My main use cases involve using it to run our Ansible automation platform and various workloads, depending on what Development decides based on the project. We also use it for our Kubernetes clusters.

The features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that I appreciate the most are focused on stability. It is a reliable system that I can depend on more than anything else. That stability benefits my company by providing more uptime and more satisfied gamers.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps us solve pain points related to stability and documentation. It is very easy to find solutions to problems or access official documentation, whereas with other Debian-based distributions, one often finds themselves searching through random forums.

Regarding built-in security features for risk reduction and compliance maintenance, some features are straightforward when following standards and installation profiles. However, the development side frequently mentions challenges with SELinux, as it is more difficult to understand and somewhat esoteric. Some features are very well-developed and easily understood, while others are more complex to implement.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped to mitigate downtime and lower risks. While there is not much technical difference between RHEL and Oracle Linux, compared to other alternatives, it provides benefits.

We manage our systems for provisioning and patching using Ansible automation controller for patches and mirror repositories as needed.

What is lacking is better FS support natively in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). It has many nice features, however, XFS is becoming outdated. That is the major improvement that would be relatively easy to implement, perhaps around version 11. Fedora has already introduced it, so it is in the pipeline.

When it comes to its stability and reliability, it is great.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales fine with the growing needs of my company. I do not see much difference between RHEL and any other real distribution in those terms. 

As far as scalability, it is all Linux at the end of the day and will scale equally. The management tools and features on top of it provide the value-add, but regarding the base operating system, I do not see much difference.

We do not use customer service and technical support frequently. It is more about getting that checkbox for insurance, compliance, or whatever regulation we need to follow. 

If I had to rate the customer support, I would give it an eight as it is quite good. 

Positive

My experience deploying Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has evolved. In the past, it used to be more complicated, however, with current development tools and methodologies, it is far easier. Using Packer and initialization files that build every time, it functions smoothly.

My team deploys the solution on-premise, and we have varying departments and organizations for on-prem.

From my perspective, I have seen a return on investment while using this platform. It is beneficial to have that stability and reliable package repositories that we depend on, rather than using something more open-source and community-driven. There is definitely a good return.

My experience with the pricing, setup costs, and licensing has been satisfactory. It aligns with business expectations.

I consider all distributions before or while using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), however, the application team ultimately decides what fits their development cycle and needs best. For our on-premise workloads that need to be stable and operate over years, it is our default choice.

For upgrades or migrations, I recommend building new and migrating. My team operates both on-premise and in the cloud, and we have purchased Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) through AWS Marketplace. 

Overall rating: nine out of ten. To make it a ten, I would want to see more features. As someone who considers themselves an open-source zealot, the locking down of package repositories behind subscription paywalls was upsetting. It used to be a ten out of ten before that change.

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) to run our web servers and application servers, and in some cases database servers. It is our primary operating system, and the majority of our servers run Unix, especially Linux.

The virtualization in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) benefits my company as the web servers and application servers allow us to grow and be elastic about our loads and costs.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps us solve everything, from security compliance to running the core infrastructure of the company. 

My favorite feature of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the virtualization. 

I have been involved in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) upgrades and migrations. We upgraded from version seven to nine recently, first from seven to eight, then to nine. Security requirements were a consideration when we were choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in the cloud.

The reason security was a consideration is that primarily we're dealing with the container section of Linux shops. The core of the OS cannot be touched or hacked, especially when it comes to financial transactions. When dealing with financial transactions, we need to keep certain aspects more secure, such as PCI compliance.

My team works directly with kernel patching on a monthly basis, and it's excellent; we always get the fixes for any vulnerabilities, which we have to keep up with based on the financial transactions. We need to keep up with the security patches.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped to mitigate downtime and lower risks. While I don't have a specific number, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has definitely helped in being more stable than other operating systems. When we had other operating systems, we experienced a lot of general panic with infrastructures such as older HP-UX. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is definitely more stable than that.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) can be improved by making it lighter. By making it lighter, there should be versions for specific cases, for customers or images.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) since 2003.

My experience with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in terms of stability and reliability is excellent. 

