Rocky 10 (Rocky Linux 10) | Support by SupportedImages

I am responsible for virtualization and networking, and other services related to the systems including Linux and Windows, but the security part is actually the responsibility of the French team in our headquarter.

Currently, I am dealing with Linux systems. We were on Red Hat Enterprise Linux  and because of the license system, we have changed to use Rocky Linux  and AlmaLinux .

Rocky Linux  is suitable for our needs. We haven't specialized applications, just managing our network. Here  we construct a model of infrastructure independent which must respond to the needs of our client, and we make tests. These are tests for VBS and some electronics that are made and developed here. It's an experimental infrastructure with many dynamic changes and many needs from our project manager. With our team, we can provide support as needed. We have a very good team with high skills in Linux and development, and it works correctly with no enterprise cost or enterprise license. At the same time, we have to conform to ISO 27001. We try to have the latest patch management, and we try to use some open source centralized platforms to manage or supervise what we have.

We are using Rocky Linux on servers including Cisco UCS M5, M4, and we have some Dells 750, 740, with high-performance computing tasks. We have stronger servers.

Rocky Linux is quite good for us and for the nature of our business. By using Foreman, Katello, for example, the management system and repository for patch management is very quiet and very good for our business because we don't need more.

Until now, we haven't had any problems with integration of Rocky Linux with other products in my system.

We haven't needed technical support for Rocky Linux, but I think because of the complexity and the number of VMs that we have, we can consider going for a support contract. It's not a bad idea because, while we haven't encountered very difficult problems, with the complexity of the network infrastructure, we need to be supported by the editor.

If I find something which is strong with virtualization with Rocky Linux, it's an alternative that I can study and spend time learning about, trying it, making tests, validating, and perhaps ultimately migrating.

We haven't implemented Rocky Linux container management yet, but we have an idea to find an alternative solution to VMware because of the license model. To migrate to a solution, we need to improve our skills for the first step, and for the second step, we must be able to support the developer teams. What I'm sure about is that we are looking for a solution for virtualization in order to migrate our VMware platform.

One year ago, we switched to version 9.4, Alma and Rocky Linux, and now we are on 9.5.

I cannot answer how Rocky Linux frequent updates have aided our organization in staying secure because it's not under my responsibility, but what I am sure about is that in the next three years, we will continue to use Linux.

I cannot judge if Rocky Linux is complex to use for the first time or if it is intuitive because we use very simple applications such as DHCP, DNS, ICS. I don't remember encountering any difficulties because the infrastructure is for tests and is not an enterprise infrastructure. We haven't deployed LDAP or Active Directory. We don't have this kind of complexity or mail servers. For storage, we are using the Dell EMC storage device hardware, Unity. We don't have the complexity to communicate with Rocky Linux or other systems with our storage network. Perhaps in the future, we might meet some difficulties, which is why I said it might be a good idea to have support for Rocky Linux.

The initial setup of Rocky Linux is easy. It's well done. For my team, we haven't found any problems in the first initial setup. We work with an image with which we can reconstruct what we need of the virtual component.

We were a customer of Red Hat for Linux distribution. We studied Rocky Linux and learned from documentation and information on the internet. It's the successor of CentOS , which we used for five to seven years. When CentOS  reached end of support, we tried to migrate. We got two alternatives, AlmaLinux  and Rocky Linux. It seems that Rocky Linux is more similar to CentOS than AlmaLinux. AlmaLinux is based on binary, and we identified some latency when using our application. Two or three servers are working on AlmaLinux currently, and all the rest was migrated to Rocky Linux.

The initial setup of Rocky Linux is easy. It's well done. For my team, we haven't found any problems in the first initial setup. We work with an image with which we can reconstruct what we need of the virtual component.

I would rate Rocky Linux seven or eight as a minimum.

We switched to Rocky Linux because of the license price, and in our business, we don't need to have a higher cost as that is not a good idea.

