As a developer, I pay around 10,000 Yen, which is around $100 per annum for support. SUSE and Red Hat are typically the same without standard support. The pricing is not a big deal. Enterprise customers will pay for the support. Enterprises have the money for one or two products like this that are reliable and supported.

As a consultant, I advise customers to go for support. You mitigate risks by having support. For your personal usage, you can manage without support, but when it comes to the enterprise level, you need to delegate things to people, and it should be through the proper channel. You need a proper point of contact.

The price is reasonable. I think it's a good value for what it is. It's not overpriced or extortionate. If it's something that's right for our environment, our infrastructure, and other factors, I think it's definitely worth considering. I don't think the price is a major concern.

This is not a cheap solution but it gets you the support if you ever need it. That said, it's nice to know that having Red Hat support is there but it's always stable so I hardly ever use it.

The single subscription and install repository for all types of systems makes it simple to purchase and install Red Hat. We had Red Hat x86 before this, and when we wanted to purchase the newer version, their system made it easy to complete the purchasing and installation processes.

There are a lot of other architectures available that we don't use, such as RSCT. They can be obtained from the repository but aren't applicable to us.

In addition to the standard licensing fees, we pay for Smart Management. This gets the Satellite and Insights features, which I recommend.

Overall, their subscription, process, and repository make for a streamlined purchase and installation process.

I like my developer account. The free sixteen licenses that they give with the developer account are great because that gives me the ability to keep using it at home instead of trying CentOS or something like that. Once CentOS went away or changed, I had the ability to just make a developer account and spin up my entire lab in Red Hat, which made it better anyway because that's what we use at work, and now I have a one-to-one instead of a clone-to-one.

I do not know enough to give a comprehensive answer, but other operating systems are in use at my company because they have more favorable licensing terms. This is a major factor in why we do not use Red Hat Enterprise Linux everywhere.

We have moved to the Simple Content Access (SCA) model. It is much easier to do renewals and see how I am using my licenses. I used to have to do it all by hand. It would take me a good couple of hours every few months to make sure that we were up to snuff on everything. However, with the new model that they have, this is very easy. I just go to cloud.redhat.com to look and see how I am utilizing my licenses. If I am running out of bounds, I can find out why. If it is simply that we have images that need to be removed, we remove those images. If we need to buy more licenses, then we can start the process of purchasing more licenses.

I think it is worth the price. I wish the pricing was a little bit more friendly, so when I go to my boss, he tells me, "That's too much money." I can say, "It's not too much money."

Especially if you are a newbie, buy the support and use the support. Get a couple of images going and really play around with them: crash them, burn them, and figure out how support functions when you have a really gnarly situation. Otherwise, it is just inserting the CD and booting the machine. It is very easy to set up and run.

A lot of people are moving into the core count for licensing. We still have a few with one-to-one standard server licensing, but we are utilizing the virtualization host licensing. We license it based on the host, not based on VMs, which is cool. I was very happy that there was certain licensing with SAP to have access to SAP repos. Its cost was the same as the regular one, so I was happy about that.

The only pricing that bugs me right now is the Ansible pricing. We wanted to take a look at Ansible, but the biggest thing a year back with Ansible was that the management did not want to spend half a million on Ansible Tower. They wanted to see first if we would use it and not waste money. I do not know if things have changed now, but Ansible is probably still expensive. That is one of the routes that we want to go to. We will see if we can utilize Ansible Tower, so pricing-wise, that is the only thing that pops up. It is too expensive. The cost of entry seems quite high.

Overall, I do not see any issues with what we have spent on Red Hat. We also have learning subscriptions that we pay to Red Hat for the training, and I do not feel we have wasted any money.

As a provider, we must follow a different licensing model. We charge €2,000 per system for three years. Each month, we provide Red Hat with a number of new and old systems. Red Hat then invoices us based on the number of systems in use that month. This only applies to our cloud customers.

The on-premises deployments are subscription based, and the cloud instances are from the providers which are AWS and Alibaba.

We can always ask for Red Hat Enterprise Linux to be less expensive but when we compare it to other options, there are savings in the long run.

Red Hat is making efforts to simplify the SKU system, which is a positive development. It's beneficial to have the flexibility to allocate a certain budget to explore different licenses within the Red Hat ecosystem. We can try out products and decide if they meet our needs. If they don't, we can decommission the corresponding SKU. I have noticed that we have some Red Hat entitlements that we are not currently utilizing, so having granularity in the SKU structure would be an advantage.

