. Fortunately, Red Hat Enterprise Linux fits most use cases. They might end up there, but if there are licensing or cost restrictions, there are other free options, such as CentOS. The ecosystem of Red Hat Enterprise Linux is healthy, so I would recommend it, but if they want to use something else, they need to come up with all the standards around that.

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux a ten out of ten. It is my preferred enterprise operating system. Everywhere I go, they are using it. It has been great. There are no complaints.

I use the product for the integration capabilities it provides between my company's servers and the servers from other companies since we operate in the banking sector. I use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for clusters or load balancing. The tool provides an open-source platform to use any program. Many programs can be installed over Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

I have seen that the upgrade from RHEL 7 to RHEL 8 can be a bit problematic since I have seen some issues during the upgrade of libraries, along with some conflicts with the other libraries in the tool. The aforementioned area can be considered for improvement in the product. Presently, I am not trying to upgrade from RHEL 8 to RHEL 9.

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

It is a stable solution.

I have only used a little bit of technical support. I can say that over the span of years that I have used the tool, I have used the support offered by the product only twice. I don't have much experience when it comes to the support team. The support team did not help me solve my issues, and I had to search for a resolution by myself to solve my problems. People from India who are a part of the support team don't seem to have much experience in solving the product-related problems of the customers. I rate the technical support a six out of ten.

Neutral

My company also uses MariaDB as a database, while at times, we use databases from Oracle or PostgreSQL over RHEL.

Sometimes, I use Ubuntu for some of the end-users in my company. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is useful for servers and not for end users. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is very compatible with servers.

The upgradation and migration parts attached to the solution can be described as a very straightforward and easy process. Sometimes, I migrate from the on-premises version to the cloud, which I find to be a very easy process. The servers are up and running very well, so I have no problems with the product.

I have experience with the on-premises version of the product.

The in-house team, consisting of four people, in my company takes care of the upgrade and migration parts attached to the solution.

My company has acquired five to ten licenses from Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

My company uses the normal security features provided by the product. Presently, I am taking some courses related to security. My company uses solutions for security purposes, like CrowdStrike Falcon Protection.

I use the documentation provided by the product. I also joined the academy operated by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) to learn about courses related to OpenShift and virtualization. The documentation is very easy to understand, and it is also good for learning purposes.

I joined the product's academy courses when Red Hat opened a new branch in Egypt. I have got certificates for learning about OpenShift and virtualization. I am planning to learn OpenStack.

For provisioning and patching, I use Foremen, which is an open-source product implemented by Red Hat Satellite. Foremen is very good and easy to use for patching and security updates.

Leapp or Red Hat Insights are not features that are enabled by default. I don't usually use the aforementioned in the product.

I use Red Hat Store for image-building purposes. Some other programs are installed after the images get installed with the help of the product.

Speaking about whether I use the web console or Convert2RHEL, I would say that I use the terminal console provided by the product, and it is also very easy for me to use.

The product has affected my company's security and uptime since Linux offers a firewall that provides complete security, which is very good.

I hope to use the product in a hybrid environment.

I need to prepare for security standard certifications from Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) since it can help me understand the features and the security that I need to get from the product for my company, making it something very important for my organization.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is a big part of my company since we use a lot of servers with its open-source services. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) serves as the base of the servers in our company.

Sometimes, I take care of the maintenance of the product, but it is not something that is required all the time. The maintenance process is pretty normal.

As a part of our company's migration or upgrade plans to stay updated, I will be upgrading from RHEL 8 to RHEL 9.

The product does what it is meant for, especially if MariaDB is installed over the tool.

I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

We are using the full setup in Linux and use the enterprise edition. We're migrating a lot of things over. 

We like that it's open-source and fully secure. We've fully migrated to Linux, and we were able to move everything over from the Red Hat database.

Compared to earlier tools, we get more options, and it's very user-friendly. The patching, for example, is easier. It can also support many things. It took us about six months to realize the solution's full benefits.  

The solution is very user-friendly. 

The Red Hat Enterprise Linux scripting is very good. It is easy for us to access those parts in the Linux portion. 

The security is very good. It helps us to maintain overall security.

I have a Linux certification, however, they do have good documentation in order for users to get information about the product.

The management experience for patching is very good. We can do the patching through the portal. We can use it based on our own timing. If there isn't something in production, we can do the patching. The patching experience is very nice compared to what we had to deal with previously. For example, with Windows, the patching would happen whenever. We can control it via the portal, and it is very user-friendly now.

We only use the command line. We do not use the GUI. The graphical user interface is useful. However, we prefer to use the command line as we can do many more things. 

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has positively affected our uptime. It's very fast. If you have to do patching, and need to reboot, it doesn't take too much time to do that. It might only take one to two minutes. 

For the most part, everything looks fine. Everything is going smoothly. 

