Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Reviews

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux for OpenShift. We run KVM and then deploy OpenShift under it. Additionally, these are my customer's use cases. 

We run it in-house for prototyping applications. Moreover, my customers utilize it to port older Solaris applications to Linux. I also use Linux on Z.

The customers would benefit from quickly identifying vulnerabilities as they arise and being able to fine-tune machines if certain features are not properly fine-tuned. 

Since we use it for virtualization, KVM has been quite valuable. It's been very solid running OpenShift under KVM. The toolset has been pretty good.

By implementing Red Hat Enterprise Linux, the customers were getting off older hardware like Solaris. They're trying to migrate their applications off those boxes and also cost savings. They were migrating over to consolidate onto Z.

However, none of my current customers use Red Hat Insights. I'm trying to encourage them to adopt it, but since they operate in air-gapped environments, Insights needs an internet connection. I mainly work in the Federal space.

Personally, I like the terminal-based tool called Tusa for certain activities. Sometimes we just don't have a web interface available for repetitive tasks. It would be nice to have a web-based tool for Red Hat Enterprise Linux since we don't always have access to a web browser.

The stability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux is solid. It performs well and handles the workload effectively.

It scales well on my platform. We are running OpenShift and other machines on it, and it scales without any issues. Although, it's largely due to the platform itself.

The initial setup can be complex in certain cases, particularly when dealing with a fed customer that operates in an isolated environment. But, in other installations, it has been mostly straightforward. Red Hat Enterprise Linux could still work on making it a little more streamlined in terms of deployment.

There have been some issues we've had with portability, picking it up and moving it somewhere else.

In terms of simplifying risk reduction and maintaining compliance, Red Hat Enterprise Linux is good. The customers I work with don't use them extensively. However, during the machine building process, we apply some security features at build time rather than later on. We take measures such as applying a stake during the build process. While I keep pushing the customers to use the provided tools, some of them operate in air-gapped environments, preventing them from accessing the internet for the latest rules.

The portability of applications and containers built on Red Hat Enterprise Linux is pretty good. We actually build applications on one platform and successfully deploy them on another, so that's pretty good. Overall, using Red Hat Enterprise Linux is definitely a strong set for my customers.

My customers definitely see an ROI. Especially when running it on Z platforms due to fewer processors and, consequently, fewer licenses required. They have experienced a return on investment. 

When I previously worked in a Linux shop using Tusa, it was more expensive. But I think Red Hat Enterprise Linux has become more competitive, particularly for Z platforms.

One example is the consolidation of their infrastructure, getting off of Solaris, and not paying high maintenance costs. Consolidating onto Linux, specifically Red Hat, has been helpful for one of my customers.

There are not many choices available on the system they use, probably only two or three options. Red Hat Enterprise Linux is the preferred choice, especially since it is widely used in the enterprise.

The other two choices are SUSE and Ubuntu, which are commercially available systems. Honestly, no one is going to use Ubuntu because it's not popular enough. So it's really a choice between SUSE and Red Hat Enterprise Linux. SUSE has been around longer on my platform and system settings. But I think people are shifting over to Red Hat Enterprise Linux as it runs on Intel and is more enterprise-oriented.

Overall, I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux an eight out of ten.

We use the solution in our company for normal application support and for databases.

In Red Hat Enterprise Linux, we use Red Hat Satellite as part of all the patching and deployment, even from on-premises and AWS, and that's been really helpful since it is one product that can be used in a hybrid environment. It's just one place to manage everything. It's good since you don't have two different products or places to manage, especially if you have a multi-datacenter and not a multi-cloud but a multi-location environment.

The room for improvement depends on how we use it. It's just a normal operating system. Considering an area where the solution lacks, I think we can look into a lot more automation and integrations with Red Hat Enterprise Linux and other products. However, I cannot say specifically where the improvement should be because it mostly depends on how we are using it. It just works the way it's supposed to work.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux on the cloud for six to seven years. Currently, we are using Red Hat Enterprise Linux Versions 7 and 8.

The product's stability is good, with 99.99 percent uptime.