Pricing is always a critical factor for all IT departments. The cost of doing business is part of the nature of the job. If you're going to buy a bunch of Dell servers, for example, you have to take into consideration not just the licensing, but the hardware support and other things. The licensing with Red Hat is on par with other organizations like Microsoft.

We buy our licensing in bulk, meaning we buy perhaps 1,500 licenses at a time. They changed their licensing structure over the last couple of years. It used to be per system, whereas now, it's all or nothing. We don't have a subscription, as they used to offer, because they moved away from that. We have a site license, which gives us a certain number of servers, perhaps 25,000, for the type of license that we have. That works really well for us.

The way our structure is set up is that we just buy it by the tier system that they have, so if you have so many servers then you buy that tier and then you get so many licenses as part of that tier or enterprise package.

There are additional fees for using other Red Hat tools, such as Ansible Tower. We use Satellite, and it uses Ansible on the backend. However, we use the vanilla Ansible out of the box, rather than the official Red Hat Ansible Tower, simply because we can't afford the licensing for it. Satellite bundles everything together nicely in their suite of tools but we have moved away from that because of the additional cost.

This is one of the downsides to any operating system, not just Red Hat. Windows, for example, is the same way. They try to bill every organization for every license that they can by adding on different suites of tools that they charge for. A lot of organizations, especially the smaller ones, simply can't afford it, so they create workarounds instead. In our case, Ansible is freely available and we can use it without having to pay the fees for Red Hat's Ansible.

The nice thing though, is that they give you the choice. Red Hat doesn't force you to buy the entire product. They still have Ansible entwined with their Satellite product. The point is that if you want the additional features and functionality then you have to buy their Ansible Tower product, but you can still use the basic product regardless.

The fact that RHEL is open-source was a factor in us implementing it. This is an interesting time for Red Hat. The great thing about Red Hat for us was that we could use Red Hat and then we could use their free, commercial version, which is CentOS. It stands for Community Enterprise OS. Unfortunately, they are no longer going to push out CentOS and I think that 8.4 is the latest version of their free Red Hat distribution.

When we first went to Red Hat, in all the organizations I've ever worked at, being able to test things was one of the key factors. We could spin up a CentOS, implement a proof of concept and do some testing before we actually went to use RHEL, which is a licensed version. The real plus was that we could do testing and we could do all these things on the free version without having to eat up a license to do a proof of concept before we actually invested money moving in that direction, using that particular product or service.

Now that this ability has gone away, we are going to see how that pans out. I think Rocky Linux, they're hoping that that's going to be the next CentOS or free Red Hat. We'll see if that pans out or not but right now, it's a scary time for people that are dependent on CentOS for their free development environments, where we can just spin that up and play around. Right now, we're looking at how we're going to resolve that.

It may be that we have to eat up a license so that we can spin up a machine that we just want to do a proof of concept. This is something that we don't know yet. I don't have an answer because we simply don't have enough data to make an assessment on that.

Everything considered, having a free commercial version available, in addition to the paid product, is a big lure for us. They worked really well in tandem.

For the basic operating system, its price is fair. It is not cheap, and it is also not expensive. For the OpenShift or OpenStack implementation, the cost is a little higher than what I would expect, but it is doable. For a storage solution, it is almost impossible to pay.

In comparison to open-source competitors, RHEL has the most cost-effective open-source subscription model. The way I pay for everything, such as Ubuntu or RHEL, is very similar. When you compare how much money I put in for a customer, in terms of licensing, or even support, my margins with RHEL are really good. If I compare it with VMware or Hyper-V, which are not open source, the difference is totally insane.

The pricing could be better. The tool is getting expensive. Before, we could license only the hypervisor where Red Hat Enterprise Linux is running. Now, if a customer has a 12-node hypervisor, Red Hat Enterprise Linux forces customers to license all 12, even though they use only six.

The cost of Red Hat Enterprise Linux is reasonable. 

Regarding the prices, the new changes are actually not bad as it works for enterprise solutions. But it could have some other options for super solutions for the students in colleges, and they could actually win more customers from that. Of course, we have the test licensing and all that for the partners, where it's very useful for us to be able to test more of the products. But to win more would be much easier for us also if they introduce special pricing for students, universities, governmental institutions and all that. Most probably there is a price for them, but we haven't got that information. Also, Red Hat sometimes goes directly and not through the partner, but I'm not an expert.

The licensing is tricky to understand. Enterprises want to be beyond reproach when it comes to licensing. We would rather over-license than under-license. However, that can be complicated with a high-performance development team who may need multiple operating system instances or want to experiment with spinning up many machines to see if something works or sticks. 

