My main use case for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is when I was working with another company, where we used the Ansible Automation Platform provided by Red Hat and OpenShift, primarily for any code automations and server productions.

I have additional insights about my main use case for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL); we've used it as a standalone server for different products, more specifically as an Ansible server and key servers, just provided by virtual machines.

The best features that Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) offers include how comprehensive the enterprise packages are, as you can get stuff included with it and the documentation that follows, which I think is good even though it is a Linux distribution that you have to pay for.

I also appreciate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)'s built-in security features, as they require less configuration and include compliance associated with it. More specifically, regarding the documentation, if I had any specific questions about Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I could go directly to the website and find the answers there.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has positively impacted my organization by providing a lot of security to run all of the systems we had in a particular environment, especially since I worked with more government operations, where security was the top priority, which Red Hat prioritized. We didn't have to worry about security configurations within the infrastructure, saving us time, and it was easy to navigate if you had a great background in Linux, plus Red Hat support was very helpful with any specific questions on the product.

I wish that Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) had more free options available; there are similar Linux distributions, but in terms of training and certification, I think it would be beneficial if there were a better free trial, allowing users to gain better experience with the platform itself.

That's the main improvement needed for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for about two years.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is stable and handles growth and changes efficiently, specifically with new AI platforms being integrated.

I have not experienced customer support for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

I did not use a different solution before Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL); it was strictly Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

I cannot share any return on investment from using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

I never dealt directly with the pricing, setup cost, and licensing for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) since that was managed by someone above me; it was more about day-to-day use cases for me.

My advice for others looking into using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is to be sure to look into the documentation and review the products because it is very customizable, and I would recommend using it for an enterprise.

I choose a rating of seven for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) because it is not a solution I use every single day. I rate it higher because it is applicable across multiple infrastructures Azure and AWS Cloud, but it is not universally used in particular environments, especially the one where I currently work, which is not really code-dependent.

I was offered a gift card to do this interview regarding Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), but that's the only business relationship my company has with this vendor.

My use of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is for on-premise vertical solutions, but everything is on-premise. The main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) include enterprise applications, such as databases and enterprise web applications, or security applications like WebSphere.

I find the most valuable aspect of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is its stability in working with other enterprise devices, such as firewalls and centralized storage. Enterprise applications and devices communicate well with RHEL, and it provides appropriate drivers for those enterprise devices. However, apart from that, I see almost the same performance with other open-source distributions like Ubuntu or Debian.

When assessing the knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I find their documentation online to be excellent. I would rate the experience I have had with the documentation or knowledge base of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as excellent, giving it a ten out of ten. It is very good and useful for other Linux distributions as well.

The most important security feature in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is similar to that of other distributions, such as user creation and minimum privileges during the operating system's operation. In enterprise environments, I don't notice anything special in terms of security compared to others; it interacts very well with enterprise devices like firewalls and storage solutions.

RHEL has its own firewall, which is SE Linux, and I consider that to be a remarkable security feature. I have not tried Red Hat Insights; I don't know how to use that feature of Red Hat. Regarding the Image Builder or System Roles in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I haven't used them; I only use the ISO image directly for installation.

The solution has high pricing.

My overall usage of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has been uninterrupted. In total, it has been three years.

In terms of Red Hat support, I haven't used it, as everything I need to solve is in the documentation, which is very good.

I have previously used other solutions like Debian or Ubuntu.

I switched to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) based on the direct requirements of the customer, not by my own decision.

The initial setup of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is straightforward; I find it very easy to set up.

My experience with the pricing, setup costs, and licensing of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) indicates that this was the main topic that made me step away from RHEL. Personally, I don't see good benefits from their support and paid licensing compared to completely free and well-documented Linux distributions, as I find RHEL excessively expensive. Normally, the customer asks for a three-year licensing agreement for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

Overall, I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as a nine technically, however, considering the cost, I would rate it a six, since it is very expensive. Combining technical and financial aspects, I give it a seven out of ten.

My experience is primarily on-premises. I work in the financial and banking area, which has about 2,000 VMs.

The benefits are reliability, stability, and good support.

I find Red Hat Enterprise Linux stable.

The knowledge base offered by Red Hat is good. They also have good support for the business. The web console has been acceptable, but we don't really use those tools.