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales with the growing needs of my company excellently, and that is one of the reasons we use it. We scale on a day-to-day basis using the virtualization, which allows us to add resources if we have a new client tomorrow.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) supports our hybrid cloud strategy as we have some legacy systems that we maintain both on-premise and elsewhere. We offer services that are not for the area where we work, which allows us to offer a better response to our clients that are further away, using Azure and different regions for them, so our Red Hat Enterprise server is closer to them instead of having it here.

Every time we have to work on a case with customer service and technical support, the response is fast. Usually, I send the information, and they have something for me within hours, sometimes even minutes.

Positive

We have considered other solutions while using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). We have different kinds of operating systems for different clients or solutions, and while we still prefer Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), our goal is to standardize between AIX and IBM. 

We use Windows, which is challenging. We have AIX, which we run within the IBM Z environment. AIX is good, however, the hardware is not optimal, and there's a license for the hardware that is especially used for databases such as Oracle, where you need to license a whole mainframe just to run it.

From a technical point of view, the biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for me is interoperability and the ability to automate a lot of the processes, from scratch to day-to-day basis.

My experience with the pricing, setup costs, and licensing of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has been a journey. Licensing for on-premise was different; you have your license for the hardware you're using. When doing it for the cloud, it's more of a subscription-based system. It's been variable with different pricing; we still prefer the older way.

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

My main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) include application support.

Features benefit my company by allowing for cross-site administration, creating a solid baseline across our different environments and using Satellite for cross-site management.

One of the features I appreciate the most about Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the usability and satellite integration across multiple sites, which helps us significantly. 

Many of my current pain points are related to the automation portion with having Ansible building. I have been involved in upgrades or migrations for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), specifically for RHEL 7.

We manage our Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems using Satellite and Ansible combined, which automates all of our patches, meaning the server administrator doesn't necessarily have to do anything beyond checking online to ensure that automation is performing as expected.

For the compliance part in government environments, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is compliant with their cyber policies, and it has extensive integration for that. There are also Ansible templates being built up.

My upgrade or migration plans to stay current involve moving from RHEL 8 to RHEL 9, if not RHEL 10, as I know that RHEL 8 reached its end of support life a few years ago, so we do have some work to do while trying to stay on top of releases and upgrades.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped to mitigate downtime and lower risk in our environment; I've only been integrated with it for the last two years and we haven't seen any specific issues caused by Red Hat or Linux itself relating to downtime.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) could be improved by incorporating some of the third-party repositories, as different repos might show more options than one would get with a base builder for Red Hat, so having the choice to include those during install would be beneficial.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for the last six to seven years for the company, and personally, even longer.

I haven't seen any issues with the stability and reliability of the platform; we've been building up and tearing down our OpenShift environment frequently, and it consistently comes up and down and repairs itself.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales effectively with the growing needs of my company, as we're now utilizing OpenShift to deploy applications, databases, and other resources in a containerized environment, which reflects the direction the world is heading towards in terms of containerization.

I am not involved in pricing, setup costs, or licensing, but I can say the contract deal we have with Red Hat seems pretty fair, along with the support they provide.

Positive

We did consider other solutions in our journey, particularly looking into OpenShift, however, Red Hat is probably our number one choice.

The initial setup has been straightforward. We didn't have challenges. On top of that, you have the automation. It's getting easier. They continuously build in more tools and more automated processes so we can spin up the VMs easily.

We have been involved in migrations - specifically, RHEL 7 and Linux. The lead process is relatively straightforward.

For me, the biggest return on investment when using this product is automation.

While I am not involved in pricing or licensing, my understanding is that it's a pretty fair contract deal that we have with Red Hat and the support that they provide.

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

My main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are that I work at a university, and the infrastructure of the university is all based on open source, with the main operating system being Linux.

The feature of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that I appreciate the most is the scalability. Scalability has helped my company grow in general by allowing us to handle the inscriptions of students simultaneously. We have to subscribe to tens of thousands of students at the same time, and only with an operating system that has scalability can we accomplish this.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped to mitigate downtime and lower risk, though I don't have specific numbers about this.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) can be improved in terms of applications to interact better with the operating system for monitoring, control, and a better administration interface, though I don't work in the technical department.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for four to five years.