We don't necessarily need support for those. Our procurement team is confused if we need a license for an instance that was only up for 15 minutes on Thursday. We need to make sure that we always have sufficient licenses. That misunderstanding of how cloud development works can sometimes slow down development. It inhibits the growth and success of Red Hat Enterprise Linux globally. So more education around that would be beneficial or at least will provide more clarity.

RHEL's total cost of ownership is difficult to quantify, but it's almost irrelevant. In cases where you don't care, you can always use an open-source OS. In other cases, you need the support and certification that comes with something like RHEL. I do not believe RHEL has any competitors in our use case.

If you implement Ansible, that's an additional cost. If you implement Satellite, that's an additional cost to your licensing. However, the amount of licensing if you license 100 servers is actually cheaper per server than licensing 50 or 25.

We get our licenses directly through Red Hat.

The licensing structure is very convoluted. It's very confusing. We have a Satellite server, and we license it through the Satellite server, but if we didn't, we'd have to buy individual Red Hat licenses. That would be a nightmare to maintain in terms of renewing it every year and things like that. 

When it comes to Red Hat Enterprise Linux pricing, I have a case to share. We recently sold Red Hat Enterprise Linux OS to one of our clients. Before that, I had another client who had concerns about the OS licensing and Red Hat Enterprise Linux's pricing model. The licensing model needs to be more flexible and dynamic because the cost of a single operating system license is relatively high. I'm not suggesting a reduction in cost but rather the introduction of a different model that allows clients to choose scalable options. For example, if a client has licenses for a few operating systems and wants to expand to 50, 100, or even 200, there should be a proposal that offers them flexibility. 

Currently, most clients tend to opt for a limited number of licenses and rely on the community for additional usage, which results in revenue leakage. Red Hat should consider adopting a more aggressive open license policy that encourages higher volume licensing with clients.

When you use Red Hat Enterprise Linux in production, it's worthwhile considering the cost. But even for non-production environments, the client will definitely calculate the expenses since it's a massive implementation for large clients with an operating system. You will open your laptop, and you just need an OS. So my suggestion is for Red Hat to create a business model that also targets the user level and desktop level, where Microsoft is widely used. Considering this eventuality and how many people are switching or still using Red Hat Enterprise Linux, we, as a partner, mandate that all our Red Hat team members use Red Hat Enterprise Linux. We don't allow them to use any Microsoft operating system or other operating systems. When engineers join the company and work in the Red Hat pillar, they have to use Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

When you are running your infrastructure on this, you can always find some discounts with local support, etc. There are always some discounts to match your budget. It is definitely affordable. 

When it comes to virtualization, there are different factors. There is not only Red Hat. There is also IBM, VMware, etc. The third-party vendors always manage to come up with a good offer. Our company can't say no to that, and it works out fine.

We also have IBM AIX, and when you compare these two, there's a huge difference because IBM AIX's support is quite higher than Red Hat's.

RHEL is competitive on-premises, but it's too expensive in the cloud. There are many cheap solutions for the cloud. In terms of upfront costs, open-source is more affordable and, in many cases, free. The long-term cost of support, staffing, and maintenance make it untenable. 

I'm not really involved in the pricing or the licensing. However, it may be expensive. We have different licenses. 

The solution is a good value for money. They keep adding up essential features to the specific subscription plan. I am also not a big proponent of top-level open-source applications as they do not provide support services. Whereas, with Red Hat, I can call them for queries and get answers immediately. In comparison, open source doesn't have that facility. Even if you hire a support vendor, they just give their opinions and try to help but they don't own the project.

At the end of the day, we have a 999.99% reliability of only 20 minutes a year of downtime with Red Hat. It is impossible to get that with open-source vendors as sometimes the applications might break if it doesn't notify about the changes on time. Conversely, Red Hat Enterprise Linux has a ten-year life cycle assurance, so we don't have to worry much. Also, we are in a TAM program. Thus, we can call the support team immediately for any issue.

The pricing is fair. The workstation licensing cost is fair. If you're running enterprise-level deployments, depending on what you're using, the volume licensing is good. I personally am worried that if they get so successful, they can increase the price, and then it won't matter because we'll be stuck on them. Hopefully, their open source mentality keeps that from happening. Where it's right now is good.

Our client has a direct subscription to Red Hat.