I don't find Red Hat Enterprise Linux's security features to be good. They have many vulnerabilities that haven't been fixed for many years. They have numerous vulnerabilities that remain unresolved. Just some security details could be fixed. They have many vulnerabilities left over from previous years, with not enough being fixed, and their commitment is only to fix the critical and important ones. For moderate and low severity issues, they don't have the commitment. The security part is weak. Based on all scan reports, they have many vulnerabilities that can't be fixed adequately.

We will be involved with some Red Hat Enterprise Linux upgrades or migrations to other cloud platforms. It's not straightforward in my opinion; we have to create an image from Red Hat Virtualization Manager and convert the image to a format that can be recognized by other platforms, such as Microsoft Azure. We have to convert the image and then import it to the Azure cloud. It's not easy, as it requires manual work. There's no tool available for this process.

I have three years of experience with Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

The uptime is excellent as it's automated and stable. I would say the uptime is very good.

Overall, their support is good. I would rate their technical support an eight out of ten.

We didn't use any other Linux systems before. Initially, we used other operating systems such as AIX and Solaris, but Red Hat Enterprise Linux was the first Linux we introduced.

We also have SUSE Linux for one specific product.

When it comes to provisioning and patching, we use the satellite. It's acceptable when patching. I am satisfied with the provisioning and patching process as it's easy to manage. We don't use Insight, and I don't know about it. We don't use the Linux image builder or System Roles; we use our own Ansible Playbook to build a system.

We have all the automation set up for server provisioning and patching. We have the web console, but we don't really use its tools. We use our own Ansible Playbook, which allows us to manage and customize. We have many customizations. All the agents are installed for compliance, IP setup, file system creation - everything is automated.

When we create a VM, it only takes running the playbook and clicking a button. It takes about two minutes of work, and the automation handles the rest. In about two hours, the VM is up and running. If we use their tools, there are many limitations for customization, and we can only build an OS, but for the rest, we still have to run the automation. That's why we don't use those tools.

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux a six out of ten.

I have used Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for most of my career. It is primarily used as the base operating system on which various applications run. Currently, I am attempting to transition away from RHEL due to changes in the organization following IBM's acquisition.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is still considered better than Microsoft's offerings due to its superior handling of virtualization and faster performance. Microsoft often incorporates parts of RHEL's code, such as the networking stack, into its own products. The LEAP functionality for upgrades between versions is well-written and satisfactory.

RHEL has experienced a change in approach after being acquired by IBM, and the company has shifted away from open-source principles. The knowledge base is now outdated and lacks documentation for features in RHEL 9, relying instead on old documentation from RHEL 7. The introduction of unstable and undocumented products also detracts from the product's reliability.

I have used RHEL since it existed, so since 1991 or 1992.

RHEL has become less reliable due to undocumented updates and the release of unstable packages, which detracts from the product's stability.

Within the same vendor, moving workloads is easy. However, switching between vendors requires a significant migration effort.

The quality of Red Hat's support has declined in the past five to six years after outsourcing support to India. Complex issues are difficult to resolve due to communication challenges.

I have not switched from RHEL, but I am exploring alternatives such as Rocky Linux and Debian, which offer similar features without the high costs.

Setting up RHEL is quite straightforward, especially for someone familiar with it. The software asks the necessary questions for configuration, and the documentation generally explains these well.

The return on investment with RHEL is challenging to calculate but involves paying more upfront compared to Microsoft solutions for better reliability and stability, avoiding potential downtime costs.

The setup and licensing costs for RHEL are high, especially concerning support and associated applications. Red Hat charges high prices for support solutions like Ansible Tower, which can deter companies from using their products.

Other solutions evaluated include Ubuntu, Rocky Linux, and Debian. These alternatives offer similar functionality at a lower cost, especially concerning support.

Overall, I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a seven out of ten. People are now turning to other Linux distributions due to RHEL's declining quality and high costs. I suggest caution when considering Red Hat due to the divergence from its original open-source model.

Our clients use it as an operating system. One of the reasons for going for Red Hat Enterprise Linux was to reduce the downtime that a client was having with AIX.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is super fast, and our systems have less downtime. There is about a 60% reduction.

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux both in the cloud and on-premises. We move workloads between the clouds and data center using Red Hat Enterprise Linux. This functionality is very important for us.

They offer support as well as training. Most of our staff is Red Hat certified. They have a good knowledge base with a lot of videos and useful content.

We are very satisfied with the patching and upgrade experience. We moved from Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 to Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8. It was easy. The live patching capability is very useful. It is one of the best features. Provisioning is also simple.

