Our use cases for Red Hat OpenShift revolve around telco environments, where we deploy telco applications using container microservices architectures. We have around 32 to 35 OpenShift clusters, with multiple worker and master nodes running on them, totaling more than 500 nodes across pre-production, test, and various production environments. We onboard different applications onto these OpenShift clusters, which primarily operate in private data centers on bare metal rather than in VMs, since the motive of this client project is to align the telco environment with a cloud-native approach.

It enables customers to deploy any type of application. A lot of enterprises are moving to the Linux environment from the Windows environment.

When it comes to development, it saves time because, unlike Windows, you don't require a lot of different things and licenses.

I appreciate the features of OpenShift, particularly its built-in capabilities such as operators and integration with multiple identity providers. Operators eliminate the need for creating helm charts, and considering Kubernetes, which Red Hat OpenShift is built on, the enhancements make OpenShift a preferred choice for many enterprise customers.

The documentation and knowledge base for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are quite good, allowing for effective searches, though I would prefer something more interactive.

I have tried the Insight features in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), which provide a good overview of clusters, but most customers at the OpenShift level do not opt for the Insights feature for two reasons. Firstly, Insights is specific to individual clusters and does not offer a single pane of glass for multi-cluster environments. Having a centralized Insights feature for multiple clusters would be more appealing, especially for customers managing a fleet of 50 or more clusters.

There is one feature that could significantly enhance our time to market: enabling AI capabilities. For instance, if you have a fleet of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) servers, potentially thousands running, they can incorporate a built-in agent that monitors key metrics. This agent would allow us to easily query and track the CPU and memory status of all clusters. Instead of generating traditional reports through Insights, we could leverage AI to curate this information directly. If such features could be included in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), it would be a game-changer. There would be no need for external AI solutions; just an integrated AI agent would suffice. This enhancement could help minimize operational costs. From a customer perspective, while capital expenditures (CapEx) are already being handled through Red Hat solutions, we need to focus on reducing operational expenditures (OpEx), especially related to reporting. Even when Insights are generated, someone still needs to analyze them. By incorporating this advanced capability into Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), they can streamline processes and deliver valuable insights more efficiently.

We are using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for our customers. We have been using it at the infrastructure level for more than 10 years. However, we have been using Red Hat OpenShift only for the last two to three years as our container platform.

It helps reduce downtime. Overall, it's stable, but it also depends on the type of workload you are running. 

It is scalable. For example, creating logical volumes and extending disks is straightforward. This process is quite easy.

Red Hat's support is generally good, but sometimes they take a long time, which can be frustrating for customers, particularly when dealing with products still in development, such as new versions of Red Hat OpenShift. When bugs arise that lack solutions, both customers and Red Hat are searching for answers, leading to delays until new releases are issued.

Positive

I have used Ubuntu and CentOS. I find Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) better than Ubuntu and CentOS.

Its deployment is easy. The number of people required and duration depend on how many servers you're deploying.

We utilize a hybrid environment with some of our customers operating in the public cloud, allowing us to manage both on-premises and cloud infrastructures.

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) an eight out of ten.

Our use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are diverse; it powers our servers, runs desktops for our development network, as well as some of our production hosts, and we'll see if it expands further.

Red Hat is giving that level of enterprise support helps us build a Linux ecosystem that makes sense for business.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps us solve pain points by providing tremendous support from our Red Hat representatives. 

The flexibility that we get through Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and the ability for people to build their own tools as they're working without having to deal with something like PowerShell or hack it through backwards ways in Windows is a real relief. 

Interactive Brokers is powered by our workforce, and we have really brilliant engineers, top to bottom, especially our developers. The flexibility that we get through Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and the ability for people to build their own tools as they're working without having to deal with something like PowerShell or hack it through backwards ways in Windows is a real relief and something that we couldn't operate without.

We deploy Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in both cloud and on-premise environments in a hybrid environment. Currently, our management of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems when it comes to provisioning and patching has gone through many changes throughout the years. We are currently using KVM. We're exploring OpenShift and some other options, and I am satisfied with that management experience.

Security requirements were considered before choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). We've been primarily with Red Hat for a very long time, and security concerns have kept us with RHEL throughout the years as we have not been comfortable with anything else.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) supports our hybrid cloud strategy effectively, and many of the options I've seen at the conference will make spreading out into the cloud without compromising our on-premise systems more convenient than it might be with another distro. I assess the knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as very strong; the customer relations management, support, and the fact that it's an open-source platform gives you huge clarity versus Microsoft or some other type of closed environment.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) can be improved by providing more support for on-prem. As you go by industry by industry, the more regulation and control you need over your data, the more precious data sovereignty becomes, and being able to work in a hybrid environment with a push in that direction would be better.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for 11 years now, and our company has been using it for maybe close to 20 years at this point.