The stability of the platform is very good.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales with the growing needs of my organization very effectively. During the time of company growth, we needed to scale the services and equipment that use the operating system, and it performed very effectively.

The customer service and technical support with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are very good. We have technical support in Brazil that's very good, and I don't have any complaints about this.

A long time ago, I considered other solutions before choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). I don't consider any other options anymore.

The deployment was very good. I liked hte process very much. 

I have only used one version of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and have upgraded the operating system during its lifecycle. My experience upgrading it was very easy.

The biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for me is the security, the scalability, and the integration with other platforms and tools.

While there is always room for improvement as there's no perfection, I would rate this solution nine out of ten.

Our main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) currently involve general server workload, including numerous Oracle-based workloads.

The features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that I appreciate the most include the most recent iterations such as no-downtime patching, live patching, and the ability to snapshot or snapshot LVM's; these features are more of a Linux capability, however, they have been really beneficial to us. 

High availability has been extremely beneficial for us to support. These features benefit our company by providing less downtime. We are not taking downtime to do patching on tier-one systems, and we spend less manpower and time to perform the types of automation and management that would normally take considerable time to accomplish hands-on, resulting in significant time savings.

Security requirements are always a consideration in choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in the cloud. Anytime we make any decision, security is definitely one of the foremost considerations we have taken place.

The biggest thing we look for is the ability to abide by STIG, as we do, and then apply our NIST policies as well as our defined HIPAA policies; Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) makes that a really easy process through the automation aspects.

We manage our Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems for provisioning and patching using a combination of VMware vRealize for actual deployment, and then we use Ansible Automation for the day-two configuration and lifecycle. Once software deployments and configurations are all Ansible automation, it couldn't work any better for us. As long as you have a coding background and understand YAML, Ansible works fantastically.

If I had to suggest one improvement for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), it would be clearer licensing information. There could be easier licensing paths for Red Hat; currently, it's included with many different things, yet just more clearly defined skews would help. That's the main consideration.

We have used Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for a total of about a decade now.

Regarding stability and reliability, our experience is that we don't have to reboot our Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) servers as we do with Windows servers every 90 days for something bad. 

We only have to reboot our Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) servers for updates or some unusual code push. We can count on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) just as we can count on Cisco UCS.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales fantastically with the growing needs of our company. We have clustered our Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) servers, and as far as size, they far outweigh anything else in the environment. 

Our largest clusters run on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), and we continue to see that as we grow, it is able to grow with us.

I would evaluate the customer service and technical support of this solution as being excellent when we need them. 

The information in the knowledge base is so readily available that we don't very often have to contact customer service, however, when we do, they are generally very knowledgeable and well-versed in our size.

Positive

Before we chose Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for the first time, we were mostly using Windows. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) was really our first enterprise Linux that we brought into the environment under the enterprise scale.

The biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the manpower; it's the ability to automate significant management tasks. That is the biggest ROI on the amount of time we spend managing this system, as we can take that time back and dedicate it to other types of innovation.

My experience with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)'s pricing, setup costs, and licensing has been pretty consistent, and honestly, compared to the rest of the market, it's pretty fair.

We've certainly considered other solutions before choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), including open source; we do use a bit of open source such as Rocky Linux, which most are going to be Red Hat derivatives. We also looked into other options, however, for anything tier one or most tier two, our current tier-one environment is Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). From a stability and supportability standpoint, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is a clear winner.

Currently, I can't say that Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) necessarily supports our hybrid cloud strategy; what it does do is make the deployment of several deployments and conception models much easier for us to consider versus having to do custom imaging for our cloud presence. 

It helps us bring down the amount of time it takes us to deploy.

On a scale of 1-10, I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) an 8.

My use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) include doing OpenShift tasks and general Linux use cases.

The feature of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that I value the most is automation. Automation saves time for me as I don't have to keep doing the same tasks repeatedly. My company benefits from automation in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) since we use Ansible to deploy numerous operating systems. 

We can initiate 20 deployments, and they get configured automatically, which is efficient.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) might have helped to mitigate downtime and lower risk, though I cannot think of a specific example.

Improving Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is a challenging question. Regarding SELinux, they could make that clearer or make it easier to use.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for about a year.