We studied Rocky Linux through documentation and information on the internet. It's the successor of CentOS, which we used for five to seven years. When CentOS reached end of support, we tried to migrate. We got two alternatives, AlmaLinux and Rocky Linux. Rocky Linux is more similar to CentOS than AlmaLinux. AlmaLinux is based on binary, and we identified some latency when using our application. Two or three servers are working on AlmaLinux currently, and all the rest was migrated to Rocky Linux.

I cannot understand the meaning of the question regarding whether we purchased Rocky Linux and AlmaLinux on the AWS Marketplace  or somewhere else. I am not sure if we bought our current products on AWS Marketplace .

The problem with all products now is the manner of licensing. Even international or worldwide enterprises have difficulties with the cost of the new model of license in Cisco, Red Hat, and VMware. After the Broadcom acquisition of VMware, every time we ask for a budget, we have difficulties getting what we need. It's becoming difficult for enterprises. Even though I'm working for Sagemcom, a worldwide enterprise, they don't want to spend money on this kind of license if it is not needed.

Rocky Linux is popular in my region as it's a successor of CentOS. CentOS was very popular, so everybody that used CentOS and lost the support will look for a solution to substitute it. The nearest alternative to CentOS is Rocky Linux.

I would rate Rocky Linux a 7 out of 10.

I have been using Rocky Linux  for three or four years. It is used for HPC, online assessments, and Ceph  storage.

The solution is free and open source.

The OS choice in my project is quite specific. It is based on customer requirements, as they might want to use Rocky Linux  or Ubuntu , depending on their needs.

The package versions can be quite older compared to other distributions such as Ubuntu .

I have been using this solution for about three or four years.

The deployment process is simple.

I would rate the stability an eight out of ten.

The scalability is quite good, though there are some issues with Rocky Linux. I would rate the scalability a five out of seven.

I rely on self-support and community resources.

Positive

I previously used VirtualBox but now tend to use Proxmox.

The initial setup is simple.

It involves a normal setup process using a USB drive or network installation.

It requires a plain installation. The server can be set up with UI, similar to a desktop installation in an on-premises environment.

I use Rocky Linux on the production server first. For Ubuntu installations, it depends on customer requirements.

The package management system requires attention when working with Rocky Linux.

There can be some issues with scalability that need consideration.

I would rate Rocky Linux an eight out of ten.

The platform's ease of setup, reliability, and minimal maintenance are valuable features. The custom install scripts streamline the setup process, making it straightforward.

Improved integration with Windows, particularly Active Directory, would be beneficial for the product. Currently, this aspect requires additional effort.

I have been working with Rocky Linux for approximately 18 months, which aligns with its release timeline. We are currently using version 9.4 of the solution.

The product is stable and reliable. I rate the stability a nine. 

Approximately 40 to 50 customers are using the solution. Most of our on-premises servers run Linux, with some running multiple instances. I would rate the scalability as a nine. It performs very well in scaling scenarios.

I have not utilized official technical support and have relied on community resources and forums.

The setup is straightforward, with minimal manual intervention. Depending on the customer's requirements, it is deployed on cloud-based systems or on-premises hardware. 

The deployment typically takes about an hour. Virtual machines can be set up in this timeframe, with additional time needed for specific customer configurations.

I rate the process a nine and a half. 

The product is expensive. I rate the pricing a three. 

The solution allows us to quickly set up multiple virtual machines, reducing costs and requiring less management than other systems.

 It is a robust solution for various server needs. I rate it a nine. 

I use the solution in my company to do some automation stuff to run Ansible, and it has an administration server to provide all the Linux control like a client node can be connected to that master node. Basically, it is an administration node, and I can manage all of the on-premises machines. Basically, it acts as a bastion host or jump host for me.

The most valuable feature of the solution is its stability. The tool's stability is similar to CentOS. The project for CentOS is not functional as of now, a reason why I moved to Fedora and Rocky Linux by another distributor.

I have certain problems with the tool's DNS part, making it an area where improvements are required.

I have been using Rocky Linux for three years and seven months.

Around 400 people in my company use the tool.