The stability and reliability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are very good. It's not throwing out mystery patches that break things constantly, as certain other server solutions do, so that stability has been strong because we can say we don't need that patch now, and review them on their own merits. We are looking forward to RHEL 10.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales to the growing needs of our company excellently, and the scalability is a big draw.

The customer service and technical support of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has been wonderful so far. The community is a never-ending well of support, and my personal experiences with our customer relations manager have just been top notch.

I would rate the customer service for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as a solid ten out of ten. I have less experience needing their support for technical issues. Just as a partner, it has been very strong.

Positive

We have considered other solutions in our Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) journey. There have been arguments this way or that, however, they've never been enough to dislodge us. We do run Windows and other things. That said, our whole program base and everything we do back and front relies on having an enterprise Linux solution.

The biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the appreciation of being a Linux shop with enterprise-level support, enabling us to keep it up. Trying to imagine running a worldwide company purely on free open-source software would be wholly unsustainable and require unfathomable levels of worker hours, so having the power and flexibility of a Linux ecosystem with that level of enterprise support makes it all work.

On a scale of one to ten, I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) an eight out of ten.

My main use case for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is server administration, so we provide a group that delivers server software from RHEL, including Ansible and Satellite.

The features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that I appreciate most are the standard ease of use through Satellite and Ansible, which help us keep up with our demands. The benefits of those features for my company include managing compliance issues or demands we face for the business, so we need to keep up with patching on a regular basis, which is important.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) could be improved, and it appears 10 is a good way forward. Having been in this industry for so long, I don't have much on my mind, however, there is generally a barrier to getting used to it. The Lightspeed is improving it to help newcomers, so it seems a good idea.

My thoughts on RHEL's built-in security features are that they might be better; we haven't really gotten security to be very smooth, so we're not using much of it, and we have other tools to ensure compliance. At the moment, there is nothing I really miss from RHEL's features.

I have been using Red Hat's products since 1990. I've been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) since 1996 or 1997; RHEL came in the 2000s.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped to mitigate downtime and lower risks since we don't have much downtime when it comes to Red Hat systems; it's quite stable. The stability and reliability of the RHEL platform are good.

Regarding scalability, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has been able to scale to the needs of the company; we haven't met any limitations yet, and we mostly deploy it with scale-out and scale-up strategies, but we haven't managed to scale up fully yet.

My experience with customer service and technical support is that they respond, which is good. Sometimes, the bug fixes take a little while, especially on their supporting systems such as Satellite. From one to ten, I would give the customer service and technical support a seven or an eight.

Positive

While using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I considered other solutions such as Ubuntu for client-side use; tying it into Microsoft software, such as Microsoft Entra ID, which was not possible at the moment when we started looking into it, could work even more with connections or using external vendors.

The deployment is very easy. I've been doing it for a while too. Satellite helps a lot. AIP helps even more.

From my point of view, the biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the stable environment it provides, along with the solutions going from A to B, from all the way from A to Z; we get the patches, it's updated, and it's alive.

The price is always an issue, and it depends on what you get; we have lots of development, yet I'm not economical and don't deal with finance, so it's not my area of expertise anymore. 

We haven't made any upgrade or migration plans to stay current with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 10 since that's just released; most of our systems are running 8 and 9 at the moment, so it depends on the applications running on them, their dependencies, and we have many systems that can't be upgraded, however, we want to stay on track for the most important systems.

Overall, I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) an eight out of ten.

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) at the enterprise level to host various applications. RHEL is our enterprise strategy for the Linux operating system, and it helps us host most of our mission-critical applications.

The feature of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that I appreciate the most is the security features. The security features of RHEL protect our environment. By having strong security hygiene with RHEL, we are able to provide business value back to our stakeholders.

I have been involved in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) migrations and upgrades. I would describe the experience of RHEL migrations as challenging since it's not an easy task to migrate thousands of machines in one major release window. RHEL has helped to mitigate downtime and lower risks, as we keep RHEL current with patching.