The stability and reliability of the Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) platform are really amazing. There are many instances where I'll have an Active Directory server go down, and I go into the remote consoles because Windows is doing forced updates, and it drops, which is extremely annoying. I haven't experienced any similar issues using RHEL.

Evaluating how Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales with the growing needs of my company is challenging because much of what I do is lab work, so most projects are not scaling out. They remain at a set scale, then get torn down, and we create another one at that same scale.

I've had limited experience working with Red Hat support. 

I submitted a ticket because I was trying to access training material since we were a partner and were supposed to get it free, however, I had an issue with my account. 

I opened a ticket, and the person who took it responded in 20 seconds and fixed it immediately, which was excellent. I would rate the customer service and technical support of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) at a ten out of ten. It was extremely fast.

Positive

I'm not certain if Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the first solution of its kind that our company is using.

Most of my management of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems for provisioning and patching is done in labs, so I don't see many persistent workloads. Most systems get torn down. I haven't done much patching, but I'm familiar with Cockpit, and I have personal VMs that I manage that way.

When upgrading from RHEL 8 to RHEL 9, we encountered some issues and had to use a leap utility for jumping between releases. Once we found the documentation, the process was straightforward.

Since we operate in a lab environment, instead of upgrading Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), we typically download the newest release.

The biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) from my technical perspective is automation. I use automation daily to provision VMs and other systems. You can initiate the process and focus on other tasks while it runs, which increases efficiency.

I get our licensing for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) through our account team, so I don't handle that aspect.

We did not consider other solutions to my knowledge before choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) since Ansible is ubiquitous in our environment.

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) overall as a nine. There are some inconsistencies with commands, since it's built upon years of development, some legacy commands remain with opposite rules compared to newer commands. If it were more consistent, it would merit a ten.

Our main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) at our company involve it being our primary operating system for most of our servers. We're about 80% Red Hat Linux, 20% Windows.

The feature of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) I appreciate the most is the ability to build images from the Red Hat pipeline, which is very effective. 

We also have an on-prem image management system that works really well with Red Hat. These features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) benefit our company since they allow us to perform life cycle tasks faster.

Our upgrade or migration plans to stay current with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are that our operating strategy is to put all net new on 8.10, and we are going to stay on 8.10 until 9.10. We typically just stay on the long-term release.

As for how Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) can be improved, besides being cheaper, I am uncertain. From a technical perspective, everything is addressed, which is part of the reason why we have as many systems as we do. It's probably one of the reasons why we moved away from SUSE Linux all those years ago, and cheaper pricing would definitely be beneficial.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for approximately ten years. I've only been with the company for three years, and Red Hat has been there since before I arrived.

Regarding stability and reliability, we haven't had any issues with Red Hat VMs crashing due to a Red Hat issue.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales with the growing needs of our company quite effectively, as we're still on-prem and a VMware shop, so it functions seamlessly. Many of our applications scale really well, with some having several hundreds of VMs, which we couldn't accomplish on Windows.

The customer service and technical support experience is good. We have many highly qualified senior tenured engineers with Red Hat, so there are very few instances where we need to call somebody for assistance. It's usually account-related or access-related, not normally technical issues.

Historically, we used SUSE Linux before choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

Our architecture doesn't get hands-on. We guide and influence, so we have done upgrades over the years. We've done upgrades on upgrades on upgrades over the years. We typically don't do cross-version migrations if we can avoid it. It's a lot cleaner to do migration from major revision to major revision.

From a technical perspective, the biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is that compatibility and supportability are easier to adopt. There's a wider range of things that support it, and it has a larger community for getting support compared to Windows. From a server perspective, it functions better, and there are better capabilities for getting things to work and supporting any issues that might occur.

I'm not involved in the pricing, setup costs, or licensing for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). I hear that it's expensive, but everything is getting expensive these days, so I don't think it's Red Hat specific. VMware's kickoff after the Broadcom acquisition has created a catalyst for everybody to increase their prices.

I haven't considered changing to other solutions since CentOS went their own route. For the most part, everything is Red Hat for us. It just depends on the capabilities that determine what version we run. 8.10 is the standard, but before eight, we would have several instances on 7.5, 7.3, depending on the features and capabilities the application needed. If it was just a generic application without special requirements, we usually put them on the latest version.