Scalability is something my company hasn't delved into that much. Right now, scalability is mostly on the backend hypervisor or how we leverage AWS.

I would probably rate the support around an eight out of ten.

Positive

We have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux since I've been with the company. Linux is our platform of choice.

I supported those involved in the setup phase peripherally.

The initial setup was straightforward.

Regarding the straightforward setup, building the base image and deploying it with our internal security standards was pretty straightforward.

We used to get our own license model. We purchased a license through Red Hat.

We haven't necessarily evaluated other options, but there are a lot of requests coming from other application developers that want to deploy other operating systems because they are much more common, especially in an open source environment. So we have looked into those options. However, Red Hat Enterprise Linux continues to be the main platform that we support. We are also looking into other solutions just in case a scenario arises where a vendor cannot support Red Hat Enterprise Linux for some reason and we will need a backup.

Regarding the problems we are trying to solve by implementing the solution, I would say that it is our operating system of choice. I think the support is good since we have Red Hat Enterprise Linux subscriptions. We get support for all the operating systems from them. It's great and stable.

Regarding the solution's resiliency, it is good. We've been running, and we have over 99 percent uptime all the time. We also do monthly patching and everything, so it works. Kernel upgrades also work as expected. So it has been pretty good.

Regarding how easy or difficult it is for you to move workloads between the cloud and your data center using Red Hat Enterprise Linux, we don't use relative migrating solutions. It's considered a separate environment, but we use the same base image. 

I consider the solution to be the main OS because going with an open source solution like Red Hat Enterprise Linux, you have better support.

The support is great. We also have integrations with other products, especially with whatever Red Hat releases. We have all those integrations available and we can easily take advantage of it.

I rate the overall solution between seven and eight out of ten.

I use the solution to develop OS for our internal use. I deliver it to our internal clients, so they can use it for whatever applications they may need to use it for.

The product is very stable. The knowledge base is excellent.

The solution should improve its documentation.

I have been using the solution for 16 years.

The solution scales well.

The support is good. I would rate support an eight or nine out of ten. The documentation should be improved to make it a ten.

Positive

The deployment is very easy for me because my organization has been doing it for a long time.

The product’s resiliency is pretty good. It responds fast to security updates compared to some other closed-source vendors. 

We moved from other priority operating systems to Red Hat Enterprise Linux because it saves us costs on the commodity hardware. Overall, I rate the solution an eight or nine out of ten.

The main use case is general system administration, which includes configuring networking, configuring storage volumes, managing users, and running backup applications.

Application performance is one of its main benefits. The applications that run on RHEL are very stable. 

I've not done much work with containers, but with general applications, as compared to other solutions that I've used, RHEL has the best portability. I have not had any issues or application failures while migrating. I've moved virtual machines and systems from one platform to another, and I've never been scared of RHEL. I never had to deal with application failures while moving them from one place to there. That's why I'm pretty confident with RHEL when it comes to working with it.

I like its integrations. I would put it higher than any other Linux version when it comes to availability. Its integrations with different applications and solutions are the best. We work with a lot of clients that use RHEL, and we could easily and quickly integrate any cloud solution, virtualization solution, storage solution, or software with the RHEL system. It is better than the other solutions we have worked with.

I like the way the updates are done and the way packages can be installed through the Red Hat Package Manager. I like it because of how fast and straightforward it is.

Its user interface could be better for people who want to use the GUI. They can provide a better user interface with more features. Storage works perfectly fine. Of course, continuous improvements should be made all the time, but it isn't at all lacking when it comes to storage and other features.

I've been using RHEL for four years, but in the last 12 months, I've used it more.

It is the most stable one. It is very stable. 

It has the ability to scale. I know that it can scale, but because of my limited experience with scaling, I don't know how good scaling is. I have only done the basic scaling, but I would assume that it can scale way more than what I have done.

Most of my usage of it is on a private cloud. I've used it in a hybrid cloud environment, but I've not done a lot of work with the hybrid cloud because most of the clients we work with have private clouds. The little bit of experience I have had with the hybrid cloud was related to basic application installation and scaling. For the scaling part, I was able to have the applications first in the private cloud and then migrate or move it to a hybrid cloud. I was able to integrate them, and I was able to change the environment, as well as have them work in a cluster. The scaling part was seamless. It was pretty easy. It was easier than I thought.

