I'm using the Red Hat Platform with Open Stack and an RHEL product for storage. The use case is performance IOPS for Ceph Storage, which depends on a bare-metal RHEL server. 

For my security customer, we get greater than 90 percent uptime. RHEL helped us achieve security certification. It helped my end-user pass their security assessment. RHEL's built-in security features scan the third-party layer in the OpenStack and RHEL platform to assess the SSH and firewall security or patch updates from the RHEL platform and reset OpenStack. Security is the number one priority for my end user. They want to prevent hacker access from the outside. 

RHEL supports the hybrid cloud strategy. The goal of using a bare metal server has been to improve availability and database performance. The OpenStack platform uses network capability to improve database performance.

RHEL improves database and application performance for my end users. The application can collect regional and national data for my end user, a strategic customer in Indonesia.

I am confident in the managed services RHEL provides in terms of the OpenStack, Ceph Storage, and OpenShift container-based products. If there are any problems with the RHEL platform, Open Stack, Ceph Storage, etc., I can raise the issue to RHEL global support. 

For the past twenty or thirty years, Red Hat has reengineered its product from bare-metal on-prem to the cloud environment. Migrating an RHEL system from bare metal to cloud is somewhat difficult. They could add a fast boot. 

We deployed one side of RHEL in 2023, and we'll deploy the other side in 2025.

When I deploy RHEL for the first time, I try to learn about the performance and tune the performance. 

Scalability isn't an issue. Our customers haven't reported any performance problems from scaling up.

I rate Red Hat support eight out of 10. I have used Red Hat support since 2023. They escalate the ticket based on severity, and if they can't resolve the issue within the maintenance window, they will pass me to another engineer. 

Positive

We previously worked with Oracle Linux. My customer has two divisions. The network decision is focused on accounting database performance, while the IT division uses Oracle Linux. On the network side, the customer uses RHEL products like OpenStack, Ceph Storage, and OpenShift. 

My end user wanted to upgrade from RHEL OpenStack 16.1 to the latest 17.1.3 in April 2024. We also upgraded Ceph Storage and OpenShift. Now, my customer wants a testbed before upgrading to the RHEL version in live production. If there are problems, we open a ticket with global support and or two people will join our remote call. We have it deployed in Jakarta and plan to deploy it to Bandung.

I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux eight out of 10. I recommend all the Red Hat products, including OpenShift and Ceph Storage. OpenShift Container is a mature product for RHEL portal customers.

The primary software utilized across our business units is S4HANA, which runs on our SAP server hosted on Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Consequently, most Red Hat systems in our environment support SAP-related services. We operate approximately 105 Red Hat Enterprise servers dedicated to running these SAP services.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux was implemented due to its robust infrastructure, which allows us to efficiently manage our enterprise servers on a large scale using tools like Red Hat Satellite, Insight, and Ansible. This centralized management simplifies the orchestration and control of our extensive RHEL environment. Red Hat Identity Manager also ensures secure authentication and authorization for our remote systems. Beyond infrastructure, Red Hat's robust support is invaluable, providing timely solutions to complex issues. The operating system's strong security posture, including rapid patch deployment for vulnerabilities, further solidifies our decision to implement RHEL.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux simplifies risk reduction by integrating Red Hat Insights. This provides a comprehensive security posture assessment of our Red Hat systems, offering easy-to-understand best practice recommendations and applicable actionable remediation steps.

The knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux is detailed and contains numerous articles that can help resolve our issues.

Red Hat Satellite simplifies our patch process by helping us meet audit and compliance needs. We've set up a lifecycle environment within Satellite to test patches on development and quality systems before deploying them to the operating system. This allows us to roll out patches based on the environment, ensuring thorough testing before reaching production. Additionally, we leverage Ansible automation to streamline provisioning and manage patches effectively. While automation is ongoing, we have successfully implemented Ansible and Red Hat Satellite for provisioning, and we continue to identify areas for further automation within our environment.

Red Hat Insights provides best practice recommendations based on regular system assessments. Like other security tools like Microsoft Azure Defender, it can access a system to offer security improvement suggestions. I have a Red Hat Insights certification and find the tool valuable. It generates actionable recommendations that can be easily implemented through automated processes like FastScript, making it an efficient way to leverage data insights for enhanced system security.

Since implementing Red Hat Enterprise Linux, we have experienced high performance, improved security, excellent support service, and easier system management.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has enhanced our security posture through timely security patch releases and best practice recommendations, which collectively have increased the protection of our data systems.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux allows me to manage all my Cloud and on-premise systems from one console.