The image model that is currently being deployed with RHEL 10 is going to be a way of improving RHEL. I'm using CICD pipelines to manage the OS, just as we do applications. We don't have specific metrics on how much less risk has been lowered or how much downtime has been mitigated, howrever, we do keep our systems patched within 30 days of CVE being released, so our risk exposure is quite low.

To make Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a ten out of ten, addressing the enterprise management tools, such as SELinux policy management and firewalls, would bring it much more in line, especially regarding security features and overall operations management.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for approximately 14 years.

The stability and reliability of the platform are excellent.

We have scaled both in the data center as well as in the edge with over 15,000 devices.

We have a very good relationship with Red Hat for support and customer service. We have a TAM service, so from a support perspective, our cases are handled very efficiently.

Positive

I considered other solutions while choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), and we have a combination of RHEL and open-source free versions of RHEL. The biggest difference between RHEL and those open-source versions is support; at the end of the day, it's the partnership for support from Red Hat versus the binaries where it's self-managed and self-maintained.

Currently, we deploy Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) on-premises and we use open-source technologies to provision and deploy both bare metal and virtual.

The biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the whole ecosystem and partnership with Red Hat.

We have enterprise contracts with Red Hat, and regarding pricing, we have a good deal. On a scale of one to ten, I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) an eight.

I used Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for my past job where it was used for VMware. It was always on VMware, JBoss, or WebLogic for web-based apps and similar applications. In my current job, we use it as a base OS for AAP or for VSOS, for a Docker host, a pod host, or various applications.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is valuable for us since it's stable and reliable. 

Some of the new features they're adding to it, such as RHEL 10 and the AI, sound really helpful. The federal security features are also beneficial. Especially the AI feature sounds useful.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps simplify processes and having support is super helpful. When I have an issue and try to track it down without success, I can submit a ticket and get support. They're usually able to troubleshoot the issue, so having support is beneficial for me.

Our upgrade or migration plans to stay current involve using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 8 for much of our infrastructure, while also deploying RHEL 9 for the past six months. Once RHEL 8 is deprecated, we'll probably start looking to migrate to RHEL 10 and building net new servers.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) definitely helps to mitigate downtime and lower risks through access to AAP. I've also heard you can do an in-place update for the kernel, which is something I'm curious to try but haven't had the chance yet.

Improving Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) requires good documentation and having a way to onboard people for new technology they're introducing. The AI will be helpful for that since they have that now. The SE policy is not very clear on how it's supposed to be implemented, which they can improve upon, or perhaps I don't know where to look for that information.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in my job for probably ten years or more.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has been pretty reliable from my experiences so far, with no major issues.

Customer service and technical support from Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has been pretty good overall. It has been fairly responsive, although I have had times when it was somewhat slow to respond to tickets and requests. I've had coworkers who have experienced that as well, so that could be improved. The response and quality of their responses could be better in some cases. In other cases, it's adequate for what we need.

Neutral

My experience of deploying Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in general has been pretty good so far. I use Image Builder, which is developed by Red Hat. I use that to create the image, and then satellite servers actually deploy it. For the most part, it's seamless and reliable.

The biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), from my point of view, is having the integration between all of the various platforms, whether it's AAP, or satellite, and IDM. We use satellite, AAP, and IDM, and the integration between all of these has been super helpful.

We haven't had a need for other solutions while using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) currently, but if something came up, we would probably consider it.

I have been involved with upgrading from Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 8 to RHEL 9, and from RHEL 7 to RHEL 8 because RHEL 7 has been sunsetted. In these cases, we build net new rather than doing in-place upgrades.

For upgrades, we use satellite to deploy, and AAP for our host provisioning and whatever we need to layer on top of the infrastructure. For managing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems regarding provisioning and patching, we use AAP. We have a written playbook that reaches out to the host and takes a snapshot of the host in VMware. Then it runs the patching and reports back if it succeeded or failed.

I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) an eight out of ten.

Our main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are for our centralized O&M platform, while on the edge we use CoreOS.

My company benefits from RHEL features by avoiding drifts in our solution. If it gets out of engineering, we don't exactly know if the solution is going to drift if someone implemented manual configuration.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps me solve pain points such as security, upgrades, patching, and all that is related to long-term support. 

The feature I appreciate the most in the newest version is the image mode and the upgrade in an immutable way. 

Security requirements are a consideration when choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). It's the platform that really allows for longer-term support in terms of security patches, which is also one of the requirements from our customers; this is why we are on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for those services. 