The private cloud is deployed at three locations. The public cloud is deployed across two regions. There are a lot of users of this solution. There are different systems for different applications and different services. I can't put a number on the total number of users. Some systems have 50 and some systems have close to 70. There are systems with just 10 or 5 users.

They can be faster. Because I work in support, I classify support in terms of how well you can resolve an issue and how fast you can resolve an issue. They don't reply fast enough. In a lot of instances, they don't get back to you immediately, and you have to wait for a while after creating a support ticket. They can be faster at that, but when it comes to resolving your issue, they are good. Overall, I would rate their support a seven out of ten.

Neutral

Prior to using RHEL, I was using Windows. I've also done a lot of work with Ubuntu, SUSE, and other Linux solutions, but Red Hat is the best one. I prefer it over other solutions because I'm used to it, and I find it better than other solutions. I'm used to the commands, and it is easy for me to navigate my way through it. If I have to choose between Windows and Linux, I would always go with Linux and choose RHEL because of its stability and agility.

I also use CentOS for my personal things or running some tests. For example, if I want to run a test with a client, it doesn't make sense to run a test in the client's production environment. I have a test environment with CentOS, and I run the test on CentOS before going to RHEL. I'm pretty comfortable using CentOS. CentOS is like my own testing environment.

The reason I switched over to RHEL was that over here, almost everybody or every client who uses Linux has RHEL. So, I had to understand how RHEL works. I realized that most people use it because of its stability. People find this system and its architecture good. A lot of clients talked about how they preferred the architecture of RHEL. Some clients find the commands to be easily readable, and some clients find it easy to integrate with others. A lot of clients find patching and package management pretty easy.

In terms of the deployment model, we have a private cloud. We have VMware for virtualization and Azure Stack for the private cloud. There are also public clouds, such as GCP, AWS, and Azure, and then there is the physical hardware. Some of our deployments are on physical hardware. So, we deploy RHEL on physical servers, and then, there's also the hybrid model when some clients want to integrate the private cloud and the public cloud together. They want the public cloud to be like a backup environment, or they want the private cloud to be a backup environment.

I was mostly involved in the deployment of the hardware and the private cloud.  I was also a part of the team that set up the hybrid environment, but I didn't do a lot of work on the public cloud side. The only complex part of the deployment was the hybrid configuration, where we were trying to interconnect the private cloud and the public cloud. The deployment on the public cloud was more straightforward than the deployment on the private cloud because, on a public cloud, the image is already there, whereas, on a private cloud, you have to set the image up yourself.

Each deployment model took approximately one week to deploy, but the hybrid model, requiring interconnecting the private and public clouds, took more than a week because there were a lot of dependencies.

In terms of maintenance, it does require maintenance. That's the main reason why people pay for support. 

We have definitely seen an ROI. There are around 15% savings.

It is pretty expensive, but it is worth it. Generally, in an enterprise environment, there is no cheap solution. This is coming from someone who is working with a company that provides a lot of solutions a bit cheaper than the industry standard. In the enterprise environment, I believe no solution is inexpensive, but RHEL is still pretty expensive.

Additional costs that I am aware of are usually for support and setup. A lot of banks use RHEL. I've seen the cost of the support and setup. Some of them complain about it, but they also talk about how well it works.

I have not compared the overall costs of open-source competitors to the overall costs of RHEL when it comes to supporting business operations over time. The only other distribution for which I have seen the pricing is AIX, which was a bit more expensive than RHEL.

I would always advise doing a proof of concept where the client gives out his requirements and you run a proof of concept based on those requirements to make them confident of purchasing the solution. It is always better if a proof of concept is done. This way, everybody knows what they're getting into.

Its built-in security features are definitely helpful, but at the end of the day, you have to go further than using the built-in ones. You have to do a few other things yourself. The built-in features are helpful for compliance, but we, and most enterprise organizations, always want to go further than using built-in features because some built-in features could be more open to risks. We use the best built-in features, but we always want to go further and integrate other features into the RHEL system.