The most valuable aspect of Red Hat Enterprise Linux is its ease of management. A robust suite of tools, including the user-friendly GUI and the powerful Red Hat Cockpit web portal, simplifies system administration. Cockpit provides a centralized platform for managing hosts, while Red Hat Satellite or automation servers excel at overseeing large fleets of radar systems.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux training and certification opportunities for engineers and administrators could be improved. While I have benefited from free training offered by other companies like Microsoft, I have not had similar opportunities with Red Hat. Despite holding a Red Hat certification, I incurred significant costs to achieve it. The training required for these certifications is expensive, and it would be advantageous if Red Hat provided more affordable training courses.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for seven months.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is highly stable.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is scalable.

The support is good.

Positive

I have used Ubuntu Linux, Windows Server, and other solutions. Compared to these alternatives, Red Hat Enterprise Linux stands out as superior in terms of ease of management, security, and support.

The initial deployment is straightforward. Deploying it manually takes about fifteen to twenty minutes from start to finish using it manually.

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

We have 15,000 users all across Africa that use our systems.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux requires periodic maintenance to apply security patches and updates.

I recommend Red Hat Enterprise Linux and conducting a proof of concept to ensure it aligns with our requirements.

I use Red Hat in data routines for web, database, and container servers. Right now, I'm using three primary use cases.

Red Hat offers compliance consulting services. If we purchase hardware from companies like HP, Dell, or IBM, which also partner with Red Hat, they often guarantee compliance for their hardware. This compliance can extend to security regulations imposed by certain countries or governments, such as those based on NIST or CSSP standards. Red Hat's focus on compliance seems to center primarily around these hardware-related aspects and associated security requirements.

Red Hat's knowledge base requires an active subscription for full access, but developers can utilize a free, annually renewable option. With an activated developer subscription, users gain access to forums, documentation, the latest news, vulnerability reports, and other resources related to Red Hat Enterprise Linux and its associated packages. The knowledge base is now well-documented, and the active community quickly responds to forum inquiries, often within a few hours.

Leap is a feature designed by Red Hat to migrate its operating systems between versions. Introduced to address the end-of-life issue for distributions like CentOS seven, eight, and RHEL seven, eight, Leap allows users to upgrade from RHEL seven to eight, RHEL eight to nine, CentOS seven to eight, and CentOS eight to nine. However, Leap is specifically designed for Red Hat and works optimally only on Red Hat seven, eight, and nine. It does not function as intended on CentOS, Fedora, Oracle Linux, or other community distributions. Red Hat Insights is a complementary tool that provides valuable information to subscription holders about their licensed servers, including package installations, subscription validation, detected bugs, and vulnerabilities. It also offers alerts about new vulnerabilities and patches and facilitates license management and environment oversight.

I've used Convert2RHEL, a tool that simplifies transitioning from CentOS-based distributions like Leap to Red Hat Enterprise Linux. It supports converting only CentOS to RHEL by replacing binaries and installing Red Hat logos. Underlying Ansible scripts entirely handle this process. While I've had success with it, occasional minor issues arise but are easily resolved.

I have experienced minimal downtime while using RHEL. Some of our RHEL systems have operated uninterrupted for over 600 days. The only necessary reboots occur when applying kernel updates. Overall, RHEL has demonstrated reliable and resilient uptime and security.

Due to its built-in compliance features, RHEL is instrumental in achieving certifications for security standards. The system incorporates policies that align with regulations for governance and public institutions. When installing Red Hat Enterprise Linux in the cloud or on-premises, users must implement security policies that activate specific plugins and APIs to maintain compliance. Given its comprehensive coverage of contemporary compliance standards, Red Hat is the most valuable distribution.

Release updates are the most valued feature because Red Hat's rigorously tested release update pipeline sets it apart from other distributions. While many options are available, none match Red Hat's commitment to thorough package testing. Packages are initially delivered to Fedora, Red Hat's community distribution, for testing and validation. Proven packages then transition to CentOS, and after six months, the most stable and reliable packages are incorporated into the new Red Hat release. This well-defined pipeline ensures that Red Hat packages are stable and long-lasting. However, not all packages released in Fedora make it to Red Hat; some experimental or community-driven packages may not meet enterprise standards. Fedora serves as a testing ground, while Red Hat focuses on delivering a stable operational system.

Red Hat, known for its secure distribution, sometimes delays critical security patches for certain packages compared to other Linux communities like AlmaLinux or Rocky Linux. For instance, AlmaLinux addressed recent vulnerabilities in the SSH package within days, while Red Hat took over a week to release a patch. While Red Hat's rigorous testing ensures high-quality patches, the delay in releasing them can pose security risks.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is a highly regarded but expensive distribution known for its top-notch software. This high cost often precludes smaller companies from adopting it. There is potential to make Red Hat Enterprise Linux more accessible to a wider range of businesses by lowering the price.