When it comes to managing my Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems for provisioning and patching, I start from zero. We provide a golden image scenario, and we install based on that golden image while customizing the product through our software itself, providing new bundles and everything around there. Patching is very similar; we provide additional packages and everything around the upgrades, and I'm looking forward to the image mode so that we can provide steps and immutable AB upgrades.

They should try to converge all the different product lines, in both Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and CoreOS and OCP based on CoreOS, to get to a single point where it would be easier to move from one to the other. 

Sometimes we build products for one specific application or product, and it would be beneficial to move to CoreOS due to further requirements, however, it's not always straightforward. All the different teams working on the different Red Hat products are pretty much self-contained, which is understandable, but if there were more of a common baseline, it would be much easier to consider moving from one license to another, from one product to another.

In the company, I've been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) directly for three years. Before then, we have been partners and have also been using CentOS and Fedora for a longer time, approximately ten years.

The stability and reliability of the platform are top class.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales pretty transparently with the growing needs of my company. It scales effectively when we need to add additional resources or knowledge, and it's straightforward for people to gain those and for our structure to implement even more servers around these others. Both technically and knowledge-wise, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales effectively.

The customer service and technical support are excellent, especially through the partner program. It's easier to get support over specific issues, and I have noticed when we had bigger issues that could have prevented market problems, there was a good escalation path towards the right people to get answers.

Neutral

I have considered other solutions rather than Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

When we were considering getting out of CentOS, we were evaluating everything, including other open solutions such as Rocky, as cutting-edge solutions such as Fedora. 

I personally pushed for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) since it was the best solution for us at that specific moment. I understand there are other solutions such as SUSE and Ubuntu that are all in the same market, however, with different approaches. I prefer the Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) approach.

The deployment is generally very easy.

The biggest return on investment while using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) from my technical point of view is the continuous patching and security fixes that are constantly being added and the support around it. If we are having an issue, we can directly reach the right people for support.

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as a product today at a solid eight out of ten, considering improvements already in place for the roadmap. With the features coming in RHEL 10, I could provide it an overall nine out of ten.

Our main use cases for using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) revolve around building managed services, as all of our Linux workload runs on Red Hat, and there isn't a different Linux distribution in our company. For most customers, it really depends, as we handle all kinds of business applications basically.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps us solve pain points by allowing us to offer support for our managed services, including very high service-level agreements in terms of availability and everything around CVEs, which is also what most of our customers are interested in. The features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) will benefit our company by addressing certain customer use cases we haven't explored yet, particularly with functionality rollbacks and making patch management a bit easier. As we are moving a lot to cloud-native technology, having a similar approach for our Linux operating system as we have for cloud resource orchestration containers is very useful, especially since the German market is a bit slower than the US market.

To manage our Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems regarding provisioning and patching, we use Ansible and also Red Hat Satellite as we are a Red Hat partner, and we are very satisfied with that management experience.

I am really excited about the new Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 10 and the Image Builder, which are the features I most appreciate and am definitely going to check out.

We consider security requirements a top priority due to the highly regulated nature of the German market and the sectors we work with, including automotive and financial institutes, so it really depends on the customers, however, having a secure operating system is crucial.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) supports our hybrid cloud strategy by allowing us to deploy virtual machines in both clouds without really feeling the difference between a private or public cloud.

The knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is pretty good and we use it heavily. We also contribute to it by raising issues so that they may be solved and verified.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) could be improved slightly even though the new RHEL 10 just came out and there are many helpful features in it. For instance, while Image Builder is good, improving the image mode could be beneficial, although it might have already been improved in RHEL 10. 

Additionally, for using third-party software, such as security scanners or patch management systems not from the Red Hat family such as Azure Patch Management, sometimes there could be improvements regarding support, as it can take a year or one and a half years to receive support for certain RHEL major versions, so partnerships on the Red Hat side and collaborations with Microsoft would help.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) internally for our managed services functions and for our customers since it became available. We are a partner of Red Hat where we do consultancy and resell RHEL and Red Hat Ansible, making the answer to this question complicated since we have been using it for about five and a half years.

The stability and reliability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are very good.

Regarding scalability, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales very well for our company needs.

Customer service and technical support for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are very good, as we are a platinum partner with some benefits. That said, even the regular customer support is most of the time very sufficient.

Positive

I did not use another solution before Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in my company.

My overall experience when deploying Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is simple.

We deploy RHEL in both the cloud and on-premise, utilizing a hybrid cloud strategy.Security requirements are definitely a consideration when choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

I have been involved in upgrades or migrations of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), especially during the significant shift from RHEL 7 to 8, which included many upgrades and migrations.

