Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Reviews

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is connected to our internal private cloud that is air-gapped.

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux as the operating system on our network management and data management servers. It is our server operating system of choice for any type of hardware that needs to be reliable and stable.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux solved our need for automation and running containers. It is the most stable open source operating system available. When compared to other OSes, it is reliable and works well. This is important for my line of work, where I need to be able to reliably transfer files across thousands of miles. I need to do this quickly, and I have found that other OS solutions, such as Windows Server and Ubuntu Linux Server, are not as reliable or as quick. I have found myself constantly having to troubleshoot problems with these other OSes, and there is often not a lot of documentation available to help me.

The Red Hat Enterprise Linux knowledge base is awesome. Everything is documented, so I could easily find the information I needed to troubleshoot my misconfiguration issue. The knowledge base even provides suggestions for likely causes, which was helpful because most of the time, when something isn't working right on a Red Hat Enterprise Linux system, it's a configuration issue.

Security is one of the benefits of Red Hat Enterprise Linux. It is secure from the start, and it does not take long to configure it to meet government security standards. It also performs well during the staging process, and it does not break or cause services to be lost. In contrast, other operating systems often lock accounts, break, and cause services to be lost.

Simplifying risk reduction and maintaining compliance is straightforward and uncomplicated. There is plenty of documentation to help us, so if we get lost, we can refer to it to find our way.

The portability of applications and containers built on Red Hat Enterprise Linux makes it easier for our company to stay agile. We have found that our applications and programs run just fine on Red Hat Enterprise Linux, which provides a lot of supportability.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux's most valuable feature is that it comes with all the tools we need to set up and maintain an enterprise-grade system. Even if we install the minimal version of Red Hat Enterprise Linux, we will still have everything we need to get up and running quickly and easily. And if we ever need to restore our system from a backup, Red Hat Enterprise Linux makes it easy to do so, whether we are restoring from a scratch build or a backup that is a few weeks old.

A feature that I would like to see in the image builder is the ability to open the image in live mode and access a command line interface. This would allow me to immediately apply the necessary security settings required by the STIG. By doing so, I can deploy the image with the confidence that vulnerabilities present in the live network cloud service are closed before deployment, rather than applying the settings afterward as suggested in the example by Red Hat.

Ideally, I would prefer to deploy an operating system that already has all the necessary configurations in place. This would involve accessing a command line interface, adjusting configuration files as needed, setting up banners, and establishing user accounts. After making these changes, I would create an image and deploy it. I've noticed that the current image builder is primarily designed for commercial use, but as a DoD user, I have different requirements. Therefore, having an emulator or virtual terminal that allows me to interact with the kernel and make live changes, which can then be saved to create a customized ISO, would be an excellent feature to have. It would be great if Red Hat Enterprise Linux had a similar capability. Interestingly, Ubuntu Linux does offer this functionality with its "Custom Ubuntu Basic ISO Creator" (CUBIC).

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

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is stable.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is a scalable operating system. Red Hat Enterprise Linux offers a wide range of options and features, and we are only just beginning to explore its full potential.

The initial setup is straightforward. I installed Red Hat Enterprise Linux using the stick method. I had to create nine different partitions, all of which were encrypted. This is where things got a little complicated. We need to decide whether to create a LUKS partition or partition and build our image on top of a LUKS partition. Initially, I was individually encrypting each partition using the "encrypt" option. However, this is not ideal because we cannot grow or shrink an LVM partition that is on an encrypted partition. Once the partition is created, it is set in stone. So, I needed to figure out how to encrypt just the partition and then create an LVM partition on top of the encrypted partition, such as SDA3. This was a bit of a challenge, and there is not a lot of documentation on how to do this. The documentation that is available is a bit confusing, and I got lost a few times. Once I figured it out, it was not too bad. The entire deployment process takes about 20 minutes.

We have seen a return on investment in all areas with Red Hat Enterprise Linux, including productivity. We use it in our daily operations in almost all of our systems. In one form or another, Red Hat Enterprise Linux is running on our systems. If we are not running Red Hat Enterprise Linux, our systems are unstable.

I give Red Hat Enterprise Linux a ten out of ten.

For those who are looking at other open source cloud-based operating systems for Linux, I would recommend Red Hat Enterprise Linux. It is well-documented and has a large pool of information available. We can also use CentOS content with Red Hat Enterprise Linux. The pool of information for Red Hat Enterprise Linux is far greater than some other open-source solutions.

The environment in which we deployed the solution is enterprise-level.

There are multiple use cases, and I am mostly focused on information security. Before we promote an ACS policy to production, we should be able to test that build and see how that policy behaves for that build. We use Podman to build some test images and get them to our development box. Then we use commands that we scan against those images. That has been one of the major use cases. 

In the future, we'll move our automation program from an on-premises Windows server to a Linux server. Over a period of time, we want to move those applications to the cloud and OpenShift. Currently, we have many legacy applications that are still being run on Windows Server, and we use the title job scheduler for that. Once we mature and gain more confidence, we want to containerize those applications and move them to OpenShift and Linux.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux's most valuable features are the Podman and a lot of packages that come inbuilt as part of the regular package. Podman gives you the opportunity to build those images. Since it's a public registry, you cannot pull those images from a docker, and proxy blocks that. If we know how to recreate that scenario, we use Podman to recreate that image.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux should provide more training because many people are not very familiar with Linux's user interface. If it is made very similar to Windows and people can relate to it, they would be more comfortable.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for seven to eight years.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is a stable solution.

I have experience interacting with Red Hat support for ACS. The initial level of support is very minimal. They try to collect all the data, then go to developers or technical people, which usually takes time. So we don't get an immediate response. Hence, there is scope for improvement in Red Hat Enterprise Linux's customer support.