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

I previously encountered instability with an assistant. While using a non-Red Hat graphical interface, KDE, I experienced a system crash following a kernel update. This desktop environment proved incompatible with the new kernel. Conversely, servers utilizing only the command line never suffered crashes or downtime. I've observed the opposite trend in my Red Hat infrastructure, demonstrating exceptional resilience. For instance, during a complete data center outage two or three years ago, Red Hat systems recovered within minutes, while Ubuntu servers required significant maintenance. This suggests that Red Hat offers greater stability and reliability in our environment.

Specific features such as path movement and load balancing must be enabled when running routes within a cluster. Pre-installed software simplifies the process for system administrators to implement smart clusters and scale servers. Among various distributions, Red Hat is considered the most proficient in these areas, excelling in scalability and cluster server management.

The deployment was challenging, not because of Red Enterprise Linux itself but because the application runs within this distribution. Certain legacy software required manual installation on this new system, which complicated the migration process. However, the operating system itself is straightforward and plug-and-play. The difficulties arose from configuring the necessary applications within the distribution. I've had no issues working with or migrating to this distribution.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is only affordable for large organizations.

If I had to choose alternatives to RHEL, I would consider Oracle Linux and AlmaLinux. Oracle Linux is an enterprise distribution based on Red Hat, offering binary compatibility, meaning applications built for Red Hat Linux will run identically on Oracle Linux. It is an enterprise-grade product without the associated costs, as the distribution itself is free, with charges only for optional support. While I believe AlmaLinux is more resilient and reliable than RockyLinux, my preferred alternatives would be Oracle Linux first, followed by AlmaLinux.

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

Cockpit is a technology offering a web-based console for server management. This web console can also perform any action achievable through the command line interface. However, I do not recommend it due to the inherent security risks of running a web server, especially when managing another web server. This introduces additional vulnerabilities and necessitates increased patching efforts. My preference is to maintain a minimalist system that runs only essential services. While Cockpit might be suitable for junior system administrators in the RHEL environment, as a senior administrator, I exclusively utilize the CLI, both on-premises via SSH and in cloud environments. I would only consider implementing Cockpit if we have junior staff and are willing to implement robust security measures such as firewalls, access control lists, and other protective strategies.

I used Red Hat Enterprise Linux to construct systems according to the application team's requirements. I build and support these systems through the development, testing, pre-production, and production phases, fulfilling both developer and operational roles. To ensure the systems can handle the application's demands and meet our cybersecurity standards, I implement all security measures outlined by our cybersecurity team.

The extensive knowledge base offers a full path from beginner to advanced levels. We can access everything needed to study, pass exams, and apply knowledge immediately. The information is presented clearly, without any abstract concepts.

Red Hat offers built-in security features that simplify risk management. Unlike Oracle Linux, which overlooks critical security features like C Linux, Red Hat actively develops and maintains robust security measures. As a result, Red Hat prioritizes system security, consistently providing updates to fortify its machines against potential threats.

Red Hat helps us maintain compliance by enabling us to create and modify firewall rules as needed, allowing for strong security measures that can be adjusted.

The security reports generated every three months are valuable for provisioning and patching as they identify vulnerabilities requiring remediation. I find all the necessary information to address these vulnerabilities and implement patches through the Red Hat Enterprise portal and community resources.

When I started using Red Hat Enterprise Linux five years ago, I noticed the benefits incrementally over time.

Red Hat's greatest asset is its extensive community, which provides valuable support and advice when issues arise. Due to the robust nature of this community, I have never required direct assistance from Red Hat Enterprise.

Red Hat offers customizable tools, such as Assemble, that enhance flexibility within enterprise products. Assemble is a platform capable of managing multiple systems from a single console.

While Red Hat offers essential starting and security documentation, I would like to see it officially recognize the more detailed and customized documents available in the community and make them accessible on its website.

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

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is the most stable system I have ever worked with.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is scalable.

I changed jobs five months ago, and my new company uses Oracle Linux instead of Red Hat, so Oracle provides support rather than Red Hat.

I find Red Hat Enterprise Linux more flexible, with a larger community and numerous security advisors.

We found it less complex to build a new system on the newer version of Red Hat Enterprise Linux and migrate data rather than upgrading the existing system from, for example, version seven to eight. A simple upgrade risks data loss.

One person can do the upgrades and migrations.

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

The system requires immediate maintenance due to necessary security patches, unresolved vulnerabilities, and a constant influx of operational tasks from other teams. These daily demands include critical adjustments such as modifying service ports and implementing local firewall rules.

I recommend new users visit the official Red Hat Enterprise Linux website to review the guides, explore the community, and research information related to their Red Hat Enterprise Linux tasks. 

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux to maintain our systems, manage our user logs, and monitor our storage.

The fact that Red Hat Enterprise Linux is stable has led to more enterprises wanting to use it. All the updates are current from a security point of view. So, the fact that we are one-managed or subscription-managed through Red Hat Enterprise Linux keeps us secure.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux's built-in security features simplify risk reduction and help maintain compliance, which gives us peace of mind.