Red Hat Insights helps to identify and address any vulnerability risks. We get to know about any required patches.

Red Hat Console is very helpful for having an overview, patching, and maintenance.

The support is valuable. We get direct support from Red Hat. There is also no downtime. We can sleep better at night knowing that our systems are running.

Live patching should be improved.

I have been using it for three years.

The stability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux is very high. There is no downtime.

The scalability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux is a six out of ten.

It is the base OS. Most client applications run on Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Our clients are big organizations. In our company, we have 15 people working with Red Hat.

I would rate Red Hat's support a nine out of ten. They provide a quick response.

Our client moved from AIX to Red Hat Enterprise Linux because they were having downtime issues.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is different from other Linux solutions because they offer support.

We have a hybrid model of deployment with both on-premises and cloud setups. The deployment overall was easy.

Its maintenance involves patching and upgrades. Patching is easy. The migration to the cloud and upgrades are also simple.

We have seen about 20% ROI.

It is cost-efficient.

We have plans to increase its usage. I would recommend Red Hat Enterprise Linux. I would rate it a seven out of ten.

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux as the operating system to host various applications developed by our application group. It has our test tools, web servers, and Java applications. We install it based on the requirements of the applications.

It is a good product. All Linux solutions are pretty solid. It carries a different business model than a lot of them, which fits more into our business model. That is where it excels. We do not prefer unsupported ones or buying third-party support.

The most valuable feature of Red Hat Enterprise Linux is its support. I primarily use the product because it offers a phone number for support when needed.

It integrates well with our existing systems like SaltStack for patching and provisioning. However, its primary value is in having support when issues arise.

There is room for improvement in terms of pricing and its knowledge base.

I consider the cost high. The knowledge base is extensive and deep but can be confusing due to outdated or non-applicable information that you have to sift through to find relevant answers.

I have had experience with the basic and extensive use of Red Hat Enterprise Linux for about 15 years.

Customer service varies. I would rate their support a five out of ten, as it depends on the person at the other end. Sometimes the support is good, and sometimes it is not so good. It is like any other support organization.

I did not switch from any previous solution. Red Hat Enterprise Linux has been in use since before my tenure.

I work in the casino gaming industry. Most of our servers are in Windows. We have about 30 Linux instances. We install it based on the implementation requirements of an application. There is a justification for putting an application into our environment. It goes through a process at our company, and then where we install it or what we install it on is usually up to the requirements of the application.

We have on-premises and cloud-based environments. Red Hat Enterprise Linux is running in one of those environments. It has adequate features for security in cloud environments.

We use SaltStack, and we built the patching mechanism ourselves. We are pretty satisfied with it. If we were not satisfied, we would change it.

The upgrades with Leapp used to be painful. It used to not work at all for us. When we went to Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9, it did work, but it was a fairly painful process. The advantage is we do not have to reinstall the apps on top of the new image of Red Hat. It is an in-place upgrade. The problem is that you can install Red Hat Enterprise Linux in 50 different ways, and in the past, Leapp assumed you did it the default way. They have added some flexibility so that we can work around some of the stuff, but it makes you install it a certain way, which is not necessarily the way we would do it, mainly because of our security standards and performance needs.

We have not experienced a noticeable return on investment with Red Hat Enterprise Linux itself, as the operating system serves its intended function without bringing additional advantages.

Pricing depends on the model used, costing about $3,000 per virtual host in the virtual environment. It varies depending on whether you get high availability. There are modules that are upsold such as kernel patching, which we do not use due to cost considerations.

In the cloud, we use their licensing. For on-premise, we use the subscription, so we have two different licensing models.

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux a seven out of ten.

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux in the enterprise for production environments. We mostly use it on bare metal servers, which are dedicated. In terms of deployment, we use the on-premises version of Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has given us better insights and allowed us to manage the environment more effectively. In terms of overall performance improvements, it has provided us with increased visibility into security, which has been helpful for our cybersecurity team.

Its built-in security features seem pretty sufficient for our purposes, but we have other teams that manage the security and build aspects. I am more involved in the maintenance of it, but in terms of the built-in security features, I find it sufficient. The security team also takes care of the compliance aspect.

I mainly use the Red Hat database for vulnerabilities. It is pretty good for determining whether or not a vulnerability has been resolved.