When it comes to managing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems regarding provisioning and patching, we are moving to Ansible. We are on VMware's vRealize operations and orchestration, and we are moving all of our management and deployment strategies to Ansible. We are transitioning to Ansible since we have so many different systems and ecosystems that we need to touch; having one platform rule them all makes it easier for life cycle management and deployment. Ansible allows us to do everything in one seamless pipeline versus having to run five different automations for standing up a VM, standing up storage, and creating firewall rules.

I'm not very familiar with Red Hat Enterprise Linux's (RHEL) built-in security features when it comes to simplifying risk reduction and maintaining compliance. Cybersecurity requirements are abstracted from us, and they have their own tool suites, but we do have integrations with Red Hat. We use CrowdStrike, Carbon Black, and Rapid7, and all of those tools have integrations or abilities with Red Hat, so we leverage those tools but nothing is necessarily native to Red Hat.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has not helped to mitigate downtime and lower risks any more than any other operating system. The contributing factors of downtime are typically external, whether it's power or networking or storage. In our ecosystem within a Red Hat space, crashes are very infrequent and usually something external.

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

We run all of our servers on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), specifically RHEL 8, and that's the production OS for all the servers in our farm.

The features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) streamline many things for us. Everything feels streamlined, smooth to use, and easy to operate, making it almost invisible without stressing about issues on the OS level. As essentially a sysadmin level engineer, I really appreciate the package manager. It's simple and easy to use, being the most straightforward part of using Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

I don't know how Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) can be improved. As a sysadmin level worker, everything I need to do, RHEL has been able to perform for me. I don't have a specific use case where I wish I had additional features, so I can't provide feedback on that. I'm not sure about how Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) could maximize or enhance any features. I don't really know anything Red Hat specific that's positive or negative that I can speak on. I'm not certain if Red Hat could smooth out the migration process from CentOS to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). I think it's more internal stuff that needs to be ironed out rather than Red Hat having issues.

I've been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for around three to four years now.

There have been no issues with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) stability and reliability. We haven't experienced any OS level reliability issues.

The scalability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has been excellent. Our recent hurdle was getting off of CentOS, but the scalability hasn't been an issue for us. It's been smooth sailing, just requiring the bulk work of migrating thousands of servers.

I haven't engaged with customer support at Red Hat for any help.

Positive

I did not consider another solution before choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

I'm not entirely sure at the moment about Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) upgrade or migration plans for what's ahead of us. We're just looking into the short term right now.

Once our team got comfortable with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), we purchased Red Hat Learning on the side. After our team was trained on Red Hat through the Red Hat Learning subscription, the combined learning experience provided by Red Hat delivered many technical skills needed to be a comfortable sysadmin.

Everything has been running smoothly with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). I don't have any previous criticisms that RHEL specifically has solved in our use case. I'm not well-versed in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) built-in security features, so I can't comment on that aspect. I can't say if it has helped to mitigate downtime or lower risks specifically. Everything's so smooth with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that it's not something we really think about. We worry about other things rather than the OS level. I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 10 out of 10. I have not purchased Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) on the AWS marketplace.

Our main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) include our shift from VMware Tanzu container platform to OpenShift container platform about three to four years ago. We are also starting to use the Ansible platform to automate some networking.

One of the main benefits was that we were able to integrate with Github and minimize deployment to minutes versus days. 

The feature of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that I find most valuable is the Ansible automation platform, which is very user-intuitive, and there is abundant documentation and guidance available. 

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps us resolve many automation issues that we are facing now, as we attempt to automate setups and restore through Git and integrate with GitOps. It is working for us, and we are still in the deployment phase. We have been working closely with Red Hat, and it has been effective.

Currently, I don't have any specific improvements in mind for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). One of the tools I'm examining is the automation platform, and it appears there is still room for improvement since it is relatively new. Red Hat is working on this, and it will improve, though there are some bugs present. 