The knowledge base of Red Hat Enterprise Linux depends on the end user. However, the information is always there, and the most reliable information is from the Red Hat system.

We have a dedicated server for provisioning and patching, and I am satisfied with how it works.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux's Image Builder and System Roles improve our productivity by increasing efficiency.

The Web Console is helpful because we use it to monitor and record users if we choose to, as well as check our system to make sure everything is up to date and we are current with the latest patches.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux helps us be more compliant.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux's ease of use in a controlled system, especially when dealing with constant repository updates, is valuable.

From a monitoring standpoint, we have Splunk, which is more versatile in monitoring data files, and Nagios, which can monitor multiple instances via Windows or Linux servers and different boxes. If Red Hat Enterprise Linux can improve its monitoring capabilities, that would be helpful.

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

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is stable.

I have not submitted any support tickets because we can find all the answers we need from the RHEL community for minor issues.

Positive

Red Hat has been the industry standard for most companies, but sometimes, organizations will run a Windows server and Active Directory alongside it.

The critical difference between Red Hat and Windows lies in their user interfaces. While both share a similar underlying structure, Windows offers a graphical interface for easy interaction, while Red Hat relies on command-line prompts. This makes Red Hat a more secure environment.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux helps improve efficiency, reducing vulnerability and, ultimately, a higher return on investment by minimizing IT costs and downtime.

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

We have between 100 and 200 end users. Red Hat Enterprise Linux is deployed in a standard, dev, quality, staging, and production environment.

Maintenance is minimal for Red Hat Enterprise Linux. We only deal with updates and patches.

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux to run Oracle Databases for CC&B and JDM. All the RHEL stuff is on-prem. The CC&B team manages the customer care and billing stuff, but we take care of the operating systems, and the application users manage the applications. We have 200 to 300 users on RHEL. 

We are missing random devices for patching and everything, and we don't have the Linux data license for that. If we had that, life would be much easier. Right now, we patch using Yum updates and we manually do configuration changes from our end.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux improves our security. On our end, we only use the console to reboot the server and apply security. We patch it completely if we have any security updates. Every quarter, we run a report using quality and whatever it was pulling. That's what we are patching. 

Red Hat Enterprise Linux makes patching and scripting much easier, and it provides all the features I need for patching and VM updates. It's easy to apply Red Hat Enterprise Linux's built-in security features when it comes to simplifying risk reduction or maintaining compliance.

For phone support, we had to buy a license for all our servers, and it was a bit pricey for us. 

I have used RHEL for 21 years.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is highly stable. We've never had any problems or crashes. It's very smooth from our end.

It's easy to scale Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Right now, we're discussing what will happen a year from now, when we plan to increase our usage. 

I rate Red Hat customer service eight out of 10. Their knowledge base is fantastic. You can easily find whatever you need. Their support responds immediately, whereas we struggled with support from Oracle. 

We were using Oracle Linux, and I don't see much difference except the support. We were not getting good support from Oracle because it took too long whenever we opened a ticket. Oracle was also too expensive, and patching is much easier with Red Hat Enterprise Linux. We were not looking for more features. Oracle Linux has a lot more packages than we need.

Setting up Red Hat Enterprise Linux was straightforward. You need at least two system admins to do so. Migrations and upgrades are also easy. Our main products are CC&B and JDM, with an Oracle database on the back end. We were highly satisfied with Red Hat Enterprise Linux for migrating all of those. We also have other solutions like SQL Server, which is on the Windows operating system.

Performance-wise, this Linux is better because you can ignore some packages if you don't need them. 

Oracle Linux is free, but we were having many other issues with it.

I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux nine out of 10. Red Hat Enterprise Linux is very easy to install and manage. 

We run web apps. We run databases. We run a high-compute platform on Red Hat Enterprise Linux variants.

All of our customers run Red Hat Enterprise Linux. We run Red Hat Enterprise Linux for mesh nodes. For anything Linux, if we can use Red Hat Enterprise Linux because it is supported, we put it on Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Probably 60% to 80% of our infrastructure is Red Hat.

Having a stable Linux platform means I am not spending my time rebuilding Linux systems, constantly patching, and doing things like that. It helps to have an approved and supported platform. I know they have tested everything and when I patch my system, it is not going to blow up. It just does not happen. The other thing is that we have had catastrophic failures, and they have helped us out of these catastrophic failures. The support for Red Hat Enterprise Linux has always been good, and the community around Red Hat Enterprise Linux has been fantastic.

We were also CentOS users, so we have committed to AppStream as well. Being a part of the community has been a huge benefit for us. Community adoption means it is easy for people to find information. It helps new people get on boarded into Linux.