We use Red Hat Satellite for patching. I like Red Hat Satellite for patching and keeping us secure.

We have used Red Hat Enterprise Linux in hybrid environments. It seems to work fairly well. For hybrid environments, it is probably one of the easier ones to deploy because it allows us to scale.

We were able to realize the benefits of Red Hat Enterprise Linux immediately after the deployment.

In terms of the organization and structure, the support is on point. The reporting and other things are very standardized. It does not leave much room for error when working in production environments.

When we first deploy Red Hat Enterprise Linux, it is very challenging to determine which security features have been deployed. It would be beneficial to have more insight into this. Additionally, once it is built, there does not seem to be an option to retroactively change security features, which can make it difficult to ascertain which ones have been deployed.

Their knowledge base is very verbose. There is too much information. It can complicate things a little bit. It is very detailed. If they can shorten it, that might be helpful.

We have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for a few years now, approximately seven to eight years.

I would rate the stability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux as seven out of ten. We do encounter problems, most of which can be resolved. Occasionally, we face issues that cannot be resolved until the kernel developers address them. These are typically dealt with through quarterly releases or major upgrades.

In terms of scalability, I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux about a nine out of ten. It is easy for us to make snapshots when we are patching. If we need to clone, we can do so, although they might not be full backups necessarily.

We use their portal for contacting support. The support from Red Hat is quite quick because it operates on a service-level agreement (SLA). For the paid support features, they are very responsive.

I am familiar with CentOS, and I have used OpenSUSE and SUSE Enterprise for testing and comparison purposes.

CentOS did not have as many security features. Of course, CentOS had the community support. CentOS was bought by Red Hat, and then the support started lacking. It was then discontinued to promote Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

We have done some physical to virtual migrations using VMware. We have been mostly involved in that. We have done a little bit of virtual-to-cloud migration but not as much as physical-to-virtual.

The migration is more on the complex side. There are quite a few players involved. We need to collaborate with different teams. We need to make sure that the database is there, and that the database team is always involved. It is not terribly simple. It requires quite a bit of project planning and coordination. We usually have a six-month project so that it can be planned and tested.

It does require maintenance on our end but not very frequently.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux licensing is quite costly, but I personally do not deal with pricing.

My advice to new users would be to focus more on the build aspect because it can be overlooked by many new users.

The Leapp utility works well when you do not have a much-customized environment. The more customized your environment is, the more complicated it gets to get Leapp to work to switch over to Red Hat Enterprise Linux. It is possible, but the more customized your environment is, the harder it is because it will require the kernel module. Convert2RHEL is pretty much the same as Leapp. The more customized the environment, the harder it is. It is feasible. It is just a matter of how much time you are willing to spend on it.

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux a seven out of ten.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is just a piece of an operating system for my company, and what we need the most is STIG compliance because we have a lot of different customers.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped my company since, with it, we have gotten more customers. Now, our company can say upfront that we use Red Hat and are STIG compliant while also being security-focused, which really helps open up the door to people who want to get their stuff done.

The most valuable feature of the solution is its good integration with Ansible.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has not helped centralize development in our company, especially since we deal with unique use cases in our organization. My company still develops locally on CentOS, but once our company actually completes the product for our customer, it gets shipped somewhere else and we can't centralize things since we don't have that much time to spare owing to which we stay disconnected after the aforementioned process.

My company plans to use the product for containerization projects, especially since we are in the process of converting to Kubernetes.

Based on my assessment of the the built-in security features when it comes to areas like risk reduction, business continuity, and compliance, I would say that I am a big fan of the tool.

In terms of the portability of applications and containers built on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) to keep our organization agile, it has been pretty good since all the containers have been very portable without having to deal with any environmental issues.

If I had to give a suggestion to a colleague who is looking at open-source cloud-based operating systems for Linux instead of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I would say that one should look at AlmaLinux since it is the closest thing one can get to Red Hat.

The product's deployment model is usually in a single data center, and it consists of one machine at a time. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) does not use a public cloud.

The documentation is an area of concern where improvements are required. Sometimes, I go to look at stuff in the tool's documentation to see how to configure something, and it doesn't make any sense. The tool's documentation is written by someone who already knows how it works for those who need to learn how it works. Everything else in the documentation is really good, though. I would describe the documentation as a kind of a hit or miss.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for about six months.

It is a scalable solution.