I have used Red Hat Insights only once, and I have not worked much with it, but my colleagues handling monitoring used it. It was helpful for the unpatched system. They checked Red Hat Insights and saw the systems that need patching. We got an email saying that it is a security requirement and that we need to patch them because it may affect the security of the systems. Coincidentally, after doing the patching, we read blogs about security hacks out there for some of the older systems that were not patched early enough.

Red Hat Insights provide us with vulnerability alerts, but I am not sure about targeted guidance. Vulnerability alerts have impacted the uptime, which is something that we take very seriously. Uptime was one of the major reasons we wanted to work with Insights because we didn't want any attacks that would cause downtime.

Overall, I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux an eight out of ten.

We use containers to create RPM packages for graphics drivers.

The main reason to use Red Hat Enterprise Linux is to maintain support for creating images for various purposes, including what we use for gaming. We rely on a range of supported tools and resources, and this enables us to build images tailored for specific target devices.

The RPM manager is paramount for us, as we need to generate these packages for our customers, enabling them to install the packages on their systems at a later time. The knowledge base they offer has proven to be quite efficient and we haven't encountered any significant challenges.

The technical support should be improved. I believe it would be beneficial to notify the customer in advance of any planned maintenance so that we can better coordinate and plan our customer interactions accordingly.

We have been using it for six years.

Recently, we encountered issues when the Red Hat server was in maintenance mode, and we attempted to capture images directly from another server for our builds. Although I set up alerts for planned downtime on the Red Hat server, I didn't consistently receive these alerts. I would rate it seven out of ten.

Neutral

We follow a weekly patching schedule to fetch the latest updates. Our process involves applying these patches to the image and then generating containers, which we subsequently upload to our registry. We accomplish this using Ansible.

The only inconsistency we've noticed so far is with the server, which might be the only aspect we could potentially raise concerns about. Overall, I would rate it eight out of ten.

All our infrastructure uses Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Every service we run is all Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Even containerization is on it.

It has improved our organization. It has standardized processes. Everyone uses it. 

The upgrades are straightforward which helps when you want to move a major version of an upgrade. It's done in a standard way.

Everything we do is all Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Red Hat Enterprise Linux's security has been good because I have never seen any application going down due to security reasons. 

Red Hat Enterprise Linux enables us to achieve security standard certification. For example, we have a very tightly SCC-regulated company so there are many rules that we are to follow and we are able to achieve this using Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

I have been using it for six years. 

We are all on-prem, but we also have some footprints in AWS but those images are also on Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has supported our hybrid cloud strategy. We have a few things running on AWS. We have a few things on OpenShift. We are able to get all the basic images. It is easy to start and deploy anywhere.

One thing I like is the updates because when we patch it and upgrade it, we save a lot of time doing those upgrades and migrations.

Moreover, upgrades or migration to Red Hat Enterprise Linux have been straightforward in some ways. For example, we are currently migrating to Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 and we have all our servers running on RHEL 7. We have scripts that are very easy to migrate.

For our implementation strategy, we go environment by environment. We start with our development environment. Once we are done with it, we test it. We have some automation test suites, test them, and we go to the upper environment.  

We worked directly with Red Hat for the deployment. We are already working on Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 migration. Every year, whenever there is a major version release, we migrate to the major version.  

We see a return on investment in terms of saving time. One thing I like is the updates because when we patch it and upgrade it, we save a lot of time doing those upgrades and migrations.

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

We host our applications and database servers on Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

We mostly have an on-premises setup. We also have Red Hat Enterprise Linux running on a virtual machine.

Compared to our previous Unix distro, it is pretty easy and less time-consuming to do patching and maintenance. It saves a lot of time during maintenance.

I started with Solaris 10, and then we migrated to Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Apart from local zones and a few other things, its features are similar to Solaris 10. It is getting our job done. It is hardware-independent. We can use Dell, HPE, or any other hardware. It is also more reasonable than the other operating systems.

It integrates closely with other products of Red Hat, such as Ansible, which makes it more efficient.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux since 2010.