We mostly have an on-prem environment. VMware is a significant chunk. We do have some Red Hat clusters. We do have clustered applications, both physical and virtual, running on the cluster. We do have some cloud. We have our own internal cloud with VMware running behind the scenes. Having a consistent image means things always look the same. It is boring, but it is cookie-cutter. That is what we like. We like everything to come out the same. We have consistency and the ability to patch across our entire environment. We are also a Satellite user, so we are able to patch everything and maintain everything in a single pane of glass. It means I can have fewer admins administering many more machines. If you have a reduction in failure and an improvement in automation, things just work.

We have created what we call creator nodes. We have built a platform on Red Hat with Podman so that they can connect with Visual Studio code and do development or Ansible development. We now have our mainframe people developing automation with Linux with all of the plugins right there. It is a consistent environment for them, and that has been awesome. That has been fantastic. We have a few hiccups with Podman. They are working on the permissions to be able to have multiple people run Podman. They are working on the UID and GID problem that we had earlier. Right now, we are running Docker, but I am planning on moving to Podman once they fix that. We have also automated the build process for those nodes. If we need to scale up, we build a couple more VMs, and we are done.

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux for containerization projects. We are containerizing applications. We are pulling the Windows container that we have and converting it to the Red Hat Enterprise Linux container. At the Red Hat Summit, the keynote about image RHEL with systemd blew my mind. It is a change from what we have been doing, but it should make a lot of things more reachable for us. It is cool because now my container image looks like my VM image. You cannot make it simpler for people to develop in a container. It looks the same. There is no difference. That is going to drive heavy adoption with us because if there is no difference, people are not going to have that fear of something new. It has 100% impacted our projects in a positive way. We have started to migrate all of our workloads to OpenShift now that we have got it in the door. It makes a lot of sense. I can redeploy. I can patch. I can do all this with code. I do not have to maintain a VM and a container. It makes life simple.

We have seen a drop in TCO because we ended up buying more than building. When you build something, there is the hidden cost of support, training, and the precarious position you get in if you deploy something you do not fully understand. We were there. We had five instances and a bunch of complexity. We reduced that down to one. We were able to simplify our complex nature. That is what Red Hat has allowed us to do. We have been able to roll out and we have been consistent. I have got machines out there that have been running for two or three years with no problems. They just patch them in the background. It just works.

I love systemd. They have made some significant improvements with the firewalld console. I do not use it that much, but I know it makes Linux reachable for people who are not normally Linux admins.

I just love the command line configuration. It makes that easy for me. Another thing is that when you combine that with Ansible, your life is simple. You can do a lot of your jobs without having to touch the system. That is my ideal.

I appreciate everything they have done. The systems are just bulletproof. We do not have problems with it. Support for file system differences and migrations has been solid.

There have been a few things that I have run into. They have significantly improved DNF and YUM, but there can be better communication around what is going on. A lot of it is related to communication. They are building solid products, and quite often, people do not find out about them until two or three years have passed. We still have not discovered everything in Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9. A lot of it is because we have not had the time, but it would be helpful to have a little bit more communication around it. Maybe that is on us to make sure that we stay updated with the community.

I have been using it since Red Hat Enterprise Linux 2.5. It has been around 20 years. I love Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

I would rate it a nine out of ten for stability. It is stable. It is fairly bulletproof. There are a lot more things that they are adding to make it better.

I have had no problems scaling up or scaling horizontally. I have had some very large Red Hat Enterprise Linux nodes with 254 gigs of memory and a big chunky Oracle database system. We have had no problems with them. We have not had any problems with running with multiple memory cluster nodes. We have had 100 gigs network, and we had no problems. We had a high-end SAN and a high-end network, and we had no issues.

They have good integrations, and they have not had too many problems with external SAN providers. They have been fairly consistent with keeping up with everybody else and keeping their drivers good.

They are probably one of the better ones in the industry. I can get a real answer, and I do not feel like people are breathing down my neck and saying, "I am going to close your ticket. I have not heard from you in 15 minutes." It has been a very positive experience. They have always helped us out when we have completely gone sideways.

They are very patient with the level of experience that a lot of people have. We have a significant number of junior admins who put in tickets that probably should not have been put in. They have been very patient. Overall, it has been a good and positive experience.

Positive

Before Red Hat Enterprise Linux, I was strictly using Solaris and AIX. I never used Ubuntu. It was just straight, big-frame Unix before I went to Linux. I did not change too many platforms.

We use Ansible to deploy Red Hat Enterprise Linux machines on VMware. That is 80% to 90% of our workload. For everything else, I have done PXE boot and kickstarts.

We are using a hybrid cloud. Our cloud providers are Azure and AWS. We work with both. The deployment on Azure and AWS was simple. We built Elasticsearch inside of Azure. It was a click-button deployment. We use TerraForm to deploy most of it, and then we have Ansible to do the rest.