I would like to expand the use of the product in the future, but our company's business model is contract-based and very slow, which makes it difficult to work with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

As per my evaluation of the technical support offered by the product, I would consider the support services offered to be at a 50-50 rate since everything really depends on who you get to talk to from the support team. Some of the people from the product's support team to whom we reached out didn't understand our use cases or our problems, so they couldn't help us at all. Some of the support staff members who understood what our company meant when it came to the issues associated with the product were able to help us in 30 seconds. My colleagues who contacted the product's support team were satisfied with the technical team's services. I rate the technical support a six out of ten.

In my company, we used to use CentOS. Now that CentOS has reached the end of life phase, it doesn't meet our company's needs, so we transitioned to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

Previously in my company, we used to use CentOS. CentOS will reach the end of life phase in the upcoming month, which is the reason why my company had to choose another product like Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

The solution is used on an on-premises model.

Deploying Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) was surprisingly easy. The installers were the same as the ones used for other solutions.

My company did not have a strategy to deploy the product since we just needed Red Hat to hurry up, put it on a box, and figure it out.

My company did not seek the help of a third party to help us with the product's deployment phase.

The biggest ROI I have experienced from the use of the solution revolves around the area of customer satisfaction. My company's customers who use the product have a lot less to be changed in the product and it has helped save a lot of development and redevelopment time for our organization.

The cost and setup are not areas that are transparent for me. The tool's licensing part has been a real pain because when our company sells a system to a customer, they take full control of it in their data center, and we are not allowed to access it, even though they bought it from us. The license transfer has always been really awkward because our company initially had the license until our customers tested it and accepted the product. I was hoping to find somebody to talk to about the license transfer part with Red Hat products, but I don't know where to find someone associated with the solution.

My company briefly evaluated a product named Debian, but after that, our company's customers specifically asked us to go for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

Considering that the licensing part associated with the product is a pain, I rate the tool a seven out of ten.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux serves as the foundation for our cluster infrastructure, allowing us to deploy applications and connect servers. We further enhance operational efficiency by deploying Kubernetes on top.

We chose Red Hat Enterprise Linux for its stability and well-rounded features and its proven track record of decades of reliable operation.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux's built-in security features and mandatory access control help to mitigate and secure the OS from threats.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is well documented and anyone with a technical background can easily understand and use the OS.

Red Hat's image builder is helpful.

Building upon the industry's 95 percent adoption of Linux OS, our Red Hat Enterprise Linux with Kubernetes setup has helped our operations.

We have not encountered any downtime while using Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux enables us to achieve security standards certification.

The performance of Red Hat Enterprise Linux is consistent between on-premises and cloud deployments. The key difference is simply a shift from owning hardware to renting cloud space for the operating system.

Red Hat is open source, so what we get with Red Hat Enterprise Linux is valuable support that is not included in the free version.

Recently, whenever we have applied a Red Hat patch, we have encountered errors requiring additional work. Unfortunately, the release notes for these patches are not always updated accurately, creating further challenges during troubleshooting. Specifically, the notes often fail to mention dependent packages that are also updated alongside the main package.

While the OS hardening feature is helpful, it could benefit from additional automation. A one-click package for hardening all files would significantly improve efficiency compared to the current manual process, especially considering the hundreds of files we've processed over the years.

The support has room for improvement.

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

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux a six out of ten.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is deployed across multiple locations in our organization with 95 percent of our employees that use it.

To ensure optimal performance and security, we must prioritize installing operating system updates as they become available.

Taking the Red Hat administration course beforehand will significantly ease the user experience when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux in different application servers.

The tool's most valuable feature is simplicity. There is value in having a fully CLI-based operating system instead of a GUI-based one. It is lightweight and can be leveraged without resource constraints.

I want Red Hat Enterprise Linux to stick to the open-source routes. As a company, we experience challenges in managing the budget.

I have been using the product for three years.

From a licensing perspective, Red Hat Enterprise Linux is flexible. We leverage our licenses based on the VMware cluster.

Accessing the knowledge base from the public perspective is challenging. You can get much more from the documentation if you are a supported organization. If Red Hat Enterprise Linux continues to keep the documentation open-source, it will benefit us.

We leverage Ansible to help with the upgrades. It makes upgrades easier. We rely on a reseller for Ansible AWS upgrades.

We are shifting our Red Hat Enterprise Linux servers from version 7 to version 8.

I rate the product a seven out of ten.