The pricing depends upon the customer's bill of materials and what the customers are planning. Sometimes, a reseller and vendor partners provide a better price. I recommended buying the Red Hat Virtual Data Center instead of buying the Red Hat Enterprise Linux standalone licenses if anyone just wants to run a workload in the cloud environment. Virtual Data Center is the most cost-efficient.

The Red Hat Enterprise Linux license has a one-time cost, but there is an ongoing subscription for support with various levels. The license is perpetual, but we pay annually for support. Red Hat's support license is robust. You get three levels of professional support plus community support. Our banking, finance, and telecom clients rely on Red Hat Enterprise Linux entirely for their production workloads, so they need to minimize downtime. There is no comparison between professional and open source. We can provide support for some of our clients and set up redundancy, so that's something we can consider when we're looking at licensing or support costs. 

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.

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

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

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

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

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

We purchased the solution from a third-party vendor.

We purchased our license from ITM, our local provider.

It is more expensive than other vendors in terms of pricing and licensing, but because of its stability, I have to go with it.

The product is on the expensive side.

RHEL's price seems to be consistently changing, depending on what you're after. We might need a more extended license to lock in a price if it keeps changing. It would be nicer if it stayed steady within a specific range, but it's negotiable. We try to negotiate, and maybe a more extended contract would be better. 

When comparing to other solutions, you must consider the reporting and security features. It's an expense that we need to pay in terms of compliance. When you talk with your partner companies or potential customers, they need to know that we're on the ball and keeping up.

There are special academic offerings for academic institutes, which is pretty good. We need these offerings. In my personal opinion, the prices are okay. However, for educational purposes, they could be lower. For example, in Germany, the budget in the education sector for IT is lower compared to the huge universities in the US.

When you are only using the RHEL subscription system, it is okay. It can get complicated very quickly when you need multiple different subscriptions with a lot of SKUs. 

When someone is going to look into RHEL, I suggest starting with an individual developer subscription, which everyone can get for free. With developer subscriptions, you won't be able to contact support, but you have almost all of the important applications and features of RHEL for free. You are not allowed to build your whole production on it, but you are able to develop applications, test configurations, test the platform, and try out almost everything.

I'm only using this solution as an admin and, therefore, have no visibility on costs. 

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is expensive. We have changed the cloud provider's subscription to a pay-as-you-go model. 

The pricing model isn't something I deal with directly. The pricing is fair, especially compared to virtualization like VMware. We do use VMware and are thinking about moving sandboxes and testing over to Red Hat. This may end up being a big cost savings with our CAPEX and OPEX. 

From the price level, the cost is almost the same for us, if we look at Red Hat versus SUSE, however, we get a higher level of support with Red Hat. 

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is starting to realize some other companies are gaining some footing in the industry. Red Hat's pricing still needs to get a little bit better. When you look at what you pay for a subscription compared to what you can pay with some of these other companies that do offer a lot of technical backing behind them, it starts turning heads.

Red Hat should focus on making enhancements and providing better support in that arena.

The pricing is good and not complex. It is available per user, monthly. We have opted for the user space. It is quite comparable to other solutions on the market and Red Hat is a very old brand, one you can easily trust.

Operating in the cloud space, we typically point our customers to pay-as-you-go licensing, which comes through the various cloud providers repository services.

If you don't buy the Red Hat subscription, you don't get technical support, and you don't have all the updates. 

To have everything working like a charm, the cost that you pay for it is worth it. In Bolivia, we don't have the best internet connection. Therefore, we have a local service with all the packages, repositories, etc. We manage them locally, and because we have a subscription, we can update them. So, we have local repositories with all the packages and other things to make it easy for us to update all the servers. Without the Red Hat subscription, we cannot update anything.

It's affordable, but everything costs money. At the same time, everything adds value for our clients.  For example, I was working on a machine-learning project, and they needed more team resources, and all the projects used computing power. By running multiple clusters, the client exceeded the rate for that data. We buy services from AWS, the Azure Marketplace, or directly from Red Hat. 

It seems to be fair. It is not overpriced. I went to the simple model, and that makes it easier for us to deploy.

We purchased it directly from Red Hat. Compared to open source, it's very pricey, but you get the support, which makes it much better.

We purchased the Red Hat Enterprise Linux license via Azure and the vendor.

The pricing is fair. We do a bunch of dev work and there is some free dev licensing out there that's great for doing proof of concept work. When that was brought out a couple of years ago we heard about it, but it didn't seem to have been communicated to our Red Hat representative. We would ask him about it and it seemed that they were confused. 

