Anonymous UserIT Manager at a financial services firm
Anonymous UserSenior Security Operation Engineer at a energy/utilities company
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
"The solution has features that simplify adoption for non-Linux users. There is an interface that you can activate on RHEL systems, and on other Linux systems as well, so that you will get a graphical user interface instead of just a shell. It's easier for an administrator who is used to only working on Windows."
"Its security is the most valuable. It is very stable and has many features. It also has good performance. Some of our clients were using Windows servers and products. I suggested Red Hat Linux to them and described the features. They switched to it, and they really loved it. There were around 50 servers in my last company, and they switched all those servers from Windows to Red Hat. I used to manage those servers."
"Customer support is valuable."
"The integrated solution approach reduces our TCO tremendously because we are able to focus on innovation instead of operations."
"We find the Red Hat Satellite deployments very useful. It integrates well with other solutions."
"I like the fact that most of the system configuration is Namespace so it's easy to get to and easy to configure, and most of it still uses text documents. Not all of it's a menu-driven-type entry. I also like the fact that it's a very standard file system layout so it's easy to navigate."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is Hyper-V Live Migration for Critical applications."
"I'm using all the features within it and find them all quite helpful."
"The active directory that the server provides is the solution's most valuable aspect."
"Windows Server is very easy to use."
"Every time they perform a new release, the solution gets better and better."
"The most valuable feature is Active Directory."
"The main features that we are using are active directory, domain, and DNS."
"PowerShell is a great feature of the solution."
"Sometimes they don't have new versions for applications like Apache or PHP. I understand it's because they have to have support for them, so they can't have the latest version all the time, but that's the main thing I see that could be improved."
"It is mostly better than other solutions. However, it is sometimes difficult for disaster recovery, so we have to plan accordingly."
"Their pricing and documentation can be improved."
"Linux overall needs improvement. They cannot go much beyond what Linus Torvalds's kernel implementation can do. I come from AIX, and there were very cool things in AIX that I am missing dearly, e.g., being able to support not only adding, but also reducing memory and number of processors. That is not supported on Linux right now, and it is the same for the mainstream file systems supported by Red Hat. There is no way of reducing a file system or logical volume. Whereas, in AIX, it was a shoo-in. These are the little things where we can say, "Ah, we are missing AIX for that.""
"It could be a bit more user-friendly. It could also be cheaper."
"I'd like to see more of NCurses type menu systems in some instances. We're dealing with SUSE Enterprise Linux, they have an NCurses menu system. It's a menu system. It will write there. Even some of the higher-end Unix systems like AIX have some inner menu system where all the configuration tools are right there so your administrator doesn't have to jump through multiple directories to configure files if needed. I like the simplicity of Red Hat because it's pretty easy but having an NCurses menu when you have to get something done quickly would be nice."
"Support for direct USB recognition for the virtual machines would improve this solution."
"Overall, from a security perspective, Microsoft needs to improve."
"The solution could offer higher availability."
"The command-line interface should be improved."
"Right now what is needed on the server-side is an easier release process. Every year or every third year they are releasing a newer version and it could go smoother."
"Better integration with more platforms would be useful."
"They can simplify the utilization and control of the system when you have a lot of setups. They provided something called Windows Center or Control Center in version 2019. It's a free tool that comes with the Windows Server. You can install it on your desktop and use it. This tool simplifies the control and monitoring of all servers. If I have 200 servers, I don't need to log in to each one to configure it. I can manage them from this tool. However, this tool needs quite a lot of improvements. It's difficult to use, and they need to improve it."
"Sometimes the PowerShell has an overly complicated syntax."
"In terms of the solution’s single subscription and install repository for all types of systems, we can have as many RHEL installations as we want because we have a specific subscription that entitles us to have as many RHEL services as we want. We pay for a subscription and with that we get RHEL and Satellite as well."
"Red Hat Linux is inexpensive. Linux solutions are generally inexpensive."
"RHEL is expensive."
"Because it is a subscription, you can go elastic. This means you can buy a year, then you can skip a year. It is not like when you buy something. You don't buy it. You are paying for the support on something, and if you don't pay for the support on something, there is no shame because there are no upfront costs. It changes the equation. However, we have such growth right now on the Linux platform that we are reusing and scavenging these licenses. From a business standpoint, not having to buy, but just having to pay for maintenance, changes a lot of the calculations."
"We have a site license on a yearly basis. Generally, we're okay with its price, but everything could be cheaper."
"Microsoft is relatively inexpensive compared to other database platforms."
"This is not an expensive product."
"It is an expensive product."
"In our case, we primarily use Microsoft, so the cost is a lot less. But some of our customers have spent approximately $12,000 a year on the operating system license."
"The license model needs improvement."
"Our current license is an enterprise license agreement which gives you a whole lot of possibility, especially when you go through an R&D process. For example, you can provision everything, spread the service use over six months, and then wrap it up. It gives you a lot of flexibility."
"The Windows Server standard edition is affordable."
"We pay yearly for a license. If you ask any vendor they will tell you that it could be cheaper."
Windows Server 2016 is the most cloud-ready server Microsoft has ever built and includes a lot of technology that was inspired from our experience in the public cloud. It has big improvements in security, software-defined infrastructure and technologies to help developers build modern microservice-based applications, in the cloud or on-site.
Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is ranked 1st in Operating Systems (OS) for Business with 6 reviews while Windows Server is ranked 2nd in Operating Systems (OS) for Business with 87 reviews. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is rated 8.6, while Windows Server is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) writes "Has a standard file system layout so it's easy to navigate". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Windows Server writes "Easy to use, simple to set up, and scales well". Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is most compared with SUSE Linux Enterprise, Oracle Linux, CentOS, Ubuntu Linux and Windows 10, whereas Windows Server is most compared with Windows 10, Ubuntu Linux, CentOS, Oracle Linux and Oracle Solaris. See our Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) vs. Windows Server report.
See our list of best Operating Systems (OS) for Business vendors.
We monitor all Operating Systems (OS) for Business reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.