Raising a ticket and having somebody look into it takes time. I rate raising a ticket and addressing it a six to seven out of ten. However, we interact with a responsive relationship manager, who escalates and gets issues fixed. I rate this relationship manager an eight out of ten.

Neutral

Since we have the capability to test vulnerable images, we know much in advance what their impact will be. We can test ACS policies against those vulnerable images. That gives us early visibility instead of deploying that application and finding what is happening there. Using Red Hat Enterprise Linux and all associated components gives us that visibility into vulnerable images, and we can set policies based on whatever we see. So in terms of business impact, we avoid many vulnerabilities that get into the production.

We run some applications on the cloud, but they are not business-critical applications. We run all business-critical applications on-premises. We are not dependent on the cloud for business-critical applications. We are not locked with the vendor.

We use Qualys to scan the underlying node. We expect any critical vulnerabilities to be patched as early as possible. We have an enterprise policy wherein any business-critical vulnerabilities seen on business-critical applications or nodes need to be fixed within 30 days. If some running application is exposed to the internet, we want that to be prioritized. If vendors can prioritize a 30-day life cycle for critical vulnerabilities, that would really help many other organizations.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is the only option we are currently looking at. We don't want to go with Windows. We already have this ecosystem where we use OpenShift, and it's already integrated with ACS. So we would not like to go with any other different OS. Red Hat Enterprise Linux will integrate easily with the entire ecosystem.

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

We use RHEL for high-performance computing. We host most of our production servers in our data center. Red Hat is a great package that helps us customize most of the data and dependent packages we receive from the Red Hat operating system. Most of our server requirements are being managed with Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

We mainly use Red Hat for our application deployments, standalone servers, and VMs.

We use this solution in a university. Most of the production servers and applications are required for the students.

We've seen a benefit in hosting servers and email security. RHEL provides excellent results and performance. It helps us achieve our goals for scalability and services.

We normally run crontab to keep our servers up-to-date. It works well with Red Hat Enterprise Linux because it has an advanced suite of features that can be effectively used for production servers. 

It also has RPM Package Manager, which includes most of the tools and utilities that every organization needs to have.

There is portability in the applications and containers built on Red Hat, which keeps our organization agile. Enterprise Linux offers flexibility in terms of dependent packages.

Red Hat Linux definitely enables us to achieve security standard certification. Most enterprise solutions need to comply with security standards. Many Linux-based operating systems fail to provide security because of open-source techniques.

Most of our production servers fail to deploy in Linux. When we deploy in RHEL we don't think about security because it has a lot of features like policy management. We can give specific access to specific users who require SSH or Telnet. It's more flexible because it can be altered easily.

We have used many Linux-based operating systems for production purposes, but this is the only solution that guarantees performance and scalability. When we run industry servers, they demand high performance.

It has great software support because it has a wide range of tools and utility products in the database. It's relatively easy to use enterprise products, and we don't need to add packages from other third-party sources. They definitely have a good database.

Red Hat's built-in security features simplify risk reduction and maintain compliance because Linux is mostly open source. We're running most of the production servers in this operating system, so we don't require a third-party solution because RHEL has a great range of security products with an inbuilt firewall. The inbuilt firewall is highly dependable and we can customize rules for outbound and inbound traffic, and specific accesses can be quickly returned in the script files. It has a great command line.

Red Hat allows us to build with confidence and ensure availability across physical, virtual, and cloud infrastructures. It already has a reliable operating system. Most companies rely on it for deployment on cloud and on-premise. With cloud, they prefer Red Hat because of the high-performance computing cluster.

It has great support for VMs and unlimited VM support. It's being deployed in our data centers and other large environments. It allows us to streamline the management of our infrastructure and makes it possible for more than one hundred servers and VMs to run, and it's up to date.

Red Hat Linux enables us to achieve security standards certification.

The graphical user interface should be more user-friendly. It's a concern because the command line is perfectly fine.

I have used this solution for five years.

It's very stable.

It's definitely scalable because we're deploying it in our VMs.

Technical support is satisfactory. There are forums that are also useful.

Positive

We used CentOS. It's a different setup than Red Hat. CentOS is also a Linux-based distribution. CentOS is open-source, so we don't need to pay for it. Compared to CentOS, Red Hat has advanced features but the cost is still high, so it's problematic for medium-level customers.

We switched to Red Hat because the service providers like high-performance computing. We mostly have high-performance computing deployed in our data center. We needed Enterprise Linux as a minimum requirement. Red Hat Enterprise Linux supports high-performance computing solutions, and packages have to be installed from their repositories. That's a must for any IT enterprise organization now.

CentOS is an open-source solution and provides 70% of the features that Red Hat provides. We pay Red Hat for the repository and application support.

It has a great set of dependable packages, software, and a collection of utilities embedded in that operating system. We don't need to get apps from the repositories. There aren't a lot of errors in the Red Hat operating system, which makes it useful for our system administrator.

The initial setup is very easy. It took about four or five hours.

The solution requires maintenance and constant updates.

Implementation was done in-house by a team of three people.

The pricing and licensing are a bit higher for Red Hat Enterprise because we're able to get 70% of its features with the CentOS version. For the 30% of features that Red Hat provides, I think they need to reduce the licensing fee.

I would rate this solution as nine out of ten.

My advice is if you're actually testing, you don't need to go with this solution. If you're an advanced Linux user or server administrator, you will definitely require Red Hat because many of the latest solutions require dependency-based repositories. It will be very easy if you're active with this operating system.

This has a set of repositories built into the database. We don't need to go anywhere to set up all of the databases and repositories. Everything is embedded into the solution.

If you're looking for HPC and NVIDIA clusters, most of the supercomputers need to have the solution, so it's better to have it equipped with that.

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.

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.