We have many customer projects where customers use us as consultants to migrate from other Linux distributions.

For the Red Hat internal migrations, we use the tool 'convert2rhel' all the time.

The biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is stability, which benefits both us and our customers, since we do not have to use as many human resources to administer those machines.

I don't have too much to complain about pricing, setup costs, and licensing since we handle everything via a distributor in Germany and we work closely with them on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

I did not consider another solution while using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a nine out of ten. To make it a ten, improving the ecosystem with more support from third-party software would help.

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as the operating system on our systems. Everything is built on it.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps us solve pain points. It keeps us easily compliant from my perspective with security compliance and streamlines everything in a multi-system environment.

The OpenSCAP vulnerability scanner is what I appreciate most about RHEL. We benefit from that tool specifically due to the fact that RHEL is under the recommended operating system mandate. Through that, they have their security requirements, and RHEL's OpenSCAP vulnerability scanner is a really good automatic scanner to scan for cybersecurity vulnerabilities in our system. The way it produces reports is really nice and it's better than the old vulnerability scanner that our system used.

My assessment of RHEL's built-in security features for simplifying risk reduction and maintaining compliance centers around OpenSCAP. It's better than any other tool I've seen. I've seen two or three other ones. It is really streamlined and nice. It feels professional when using the product.

When it comes to managing our Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems for provisioning and patching, our software team handles it efficiently. We maintain a close connection with our Red Hat account managers and representatives who are extremely helpful with any Linux or Red Hat level issues.

RHEL and the Linux architecture system are easier to work with for our program maintenance and updates. Given our 30-year-old product, making current updates would be almost impossible on Solaris. The maintenance and updates for today's requirements can really only be executed with a Linux architecture, making it essential for our operations.

One of our current issues is that Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 10 discontinued support for X11 and started support for Wayland. All of our machines run on X11 window manager, which creates a huge issue in our transition. Red Hat is working with us on this matter.

There's a high barrier to entry for getting into Ansible and automating things on a system level from my perspective. When we tried it last week, we found it challenging to automate things using Ansible.

I have been at my company for two years now. The entire time has been heavily involved with using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has been able to scale to meet the needs of my company and its growth. I credit that to the Linux architecture that can scale to our requirements. We have a unique configuration. That said, my company primarily runs on Linux, and it has scaled very effectively.

The customer service is amazing. The accessibility of the support team and their responsiveness is consistently impressive. 

I would rate the customer service and technical support as nine out of ten.

Positive

We were previously on Solaris before switching our in-house systems to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 7. We actually skipped RHEL 8 and are transitioning from RHEL 7 to RHEL 9. We are not yet on RHEL 10.

We have had issues with deploying Red Hat Enterprise Linux. I'm actually really focused in on one of our current issues where Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10 discontinued support for X11. All of our machines run on X11 Window Manager. And that's a huge issue that we're transitioning. It totally breaks everything we have, and we're working with Red Hat to figure that out. It's nice they're working with us. Yeah. However, it is a big problem during our transition.

Regarding the security features and vulnerability scanner with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), we have not yet seen a return on investment as we haven't proposed it to the organization. We are currently working on scanning and fixing vulnerabilities. We are confident the the organization will be pleased with our improved compliance using the RHEL scanner, which should lead to a return on investment.

I don't have much insight into the pricing, setup costs, and licensing. I know we are licensed and have maintained a good relationship with our account manager.

While using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as our operating system, we do consider other solutions for specific features. We have alternatives available for various tools, however, we prefer to default to Red Hat since it's the organization-wide preferred operating system. In the past two years, we have been increasingly transitioning to RHEL tools.

On a scale of one to ten, I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a nine.

My main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are mostly as our platform, control plane, and for VMs.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped me mitigate downtime and lower risks. Anyone coming from security will tell you that more patches in a timely manner will save you a lot of time.

What I appreciate the most about Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the DNF feature. DNF benefits our company since it's my personal preference; that package manager makes sense to me. I've also used it longer than other ones, which contributes to my familiarity.

Package managers in general are a core component of our operations, keeping our platform clean and running smoothly, and it's essential.

Insights is nice since I get information on my background and security matters, and it's been helpful to have it there as well.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) can be improved regarding security-side integrations that can be tightened with the releasing of images compliant with CIS controls or DISA STIGs, so they're built in and not an extra step.