I wanted to try to do more infrastructure as code, but it is hard to get traditional admins into that mindset, so it is always a mix. I deploy these servers for them with TerraForm, and then I pretend I never did, and they can do whatever with them. It then goes back into traditional life cycle management. Sometimes they delete them, and sometimes they forget about them. Satellite has helped us keep track of where everything is. It has helped us track our life cycles. It has been helpful for us.

We have used Red Hat consultants multiple times. They helped us set a few things up and clean up our pipelines. We have been very happy with our Red Hat consultants and our last deployment of OpenShift AAP. We loved their consultants. They were fantastic.

The biggest ROI that we have seen by using Red Hat Enterprise Linux is accessibility to information for frontline support people, midline support people, and developers. There is a ton of information, and there is a ton of community support.

For us, Red Hat Enterprise Linux is a consistent platform because if we are on a customer's Rocky machine, we already know Red Hat Enterprise Linux. We can deal with that. It is a skill set that is very broad across multiple platforms. That means we can apply what we have learned and what we have been trained in. While working with the Red Hat Enterprise Linux team, we have learned best practices, and we can apply those across the board. That partnership has helped us better our internal practices whether it is Red Hat Enterprise Linux or not. That is a positive. Satellite has also been a real positive for us because we can now manage all of our systems from a single pane of glass. That is what my frontline people have been asking for. They wanted one place to patch the systems, and now they can.

Our experience was incredibly positive because we started working with OpenShift before we were fully licensed. They knew we were going in that direction. The same thing happened with Red Hat Enterprise Linux. They knew we would buy tons of Red Hat Enterprise Linux, so they were a little bit more relaxed. We wanted a thousand licenses, and we could pick those up. We true up. Our license experience has been positive with the exception of having to deal with all of the broken-up accounts, which is as much our fault as anybody's.

My biggest complaint is that we have eight or ten different contracts. It is hard to keep track of what is on what and where we are getting the most value-add out of our benefits.

They are helping us solve that problem. We have reached out to our account executives. They will help us solve that problem. That is a huge step because that has been a problem for 15 years. It will help us consolidate and understand what we are spending across the board instead of seeing what we are spending in chunks.

OpenShift has come close to paying for itself in the first year and a half. That is an easy business case to make if you have the direct ability to show cost savings. We are getting cost savings, and we have the ability to show those cost savings. These are the two major benefits we have seen with AAP and Red Hat Enterprise Linux bits. That has been a positive for us. Red Hat Enterprise Linux AI and some of the other things they are starting to do are probably going to enable a lot of our developers to start taking advantage of them. Red Hat Enterprise Linux AI changes the belief that AI is out of reach for a normal developer.

We considered the idea of building this entire platform on Rocky as a free solution. It just was not cost-effective. There are hidden costs of patching and maintaining. They require care and feeding. We wanted cattle, not pets. We had a bunch of pets. Red Hat Enterprise Linux enabled us to get into that cattle methodology and mindset. Our mesh nodes are built on Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9. If my mesh node goes sideways, I do not care. I just delete the VM, redeploy it, and run my playbook. In 15 minutes, I am back up and running again. Why would I troubleshoot it? It takes time. I do not care about troubleshooting. It enables us to rinse and repeat a lot of our processes.

People turn off too many of the tools way too often. We have a lot of room for improvement as an organization to embrace SELinux. We are still working on that. That has a significant amount of value. We want to embrace the GPG sign code in AAP. I do not want anything but approved containers and code running on our platform and our customer's platform. They have enabled us to be incredibly secure, and we are yet to fully take advantage of those offerings. It is a goal, and we are going to get there.

To a colleague who is looking at open-source, cloud-based operating systems for Linux instead of Red Hat Enterprise Linux, I would say that Red Hat Enterprise Linux-based variants are the best in my opinion. If I have a choice, I will always go for CentOS, Fedora, Rocky, or something else that is Red Hat Enterprise Linux-based. If they were not going to go with Red Hat, I would probably tell them to go with CentOS but stay behind a little bit because they do not want to be at the bleeding edge of CentOS. That relationship kind of changed when they took it to AppStream instead of a more supportive platform.

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux a nine out of ten. They keep doing well, and they keep getting better. As long as they stay on the same path, I do not see us not using Red Hat Enterprise Linux in the future. It has been consistent. Why would we change?

We are using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for running various things. We have a lot of virtual machines. The applications that are running on it are a bunch of shell scripts for processing orders, marketing campaigns, generating reports, or running some Java applications.

We have the customization capability. We can easily customize it, and we can also automate and deploy it. I have a command line interface. I am a command line junkie, and I am able to use that, config files, and Ansible to be able to easily figure out what I need to do to automate things. It feels like I know what it is doing and how to make it do what I want. I do not have to weave some magical arcane hack the way I have to do in Windows.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has enabled us to centralize development in a lot of ways. We have it hooked in through our GitHub. We are trying to combine where we are storing things and then have a standard way of how we are deploying things and have some standard configurations. With every single server, we do not have to worry about how to set this up because we are doing the same thing the same way. We can just do it across the board, and then we only have to worry about the interesting parts.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux's built-in security features are great for risk reduction, business continuity, and maintaining compliance. There are published CVEs, and there is SELinux, which I do not use and I always turn it off. Firewalls and tooling around that make it easy to use. The automation on top of that makes it easy to configure. With a push of a button, it is done.