But the cost has been pretty stable over the years for what you get.

We figure out what we need for servers, make our purchase, and then manage it all in Satellite. We just make sure we're using what we pay for.

We have to pay for the support and features.

The distinguishing feature between open-source competitors and Red Hat Enterprise Linux is the comprehensive support that Red Hat Enterprise Linux provides. Red Hat Enterprise Linux no longer faces competition from HP and Digital in terms of support services, as these companies have ceased offering their solutions. IBM remains the sole competitor, but they recently acquired Red Hat, essentially consolidating the support landscape.

For me, it is not too bad, but my company pays the bill, so I do not worry too much about it. 

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is expensive, but it's hard to quantify. Oracle doesn't have a license. You just download Oracle software and use it, but their support is way more expensive. So they're about the same. With these types of operating systems, you need to have some support. With Red Hat Enterprise Linux, you need to pay a massive upfront licensing fee in order to get support. You don't have to pay a licensing fee for Oracle, but then you pay a massive support fee to get the support.

They're about the same overall. I don't really make that choice for my clients. I ask them to ensure that they do have some support from someplace. If they suffer a breach and need someone to help fix the problem, they should have something up and running when it happens instead of running around trying to arrange it.

The pricing is great for virtual systems. The pricing for physical systems is way too high.

The overall costs depend on the project and the company.

I don't know about the pricing because I am not responsible for taking decisions about products used in the enterprise. Our clients use this product, and we use this product with the clients. In my home office, I use a free operating system. There is no support, but I can use it to practice. Our clients need support because it's used in the production environment. I don't know the price of the product, but I understand that with the support that Red Hat offers, compared to other operating systems, Red Hat Enterprise Linux is cheap.

I don't have any issues with the licensing or pricing. In general, OpenShift is a little more expensive. It's a bit expensive to have the number of containers we need and for disaster recovery but it's been worth the money because it's helped us get to the cloud faster.

RHEL has a decent pricing model. It's a subscription, which makes sense. The OS itself is free, but you pay for the support. I have never heard any complaints about the pricing.

You can also purchase a virtual data center license that allows you to set up a hundred virtual servers. You can also add a Satellite license subscription to your standard server. There are several different add-ons that will increase the price of the subscription, depending on the functionality you need.

It's hard for me to compare Red Hat with other open-source solutions because we only have clients who work with Red Hat Linux. Of course, there are entirely free ones you could use. Fedora is the most extensive free version of Red Hat. You could use Ubuntu or any other Linux flavor, which is mostly free. However, I have no idea what additional cost you'd pay if you want to support.

The cost is based on each organization's budget and infrastructure.

Its pricing is good and competitive.

The solution's pricing and licensing are good. Although the open-source space is becoming more competitive, Red Hat brings value in terms of support. At the same time, different operators like Canonical Kubernetes are catching up. Thus, the price would become the differentiation factor regarding packages for support, and container ecosystem combined with Ansible. All these key elements would add more value to the pricing.

The solution can get pretty pricey depending on how many machines we're licensing but for a good reason.

We purchased our license from Red Hat.

RHEL is a great place to go. They have a great thing that is not very well-known, which is called the Learning Subscription, which is a one-year all-you-can-drink access to all of their online self-paced courses as well as their certifications. While it is a premium to have the certifications as well, it is very cool to have that because you end up as a Red Hat certified engineer in a hurry. It is good to have the training because then you are fully versed in doing the Red Hat approach to the equation, which is a no-nonsense approach.

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 transferred our license to the cloud because we were originally a VMware on-prem shop. We're transitioning some of our workloads to cloud licensing. Also, I have opted for a subscription. I don't know where we got it from because when I came to the company, it was already in place.

The solution's pricing is reasonable and it is less expensive than other products such as Windows or Oracle. Pricing was definitely an advantage for our company. 

The cost could be lower. Red Hat is considered a costly solution. It can be expensive if you want all the features in the license. A cheaper license would make Red Hat more accessible to a broader range of users. It's reasonable given the features and performance, but a lower price would encourage more people to adopt it.

They are becoming very competitive. There has been more pressure based on competition, which is healthy. They could continue to work on their pricing model. The subscription model for some products needs improvement. The automation shouldn't be combined with managed hosts. Pricing should be based on socket and not endpoints. 

Its licensing is pretty confusing. There are a lot of subscriptions, and it isn't always clear which subscription is the best, but with their support, it's easy to find the right one.