Right now, we need to get memory and CPU via the console. If it was available in the console so that we could adjust these two things, that would be ideal. 

I've used the solution for the last four years. 

The stability of the solution is fine. I'd rate it nine out of ten for stability. It's user-friendly and the downtime is low. It won't impact business.

The solution is not deployed across multiple locations. We have around 300 end users.

It is scalable. We can immigrate to servers and it won't impact the business. 

We know there are some issues, and if we come across some vulnerabilities, we'll work with support. If we get an error, we'll go to them and discuss the issues. We take advice from them on how to work through problems. 

Sometimes, we'll get some errors and we'll send them an email. Sometimes it takes too much time for them to respond. The support time could be better.

Neutral

We did previously use a different solution. 

I was not involved in the installation. I have not worked on the OS level and I'm not involved in the migration to the cloud.

We have eight to nine people on our team that may handle some maintenance tasks. If there are any issues, we can patch and fix them. We go through the portal to handle patching and maintenance. We'll check the system pre and post patching.

I'm not aware of the exact pricing of the solution. 

We did not evaluate other options. We've fully moved to Linux and used Red Hat Enterprise Linux to do this. 

I'm an end-user. 

We will be moving to the cloud only. I'm not directly involved in that. The main thing will be that soon everything will be in the cloud only. Currently, I work with the on-premises version only. It's on a VM right now. 

This is a good solution if you are handling migrations or your internal environment. It's user-friendly and you can connect with technical support easily. It's also very secure. 

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten. 

I use Red Hat Enterprise Linux for my infrastructure and OpenShift primarily for its Kubernetes capabilities.

I wanted to build infrastructure based on Red Hat for commercial distribution for data centers.

The built-in security features significantly simplify risk management and compliance maintenance for on-premises deployments. The well-documented and regularly updated features make it easy to find solutions to any issues we might encounter.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux boasts a top-notch knowledge base. Compared to other distributions, it offers comprehensive information for each iteration of the operating system. This information is categorized by Red Hat Enterprise versions – seven, eight, nine, and so on. Likewise, the documentation and knowledge base are further organized by platform versions, like 13 and 14. This clear organization makes it easy to navigate and find the information needed for troubleshooting or understanding specific features. Given the ease of use and depth of content, Red Hat's documentation gets an A+.

The uptime has been reliable, minimizing infrastructure impact.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux's security advisories typically notify system administrators of potential vulnerabilities, allowing them to prepare for patching easily.

The most valuable feature is the OpenShift platform.

The high cost of Red Hat Enterprise Linux has room for improvement. The high cost in terms of a platform is problematic.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for six years.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is stable. 

The scalability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux depends on its deployment environment. In a bare-metal setup, scalability is directly limited by the hardware server's capabilities. Similarly, virtualized deployments are still constrained by the underlying hardware resources. However, when RHEL is used within OpenStack, the Red Hat OpenStack platform can manage both virtual machines and workflows, enabling horizontal scaling by adding more nodes to the OpenStack cluster. In this scenario, the number of chassis in the infrastructure becomes the primary determinant of RHEL scalability.

The technical support is responsive and efficient, with a streamlined ticketing process. When troubleshooting hardware issues, their technicians typically check relevant files to diagnose potential problems with the chassis or related components.

Positive

I previously used Canonical in other open-source projects and pushed for a switch to Red Hat because of my familiarity with it in past projects. My current employer does not utilize Red Hat Enterprise Linux because of the high cost.

The deployment complexity is based on the project and the architect of the particular solutions. There are scripts that we can use to perform the upgrades or migration. The number of people required for upgrades or migration depends on the size of the solution. For a small solution, we can automate and don't require any people. If we are using a third-party solution already in place we can achieve the same goal without a large team.

The combined cost of implementing in hybrid and cloud environments to fulfill all our client's needs can be considerable.

There are only three distributions that offer commercial support. Red Hat Enterprise Linux, Canonical, and SUSE. It all comes down to the cost for each organization.

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

The amount of people required for Red Hat Enterprise Linux maintenance depends on the type and size of each project.

Red Hat already provides tools to maintain up-to-date migration plans. These tools can not only identify which components require upgrade but also preserve any already installed elements. Additionally, Red Hat offers a web-based solution for managing upgrade processes if required. However, we can choose alternative options: implementing the solution ourselves or employing open-source software for upgrades. I see no significant challenges with utilizing Red Hat tools for the upgrade process.

I recommend evaluating all the available solutions that offer the tools that Red Hat Enterprise Linux offers and comparing their functionality and cost to avoid issues after purchase.

We predominantly use Red Hat CoreOS we use it to connect to different types of OpenShift clusters.  Whenever I work with RHEL, it's always been with the CLI.

Previously, when we were using other distributions, we weren't getting a lot of support for the operating system itself. However, Red Hat has mainly focused on the operating system, so we get more support. 