We do not have to worry too much about portability. We are coming from Oracle Linux. We were primarily an Oracle Linux shop, and because that is based on it, it just works. We have not had any issues.

The fact that it is Linux is valuable. Why I like it in general is that I know what it is doing. I can figure out what it is doing, and I can make it do what I want. I am not delving into arcane registry things.

I am still trying to figure out the features it has. There is so much that it can do. What it does really well is that it allows you to do things.

It was probably 2008 when I first started using it. The company was using Red Hat Enterprise Linux, and I was with the internal help desk supporting the Linux side.

Its stability is great. It is stable and rock-solid.

Its scalability is also great. It does not matter if the host is beefy or not. It is just going to run on it, and it is going to handle the work. Whether you have a couple of cores or 64 cores, it is just going to do it.

Their support is good. There is good responsiveness. They quickly get me to the person who knows the answer, but I have not used them much.

Positive

We were using Oracle Linux. We are switching because of some of the things. Oracle licensing has been a point of frustration. Their support is comparably difficult to work with, and the support documentation is a mess.

Red Hat is so much easier to navigate. It has been overall a much more pleasant experience to work with Red Hat.

We are using it on-prem, and then our cloud is a Kubernetes cluster on AWS, so it is basically on-prem.

Our deployment model is a manual kickstart with Ansible for configuration. My experience with deployment is good. I kickstart it and then hit it with Ansible, and it is done. It is very easy.

I did the deployment on my own.

We have not yet seen an ROI. It has not been in for long enough. There are no savings in terms of manhours because the actual day-to-day usage remains the same with Oracle Linux or Red Hat Enterprise Linux. However, getting some of the metrics with Red Hat Insights is going to be helpful as we get into a better patching cycle. I am anticipating an easier life.

We are expecting an overall decline in the costs because of the differences between the Red Hat licensing and Oracle licensing. We are expecting a net decrease in overall cost. For using it, other than the license, there is no cost.

The setup cost is non-existent. With licensing, there was a little snafu because I misread something. There was a slight learning curve because we use virtual data center licensing. We had to understand how it all maps. We had to understand how that mapping works when the hypervisors are Red Hat or VMware. There is a slight learning curve, but it worked out. It ends up being easy.

I did not evaluate other options mainly because I have had experience with it before. From my prior experience, I already knew what I wanted.

We are trying to use Red Hat Insights. I need to finish updating the playbooks to hook our host. We are in the midst of transitioning from Oracle Linux to Red Hat Enterprise Linux. I have not fully hooked everything in, but we will be using Red Hat Insights.

We just started using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for containerization projects. We have not yet seen any impact of Red Hat Enterprise Linux on containerization projects.

If a colleague is looking at open-source, cloud-based operating systems for Linux instead of Red Hat Enterprise Linux, a lot of it would depend on their use case, what they are going to need for it, and whether they have an enterprise environment. There is a cost associated with it which can be a downside. I am an open-source lover. I do not like paying for stuff, but I get it. They need to look at the cost, and if the cost is prohibitive, they need to look at something that is compatible and as similar as possible.

Overall, I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux a nine out of ten. I generally do not give out a ten. There needs to be something spectacular for a ten, so that is my personal bias against the top of the scale.

We mainly use RPM-based systems to give our developers virtual machines.

The most valuable features of using RHEL for us are the standard way to run Linux and tools like NetworkManager. They make things easier for us.

I prefer a product that offers everything in a yearly subscription, like VMware, and I think RHEL should consider offering it as well.

I have been using RHEL for 15 years.

The scalability of the solution is good.

We use RHEL deployed in different zones, only on-premise, not in the cloud. Deploying RHEL depends on the end user, but migrations aren't usually a problem due to site forwards. The hardest part is dealing with end-user applications on the machines. We use Ansible for scripting, especially with Oracle. Sometimes, meeting the end of life for RHEL versions is tough, and we have had to buy extended support for RHE because some applications reached the end of life within a year. I appreciate the extended support option, though I prefer not to use it.

RHEL's pricing and licensing are quite expensive. For a big company, paying these fees might be manageable, but as a government organization, spending tax money on such expensive solutions is challenging, even though we do have the funds.

I see benefits in using RHEL because it offers stability and long-term support. Although we use both RHEL and Ubuntu, I have noticed that updates in Ubuntu can change things unexpectedly within a main release, which I don't like. That is why I focus on RHEL for its consistent and reliable updates.