Our customers sometimes buy it directly from the cloud provider, but most of the time, they have a hybrid infrastructure, so they already have some kind of subscription, and they use that subscription on the cloud.

Their licensing is quite okay. It isn't expensive, and it's slightly cheaper than Microsoft. Taking into account its features, its price is okay.

Support is something that serious enterprises would want to have. The advantage of running an open-source tool is that you do not have to pay for the tool in terms of licensing, but you don't have support. In certain situations, you might need support. For example, when one of your systems goes down, but you do not have the expertise internally to recover it. Depending on the industry you're working with, having downtime might not be optimal or might be costly. It might even be costlier than paying for the support or licensing of Red Hat.

Apart from support, for organizations that have some of their services exposed to the public internet, security is very important. They would want the patches for the latest common vulnerability exposures found to be affecting the particular systems they are running. So, support and security are the key features why any serious organization should choose Red Hat as opposed to an open-source tool.

The prices are comparable, and good for what is being provided.

The price is something that can be improved, as they are still being undercut.

We are an educational institution and as such, what we pay is less than the average company. There are no costs in addition to the standard licensing fees.

Red Hat's single subscription and install repository for all types of systems is something that we're quite interested in because it's simpler and easy to manage hundreds of virtual machines. However, from a pricing standpoint, it's part of the problem because it's what Red Hat utilizes to explain why they cost more.

The Oracle licensing of support for the same Red Hat product is cheaper, and it's cheaper to the level of significance that it makes it worthwhile. We have spoken with the salespeople at Red Hat about it, and they have said that there was nothing they could do.

It's starting to become a question mark over the patching with version eight. We might be changing, but we're unlikely to be changing from Red Hat. It's more a case of who's running our support, be it Oracle or Red Hat. However, we would need to look at the numbers next time we renew, which is not until next year.

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

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.

It is cost-effective.

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. 

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.

The best thing to do is to go to developers.redhat.com and get free subscriptions for RHEL products, so you can try them out and see how they work before you go ahead and purchase or subscribe.

As far as I know, there are no costs in addition to the standard licensing fees.

The solution's price is reasonable. If you have a license for the support, they provide excellent services. The support team is always available for help in case of errors or system downtime issues.

From a management point of view, it's quite good, but everyone is complaining that it's more expensive than the other operating systems.

We got the license through a third party. They buy licenses in bulk for us. We pay them, and they handle the licensing.

Moreover, Red Hat's pricing and licensing structure seems fine. There's not a huge separation. The licenses can cover everything without worrying about the core count, socket count, or similar complexities like VMware and other big companies. It's simple enough to figure out which support contract you want based on the level of support you need.

It's an open source product.

The pricing of RHEL is very similar to other offers. We like the model that Red Hat makes available for subscription and support. There are some free parts, subscriptions that facilitate solution development and implementation, and then, when the solution is well-defined, we move into the paid support license. That kind of subscription is a good approach.

The overall cost of RHEL versus its competitors is comparable. It's more or less the same as SUSE. But the support from Red Hat is better than you get from the others.

I have purchased the license via hyperscalers and transferred it as well. I purchased the license from the marketplace and also from Red Hat.

Pricing is something that can always be better.

We use open source. We only have a subscription for support.

The pricing is a bit on the expensive side, mainly because of the support they provide. However, it is quite affordable if you are an organization. If, as a small company or individual, this is an expensive option, I would recommend CentOS, which is an exact replica of RHEL, minus the customer support.

The pricing is competitive. It's not low, but it is in the market. 

Because it's a very stable solution, if you have the knowledge in-house, go for a regular subscription. Otherwise, buy the Premium Support.

I believe for an enterprise-level operating system and the feature set RHEL offers, it's like any other enterprise platform cost. The introduction of OpenShift is also a big plus in terms of deployment and management of container based workloads. Red Hat as mentioned earlier can improve a bit on support/ subscription costs.

I think the licensing costs are reasonable. 

This is a cost-effective solution.

In Australia, you need to go through a channel partner, shop around and find a good partner that understands the licensing model well.

We have a site license on a yearly basis. Generally, we're okay with its price, but everything could be cheaper.

RHEL is expensive. The servers or cloud images are quite expensive. But I guess the client groups they target can afford that kind of a license. If you're a small business owner or a student and want to shift to RHEL, you must spend a lot of dollars. The developer version of RHEL has minimal functionality, but it's given away for free.

The price for Red Hat Enterprise Linux is reasonable.

 I was an engineer, never discussed pricing.

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

The licensing valor is too high and must be improved

No more support and licensing.