Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Reviews

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux on-premises and in the cloud.

We are able to easily move workloads between the cloud and our data center using Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux helps us avoid cloud vendor lock-in.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has helped save us costs.

The frequent updates are valuable.

The training documentation requires revision. The numerous links to different pages disrupt the flow of information and make it difficult to maintain focus.

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

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is stable.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is scalable.

The technical support is good, but they need to work on their response time.

Neutral

We previously used Windows and switched to Red Hat Enterprise Linux for flexibility and support.

The price for Red Hat Enterprise Linux is reasonable.

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

We have around 20 Red Hat Enterprise Linux users in our organization.

We use this solution as our operating system.

The security, ongoing support, and ease of taking a system and getting authorization from a government agency have helped the way our organization functions.

The built-in security features support certain security standards such as encryption. It is simpler to meet FIPS 140 encryption requirements such as the ATOs.

The ease of use of this solution has been most valuable. 

The cost of this solution could be improved. 

I have been using this solution for two years. 

This is a stable solution.

We previously used Linux. Red Hat meets our needs more comprehensively.

Our main ROI is in the ability to readily get ATOs.

For somebody familiar with the Linux platform, it is not difficult to troubleshoot when using this solution.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten. 

The company that I worked for that employed RHEL was a PACS (Picture Archiving and Communication System - think of an image repository for x-ray, CAT scan, MRI, etc., that allowed radiologists to read the images and report on their findings). Our software was a FDA-certified medical "device," based on an open-source DICOM toolkit. We had a custom repository that served up our packages. We needed a stable, supported version of Linux since we would have to get FDA certification for each major version upgrade.

Enterprise support is available for our customers. Pre-RHEL, I used Red Hat desktop for personal PC.

Support.

Rarely were there stability issues. We regularly had servers running for three years without reboot.

Yes, there were scalability issues, but I blame that more on my employer than on Red Hat.

Support seemed to be great for day-to-day issues that our customers would experience (the customer would engage Red Hat support and escalate to me if there was no resolution). I only had to engage support once for an escalated issue and their support team tried to pass the blame onto our Hypervisor vendor, when it was indeed an issue with a Red Hat package.

I have used lots of flavors of Linux going back to 1995. Enterprise support was the reason Red Hat was selected.

Easy. Used Kickstart to automate installation and post install config.

 I was an engineer, never discussed pricing.

CentOS, Slack, Ubuntu, Arch, LFS.

My advice: Kickstart is your friend.

I use it for running RAID servers, Database clusters, and a lot of other open-source tools. I have also used it as a firewall.

We have on-premises dedicated servers located in some data centers. We also have cloud servers on the public cloud. I am currently using the latest version, and I have also worked on previous versions as well as Template.

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.

It is mostly better than other solutions. However, it is sometimes difficult for disaster recovery, so we have to plan accordingly.

I have been working on Linux for the past ten years.

Based on my experience, it has been stable. I did not experience any issues.

It is scalable. I scaled it in a way that I put a load balancer and a few servers running behind that. When working with clients, we scale or expand usage based on the need.

I used to work on and manage a website, which was just like YouTube. Around 1,000 users used to use the site, which was definitely putting a load on this server. There were around 30 servers managing the traffic. I could manage 1,000 simultaneous users.

I have never used their support. I just do some research to resolve an issue.

I have also used Ubuntu and CentOS in different companies and for different clients. The utilization of packages, commands, and configuration files are different in Ubuntu. For example, if you want to restart a service, the commands are different in these solutions. They also have different firewalls. Red Hat uses firewalld and Ubuntu uses ufw.

The deployment is actually okay. It is not too easy and not too complex. It is easy for experienced people, but if you don't have the experience, it can be a little hard. 

The deployment duration depends on the type of deployment that we are doing. It could take from a day to a week or two weeks. We can also use Jenkins for auto-deployment.

I worked with a Cloud hosting and deployment company that provided different Cloud services to their clients. They had servers based on Red Hat. It does require regular maintenance. We had a team of ten people.

Red Hat Linux is inexpensive. Linux solutions are generally inexpensive.

I would definitely recommend this solution. It is my most preferred solution. I like using terminals, and with Red Hat, I get to work on terminals and shell commands. It has good security. 

I would rate Red Hat Linux (RHEL) an eight out of ten. I find it excellent, but no system can be 100% perfect.

Business: workstation and server.

Open architecture allows for accelerated growth while secure repositories guarantee stability.

• Multipath
• Yum 
• LVM
• Selinux

Workstations: More applications for graphics.

Servers: More applications for monitoring (e.g., nmon).

Red Hat is mission critical to our environment.

Red Hat has improved the mission critical environments running Oracle databases, while CentOS has improved our web environment and MySQL.

Oracle and SAP Environment and all HPC environments.

10 years

No issues

Very stable i don´t find any problem we have many environment using redhat since first version.

Not encountered problem with scalability

The customer service is good and all problem was solved, i dont have any problem

Very good

We have many kinds of the linux version on the all environment but to HPC environment we use Redhat but all another versions work very well

I work with the two scenario

The licensing valor is too high and must be improved

Red Hat is similar to CentOS, except that CentOS doesn't offer to support certain solutions, such as Oracle.

Stable Linux OS. The stability of the OS is very important for the computer system. Unstable means you never know when it will crash or fail while your valuable data and business applications are running.

It's an open source solution.

Many areas in version 5 are obsolete such as filesystem ext2, ext3, while the new versions (v.6, 7) support ext4, Btrfs, ZFS, etc.

10 years.

No.

No.

No technical support.

No.

No.

No more support and licensing.

No.