RHEL's built-in security features are very good for risk reduction, business continuity, and maintaining compliance. We apply security guidelines in Linux using RHEL, which provides all the necessary baselines. We can choose and apply what we need directly to our RHEL systems.

I would say that open-source cloud-based operating systems like Debian are stable and have been around for a long time. There is a whole community supporting it, making it a strong alternative to RHEL with fewer licensing costs.

Overall, I would rate RHEL as a nine out of ten.

I use the solution in the company to build a lot of our software environments, so we keep different baselines on it. Right now, I'm working on setting up and installing Ansible manually, so I haven't used Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform yet, a reason why I have been still using my Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) server.

In terms of features, I found it great when I talked with Linux subject matter experts about Ansible. They further mentioned that it was native to Red Hat, which is why it wasn't going to bring over more packages or modules. The packages or modules in the tool are already there but are just not enabled because they weren't being used before I asked about them. It is super easy to enable the tool's packages or modules when I want to start messing with it.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped me centralize development because it has a standard, which is why my company can't really have the option to mess with its different technologies. Our company's customers don't want to use Ubuntu or any other such operating systems, which is why my company has to use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). I guess the tool is easily centralized because that is its standard, and that is the only option one has unless someone wants Windows, but again, developers don't want Windows, and so there are no other options.

Our organization has a team to take care of the containerization part. I am mostly on the infrastructure side, but my company has started to ask me for Podman Desktop and all these different container platforms, and I haven't used any of them yet.

If I dissect the built-in security features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for risk reduction, business continuity, and compliance, I would say that we use VMware for risk reduction so that we have a high availability. On the top of my head, I think the Linux team probably knows more about reducing risks. Our security team has all these STIGs they want us to apply, so I don't know how much manipulation they actually have to do.

If I dissect the built-in security features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for risk reduction, business continuity, and compliance, I would say that we use VMware for risk reduction so that we have a high availability. On the top of my head, I think the Linux team probably knows more about reducing risks. Our security team has all these STIGs they want us to apply, so I don't know how much manipulation they actually have to do. For business continuity, my company uses VMware, considering the ease of making snapshots of our environments, but I believe we could probably do the same with different operating systems. In our company, we just take lots of snapshots, and then if we have another VMware instance, we could just build it right back. The only compliance I know about was associated with our company's customer and their STIG requirements, but I don't know how Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps with it, especially considering that in our company, we have to manipulate it and how we want to do it.

In terms of the portability of applications and containers built on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) to keep our organization agile, I would say that we have an applications team that would do it in our company. I just make sure that our company's VMs have OS and network connectivity since there is a different team that takes care of the applications.

Right now, since my company is in an air-gapped on-prem network, it is really tough to go through all the RPMs that we have to have based on different STIGs. Whenever in our company, we have to install the tool, we see that something or the other is missing, and so of the hundreds of things mentioned in the list, we have to find whether we need a particular RPM or if we need to take this one out, and that is always a trouble for the team managing Linux in our company.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for more than five years.

When I spoke to one of the speakers the other day, who was a software development manager, I was told how much one could trust Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). I believe that Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is considered a standard for a reason.

I believe that if you have enough license to support the product in your environment, then you can scale the product depending on how big your license is, and it is a super easy process where one can roll out a whole bunch of VMs and VMware.

As my signature block comes with Lockheed Martin, I think the tool's support team has been pretty attentive. If I go to a wide-scale service and once Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) sees what kind of a customer I am, I get to go to their specialized sectors, and the support has been pretty fast. I have had no issues with the product's support team. I don't use the product's support services very often. I have mainly dealt with Red Hat's support team for Ansible. I rate the technical support a seven out of ten. When I was asking the tool's support team questions when I was off the internet, I just kind of felt weird about it. For any service I ask for from the support team, I have to manipulate it depending on what we need for our company.

Neutral

I have not previously used any other product, and I have worked for the government for the past twelve years using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

The deployment of the product has been super easy, but when we do it through VMware, I just make a VM, and then load an ISO image, after which the deployment is done. The tool's deployment is super easy, and I am pretty much a novice when it comes to Linux.

The solution is deployed on an on-premises model.

My company did not seek the help of a third party to depot the product. The deployment was carried out by our company's employees, who have been around for decades.

The government buys the product for our company and provides us with the license for the solution.

For a colleague who is looking at open-source cloud-based operating systems for Linux, I would say that Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is a cool product for small businesses outside of the government. I work for the government, where Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the standard, so if my colleagues are in the government, I would tell them they have no other options.

I am not sure about the product's deployment model since it is kind of ad hoc in nature. If a developer needs another VM, our company just provisions it through VMware, so we don't have a large-scale deployment model across different availability zones. We have our program, after which we wrap it all up and then ship it out to the customer.

As I have not compared Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) to any other operating systems in the market, I rate the tool a nine out of ten.