AWS has its own version of Linux for its instances. All these cloud providers provide more support for the infrastructure and services, but they don't focus on the operating system itself. But Red Hat, with its customer portal, provides better support if something goes down. That's what differentiates RHEL from other products.

One great thing about RHEL is that it has a big community of users. There's a huge community that uses CentOS. If you need some help or have a question online, you get more resources for RHEL compared to other products. 

It's a really good operating system by itself. It's more versatile, integrating with tools like Ansible for automation.

There are amazing resources online, and because we are an enterprise, we have enterprise support. We can always create a support case, and we have some resources to help. The knowledge offered by Red Hat is great.

Another feature I tried was RedHat Insights because they offer it for other RedHat products as well. I've used it for OpenShift. It was helpful. It provides a good, in-depth understanding of what's going on in the actual infrastructure. It gave us good insights into the level at which we can run the containers and if you can scale the infrastructure vertically or horizontally and how to manage it better.

There is room for improvement in integration with different cloud platforms. There should be better integration because right now, a lot of cloud platforms have their own versions of Linux, which runs better on them, and they have better integration with the services. RHEL is great, but RHEL is more of a generic form of what Red Hat provides.

I've been using RHEL for about four years now.

There were certain times when I encountered issues. There are certain problems with integrations. 

For example, we had an issue once where the operating system had issues accessing the data server on our VMware infrastructure. So we did have a couple of engineers help us out with that, but that's one area where it can improve. But that's nitpicking. 

It's been great so far, but that's one thing I would like to see that would make RHEL a little better product.

Positive

We prominently use RHEL, but we've also used Ubuntu. We also have used PCF. I use Ubuntu Xenial and have worked with Amazon Linux for a while.

One pro is that at the operating system layer, RHEL has better support from Red Hat, and if something goes down, I found many resources for troubleshooting online.

For example, we predominantly use Amazon Linux if I'm using AWS. There aren't a lot of resources if I run into an issue. RHEL has way more documentation on Linux. It has a bigger community, from an operating system perspective.

One of our deployment models is on-premise, and the other is on the cloud. It's a hybrid. We have a big footprint on the cloud.

We use Azure because a lot of resources are already deployed on it. We can use all the features I build on RHEL, but you can scale up the infrastructure, depending on the demand. That's the reason why we use Azure.

For the upgrade process, we mainly use Ansible automation. Whenever we want an upgrade, we just go into the Ansible Tower, change the version, and make sure we are applying that to the right environments so that there's no outage. 

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

We're using the product to test operating system stability and verify that it runs on the hardware that Trenton Systems produces. If it passes testing, it becomes a validated operating system that we can sell for the server. We plan to offer Red Hat in the coming months to anyone purchasing systems from our company.

The solution’s security feature is the most valuable feature for my company. We offer OS to military or government agencies. For these sectors, security becomes one of the highest priorities, especially the ability to wipe everything out if anything becomes compromised. Red Hat does a great job at that.

The product should be made more accessible to someone who isn't experienced with Linux.

I have been using the solution for four to five months.

The solution is very stable. Compared to many other OSs we test for our company, Red Hat Enterprise Linux has not crashed out on me or given me any problems. Anytime something goes wrong, after some research, I find that it's going wrong because I'm doing it wrong, not because the OS is fighting me in any way.

I haven't used support where I'm emailing or speaking to someone directly, but I've used a lot of the online support just by looking at different user guides, health guides, and things like that. Everything is really well documented. 

Sometimes there are posts about similar issues but with different remediation based on different circumstances. You might have the answer open in a tab, but you've got nine tabs open to find the right answer.

Positive

I have used Ubuntu, CentOS, openSUSE, and Mint. Red Hat Enterprise Linux definitely has an edge in security and the ability to control what the user at the end stage is doing. However, it is difficult to learn.

The licensing makes perfect sense for the number of features you get with the operating system.

We test Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9, the latest version. We do backtesting for versions 7 and 8 as well. The product is very secure. It took me a while to wrap my head around the whole Subscription Manager system and understand how that worked. Even at a base level, it provides a much higher level of security and the ability to take remediation steps if things go wrong. You can shut the whole system down and bring it back from the ground up.

From the keynote, it looks like steps are already being taken to make the solution more accessible to any regular user. 

The product does a really fantastic job of reducing the overall risk to the user. If a user is doing something they’re not supposed to be doing, it's very easy for the system administrator to walk them out of doing it. As for maintaining compliance, if a user is only meant to have specific packs and is only meant to perform specific tasks, it's very, very easy to lock it into only being able to do that one specific thing.

Most people in IT enjoy a little learning. Everything I've done so far with Red Hat has been installing, setting up the account, getting everything registered, and then worrying about testing to validate. It is difficult to start with, but the more you learn about it, the easier it gets. The more I use it, the more capabilities I find within the system.

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