I have not contacted technical support for the solution.

I do use multiple operating systems, like CentOS, Red Hat, Fedora, and Rocky, which are all enterprise OS tools meant for commercial use only.

The product's installation, setup, and deployment are easy to manage.

The solution is deployed on an on-premises model. My company also uses AWS, Ubuntu versions, Amazon Linux versions, and Red Hat, so the images are used by opting for a cloud provider.

I rate the tool an eight out of ten.

I'm currently running the solution at home to teach myself all of the flavors of Linux. If a new one comes out that I don't know or haven't worked on, I'll install it and see how easy it is to configure and set up. I evaluate it for users who don't have very strong computers and want to move away from Microsoft because they don't want to upgrade.

I evaluate Linux as a recommendation so that users can get away from Windows because Windows is so memory-intensive. For people who have an older machine and can't necessarily run Windows 10 or Windows 11, I usually recommend a Linux flavor based on the hardware they're running.

The UX design, the user front end, and the user GUI are very well done on the GNOME and KDE platform side. It's very simple to work with, easy to learn, and know where things are. I have worked with a lot of different solutions like Debian, Ubuntu, Red Hat, and CentOS.

Rocky Linux is very easy, and if you switch from one to the other, you can easily detect your tools in the front end. Since it is very similar to the file system breakdown of downloads and documents, it's very easy to show users where things will be.

The solution's audio integration for virtual machines could be improved. It took me almost a day to get my audio drivers to work while running it as a virtual machine. I run Oracle Virtual Box. Within Oracle Virtual Box, I would really like it if they looked at the audio integration or the audio driver specifically for virtual machines.

I have been using Rocky Linux for five years.

Rocky Linux runs very well for me on low-resource systems, which only have four gigs of memory and one CPU. Rocky Linux is not very resource-intensive.

I rate the solution ten out of ten for stability.

If I put it on a low-spec machine, the solution's deployment will take a maximum of one hour, which is a reasonable amount of time. Comparatively, Windows takes much longer to deploy.

Rocky Linux is a cheap solution. Compared to the market prices of other tools, the solution has a very competitive pricing. The solution comes at such a price that I can recommend it to users who do not want to spend money. I spend no more than $10 per year for Rocky Linux.

For a Windows migration, I'll do a full backup to external, set up Rocky Linux, and bring it in. Then, I'll just import all the relevant files. Most solutions like Rocky Linux and Ubuntu have a downloads folder or documents folder. I try to recreate the user experience from a UX perspective to be the same.

One of the other Linux tools I'm currently evaluating is Zorin. Zorin looks almost identical to Windows. When you log in, the interface and everything looks very similar to Windows 11. CentOS, Rocky, and Zorin are three solutions that I recommend for users who want to move away from Microsoft but keep the same experience. I can make it look and feel the same way it looks and feels on Windows.

So, migrating a user from Windows is easy because as long as it looks the same, they don't really care what happens in the backend. They don't really care what happens when they click on a button. They just want to see what they saw when they worked on Windows.

I set Rocky Linux up to update once a week with the package management. It does its own updates, and as long as there's internet, there are no problems.

The transition to Rocky Linux wasn't as difficult as I had expected, but it wasn't as easy as I had expected because Rocky Linux is one of the lesser-known versions of Linux. When I had trouble with my audio drivers, very little information was available on resolving the issue. That was a little difficult, but it was purely because Rocky Linux is not as well known as Ubuntu, CentOS, or the bigger versions of Linux.

From that perspective, I struggled a bit. Otherwise, it was quite smooth. The only problem I had was on the audio side.

The solution's deployment time was very much dependent on the hardware that I was running it on. Depending on the hardware, it's quite simple because it has the same features as all the new Linux. I can also configure and run a little LVM installation.

I like the fact that, in a lot of ways, it's still the same as the old Linux and all the other Linux you know. It looks very similar, but it adds little tweaks, and it still looks like Rocky Linux when you're inside it.

Overall, I rate the solution ten out of ten.