We are getting all the support that we need on a timely basis. In the case of any issue, we are getting all the support needed to bring the production back online. I would rate them a nine out of ten.

Positive

We were using Solaris 10. We moved to Red Hat Enterprise Linux because it is cost-efficient and hardware-independent.

I am a part of the team that does the OS deployment. Its initial deployment is straightforward. We use automation for deployment. We have a kickstart to deploy the OS. Once we create that kickstart configuration file, the deployment is straightforward.

In terms of our upgrade and migration plans to stay current, we upgrade it before the OS is end of life. It is pretty straightforward. We are pretty satisfied with Red Hat Enterprise Linux systems when it comes to provisioning and patching.

We deployed it on our own. 

It is cost-effective.

There were not many options available.

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

My main and only usage of Red Hat Enterprise Linux is for the on-premise workload. We use it for running Red Hat Ceph Storage and running automation using Ansible. Other than this, I use it for doing any auto test that I would like to do on a Linux-based machine.

From a security perspective, the most valuable feature is SELinux. SELinux provides good security. It's doing a good job of protecting my real estate.

The portability of applications and containers built on Red Hat Enterprise Linux is great.

It has its own ups and downs. Most of the time, it's pretty stable, but sometimes, you'll find some weird bugs that could affect the availability of your running machine. Red Hat can improve its operating system by making it better from the quality assurance perspective. Users do find bugs, which they, of course, shouldn't encounter. A better QA would probably make the job a lot better. It would make the product a lot more stable than it's today.

I've been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for over three years.

It has its own ups and downs. The operating system itself is pretty much stable, but there could be some bugs that could affect your availability. While running the Red Hat Enterprise Linux operating system, I did experience some bugs from time to time that did affect the availability on my machine.

Overall, it's pretty stable, but when you do something more hardcore or special, then its stability could be affected. I can't recall anything that I faced in the last few weeks or months, but as you go around production with Red Hat Enterprise Linux and have lots of machines running on it, you can get stability issues or kernel issues. A machine might suddenly be rebooted for no reason. That's my experience with Red Hat Enterprise Linux's stability.

It's deployed at multiple locations. Approximately, there are 200 people using this solution.

The support in Israel from the guys sitting in Israel is great, but when contacting the support engineers across the globe, the support level just decreases, and the reliability decreases as well. The support guys locally in Israel are great, but the support guys worldwide aren't that reliable. Overall, I'd rate them a seven out of ten.

Neutral

I used Ubuntu and Fedora, but mainly Ubuntu. Ubuntu was a great operating system. We had to change from Ubuntu to Red Hat Enterprise Linux due to subscriptions. The enterprise had more and more need for container orchestration, so we ended up purchasing the Red Hat OpenShift container platform, and the use of Red Hat Enterprise Linux in the organization grew significantly.

The security features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux are aligned with the entire industry. They do not have any higher advantage over other competitors, such as Ubuntu from Canonical, so security-wise, it's okay.

It was pretty much straightforward. Deployment of the Red Hat Enterprise Linux operating system didn't take longer than two days.

It was deployed in-house. Three to four people were involved in its deployment.

In terms of maintenance, it just works unless you do anything special with it.

It's pretty expensive, but I'm not familiar with the pricing of other vendors for their operating systems. I'd rate it a seven out of ten in terms of pricing.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux's main advantage is the support that you get by purchasing their subscriptions. 

We looked at OpenSUSE, but we eventually ended up with Red Hat Enterprise Linux because of the support that Red Hat has in my country. In Israel, Red Hat is a lot bigger than OpenSUSE, so we ended up going with Red Hat Enterprise Linux because of the available support in the country.

If you're evaluating this solution, I'd recommend having your own architects discuss your architecture with the local Red Hat personnel in your state. Red Hat Enterprise Linux is a good product, and it could be even better if you know how to integrate it based on the preferences of your organization. So, my advice would be to have your guys discuss your IT architecture with the local Red Hat people and then decide how to specifically integrate your IT infrastructure with the Red Hat software.

Overall, I'd rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux a seven out of ten.