To make Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a perfect ten, improvements could come from newer features and software additions, such as Ansible. They are transitioning from Galaxy to the automation platform, which is new and has some issues, but this is expected. As the platform matures, it will continue to improve.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for approximately three to four years.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is very stable. We have been running it for approximately three to four years as our main container platform, and support is excellent. We can get people on the phone, and the response time is great. We haven't had to address any major issues.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales excellently with the growing needs of my company. It is easy to scale. With our OpenShift platform, downtime is close to zero when it comes to upgrades or scaling, and it is very easy for us, especially when integrating with GitHub.

The customer service and technical support for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are very responsive. I would rate them a nine out of ten.

Positive

We are deploying Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) on-premises. I have been involved in many Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) upgrades or migrations to on-premises, and it is straightforward. The documentation and how-to guides make it very simple.

The biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) from a technical perspective is minimal downtime for end users.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is superior to other solutions I've used in the past, such as VMware, primarily due to cost savings, which was our main reason for migrating.

When managing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems regarding provisioning and patching, we use a cluster environment, so everything is cluster-based, and we use GitHub to perform upgrades and patches almost seamlessly with no downtime. 

Our upgrade and migration plans to stay current with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) involve upgrading our clusters. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped us to mitigate downtime and lower risk with zero downtime achievement. 

I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) an eight out of ten overall, as I am still relatively new to it on an enterprise level, having previously worked on standalone systems.

My main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are mostly just running applications, web servers, app servers, databases, etc.

I don't have a preference on features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), as I appreciate many of them. While just getting into cloud, I'd say the best feature is YUM, DNF, and related tools, which are simple and easy to use and manage. 

The simplicity of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) benefits my company in general since we're under many audits and regulations that allow us to track any discrepancies we may find in the reports, as to remediate those vulnerabilities and apply the necessary patches so that we can be compliant with our systems.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps me solve pain points through vulnerability management, and its Satellite has been a really good tool to help us track vulnerabilities as well as patching the server.

We are hybrid, so we deploy Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) both in the cloud and on-premise. For our cloud needs, we use both Azure and AWS. We have a good track record with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and security, due to their ability to produce Day 1 patches, quick responses, and great customer support when we face problems.

When it comes to provisioning and patching, we usually manage our Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) patching in a monthly cycle, using Ansible to help update our monthly downloads from Red Hat Enterprise Linux, move it to our satellite, and then push it out to our servers.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) supports our hybrid cloud strategy. We mostly use both Windows and Red Hat, making it our primary Linux operating system for applications, and we've been using the Red Hat images that we've created for cloud, deploying them there with the necessary utilities and applications.

I assess the knowledge base offered by the Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) system fairly positively, especially for support questions, however, the only issue I have is that often, you have to log in with your provider ID; in some cases, I understand. That said, there are others that are not just generally support specific to Red Hat, which is a problem.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped to mitigate downtime and lower risk through our ability to patch quickly, with relatively fast reboot times, and the amount of changes applied that don't affect systems much, especially with patching, so everything works as designed with very little incompatibility issues.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) can be improved by offering more on the Ansible side, with more integration with Ansible Satellite and all their tools for a one-stop area that manages both vulnerabilities and image deployments in a workflow pipeline.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) since Red Hat 4, which was a long time ago.

Its stability and reliability are fair and stable, with not too many issues encountered as long as no one is messing with the kernel configuration.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales really well with the growing needs of my company, as long as we have licenses.

I find customer service and technical support for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) better than most; it's good.

Positive

Before Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), we were using SUSE Linux, starting originally with Red Hat, then switching to SUSE 10 and 11, and ultimately switching back to Red Hat 7.

My experience with deploying Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has gotten easier over the years, especially with Ansible, as it has become more automated, replacing a lot of the tasks we used to do by command-line interface with more Ansible playbooks and workflows.

From my point of view and a technical perspective, the biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the ease to spin up the instances and the fact that many people still prefer the command-line interface, which has significantly less overhead than a Windows system.

Regarding the pricing, setup costs, and licensing of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I'm not really involved with the budget, however, it seems to be okay for what we currently have.

A while ago, we considered SUSE and looked at Ubuntu before we ended up choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as our solution.

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

To make it a ten, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) would need to allow systems to remain operational even if licenses expire, especially on a virtualized platform, and perhaps also improve Ansible integration.