To make Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a ten out of ten, the best Linux OS solution in the market, the only immediate change that comes to mind is security-related; releasing images available at different security levels would be helpful. If something is locked down to DISA STIG Level two or whatever environment, having that as a baked image to pull down and deploy would save a lot of time for many companies since building that pipeline is difficult and time-consuming.

There's also a limited number of those they'll have to deal with for Red Hat, so it's a lot of work. If they're doing those images for each level for STIG and then CIS, there will be a finite number to go through, and if anyone else needs to tailor them beyond that, then that's on them. It should be pretty small changes; it's kind of locked in.

I've been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for seven months.

My thoughts on the stability and reliability of the Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) platform are that it has been excellent. When I consider reliability problems we have had and how much relates to RHEL, most of the issues aren't Red Hat-related; something else fails, and the Red Hat side has been consistently reliable.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales with the growing needs of my company very effectively. My specific team is not on a huge scale right now, however, it's growing quickly, and we haven't had any issues with RHEL so far.

My experience with customer service and technical support for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) so far has been really good. I haven't encountered just a create-ticket-get-a-response type of interaction yet since we still have a consultancy going on for different pieces identity management and AAP. That remains to be seen in terms of what it will be when we don't have somebody readily available. So far, the response times and helpful responses have been good.

Positive

I've used other solutions. The main difference between Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and the other Linux solutions we use is a level of comfort. I sleep better knowing I have official support and can call someone, or there's probably a consultant or somebody on Red Hat's side ready to help me figure things out. If I'm running a Debian system, I'm really relying on the community, which can take time, and if I'm running something at work on that, then that can hurt.

Regarding usability, I've gravitated towards RPM-based Linux systems in general as I find them more intuitive.

The deployment is super straightforward. We do some environmental stuff, and that gets a little bit trickier based on the core running on top of it. 

From my point of view, the biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the number of things tied together in a somewhat neat package. There's something to be said for setting up Satellite or the other pieces of the infrastructure, AAP, or whatever it is I'm going to be using, however, all the tie-ins are there, and once I've done some initial footwork, having those things work in tandem and reliably with support on hand when they don't is really helpful.

We consider different solutions while using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). Actually, we use a few different Linux OS solutions. There's some Canonical in our environment through VMs, and there are tools particularly suited for deploying on bare metal that we use. So, we have a bit of a mixed environment within Linux.

My upgrade or migration plans to stay current depend on where it's at or the platform team; our stuff is going to be separate, and I'm unsure exactly what the cadence is for release and into the patching cycle. That'll be a pretty quick turnaround. We have situations where it needs to stay on older systems since the team using it needs that to prove out or test whatever they're working on. 

On a scale from one to ten, I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a nine out of ten.

Our main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are to host Java enterprise applications and middleware.

The feature I appreciate the most about Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is that it is solid and reliable. This solid and reliable performance helps our company as it makes it less problematic to troubleshoot issues; things just run and I don't have to be involved every day. If it runs smoothly, then we move onto other projects, but if it's wavy and bumpy, we have to pause and address the issues.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is a great product, and we don't have any major pain points.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) definitely helps to mitigate downtime; we reboot our servers twice a year and do our patches, and that helps reduce our risk of exposure to malware, worms, viruses, but also increases our uptime. My upgrade plans for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) to stay current include going to the website for RHEL 10; it has a lot of new features. I'll have to work with the server team to see if they're ready for it since it's a big jump.

I'm not really sure what I would like to see more of from Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

Customer service and technical support for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is an area they could improve.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) at my company since 2007.

The stability and reliability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) have been great; we never have to reboot unless it's scheduled.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales very efficiently. We're able to add CPUs as needed and add memory, and we're really happy with our Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

Customer service and technical support needs work. 

We submit an issue to them and go back and forth for three or four days just defining the issue so they understand the problem. That's frustrating when it could be solved in a 20-minute phone call; they just don't do that, it's just back-and-forth emails. 

I would rate the customer service and technical support a six out of ten.

Neutral

I don't really have much to compare to, as Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the only Linux that we've used.

I'm not too involved in deploying it. We just mainly use it.

I have been involved in the upgrade of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as we upgraded from 8 to 9 a couple years ago.

For me, the biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is having something that is widely supported; it's not a one-off that you have to hope there's support for. There's definitely support for it, and the Red Hat people are always good to deal with.

Another department takes care of the pricing, setup costs, and licensing for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). I'm not aware of the licensing costs, but they seem to set our new systems up pretty quickly, so I'm overall happy with that.

On a scale of one to ten, I rate this solution a nine.