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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would rate Rocky Linux a 7 out of 10.

My typical use case for Rocky Linux is that it's the backend operating system for managing where we have a lot of scripts managing networks.

I don't have a use case for AI integration yet because we simply did not look into it, so I don't know if it's there or not.

The experience of working with Rocky Linux is the same as with other Linux distributions; there was no difficulty for me in learning how to work with it.

Rocky Linux is similar to other distributions. I did some research on Google, and then it was manageable without needing documentation.

To be honest, Rocky Linux is almost similar to each Linux distribution, so I have no specific reason why it should offer me its features.

I haven't noticed anything special that could be done better in Rocky Linux.

I switched less than a year ago from my previous company, and I think they have been using it for one or two years.

The experience of working with Rocky Linux is the same as with other Linux distributions; there was no difficulty for me in learning how to work with it.

First of all, there is in-house knowledge for handling technical support or community issues.

If I have specific issues that couldn't be resolved by myself, I either contact an outside ICT company with specialized engineers or contact the vendors.

We have not yet needed to contact a vendor regarding Rocky Linux.

It's equal whether it's now CentOS, Rocky Linux, or Ubuntu; actually, a bash script remains a bash script.

A server on VMware rolls out the template, so it's a one-hour job to deploy it.

It's equal whether it's now CentOS, Rocky Linux, or Ubuntu; actually, a bash script remains a bash script.

I'm just using tools, so I'm not in any decision making.

The decision is made at the customer, so it's not my decision. I'm not in any decision maker role.

All these decisions have been made. I'm just following it, and for me, there's no real preference between A or B.

I switched less than a year ago from my previous company, and I think they have been using it for one or two years.

It's a hard question to determine the most helpful or useful features in this tool.

I rate Rocky Linux eight out of ten. An eight means that I'm satisfied with it; a product having a ten never exists because things can always be better.

I have nothing really in mind that could make Rocky Linux a nine out of ten.

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

The solution is free and open source.

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

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

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

The deployment process is simple.

I would rate the stability an eight out of ten.

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

I rely on self-support and community resources.

I previously used VirtualBox but now tend to use Proxmox.

The initial setup is simple.

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

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

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

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

There can be some issues with scalability that need consideration.

I would rate Rocky Linux an eight out of ten.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I rate the process a nine and a half.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Around 400 people in my company use the tool.

I have not contacted technical support for the solution.

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

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

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

I rate the tool an eight out of ten.

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

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

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

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

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

I have been using Rocky Linux for five years.

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

I rate the solution ten out of ten for stability.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Overall, I rate the solution ten out of ten.

We tested Rocky Linux as a replacement for CentOS. It was a drop-in replacement that worked as advertised out of the box. However, we decided to go with another solution. We felt Alma Linux was a better fit for us than Rocky Linux.

We decided not to use Rocky Linux, and therefore, it has had no impact on our organization.

Rocky Linux does function as a drop-in replacement for CentOS, which is a valuable feature, but we felt there were better options out there.

In terms of improvement, Rocky Linux needs to clarify its identity and target audience. While it is technically sound as a CentOS replacement, there is a disconnect in its marketing messaging, which initially positioned it as an HPC platform. It should define its core identity and audience more clearly.

We tested Rocky Linux for a window of about three months.

I haven't needed to use customer service or support, which speaks volumes about their product's reliability and ease of use.

It is a straightforward setup, serving as a direct replacement for Red Hat Enterprise Linux or CentOS. Rocky Linux requires standard maintenance similar to any other Linux distribution, without any unusually heavy demands.

Overall, I would rate Rocky Linux as a seven out of ten.

We work with a diverse set of tools and systems. We often need to experiment with various products and utilize standard development tools like compilers and debuggers to streamline our workflow.

We make extensive use of Rocky Linux for system configuration. It helps us keep our workstations in sync and ensures consistent settings across most of our machines.

We have a lot of PostgreSQL databases in our development work within our organization. Many of the tools and packages we need for this are readily available and easy to install and configure. The flexibility and availability of software packages make our workflow faster and more adaptable. It provides extensive community support and makes seeking recommendations, assistance, and access to software and settings easy. This supportive community aspect significantly simplifies our work in various environments, and it's something we greatly appreciate as developers.

Rocky Linux, being relatively new, initially lacked some of the software we were accustomed to from CentOS 7. There were some missing components and changes that required adjustment which is typical when transitioning between major releases in any distribution. Since it offers open-source documentation, there may be minor challenges in finding information. One of the potential issues is that if you don't pay for support, you may need to manage certain aspects on your own and rely on the community for assistance.

The operating system has proven to be stable and reliable in our experience.

We haven't encountered any major problems with the operating system itself. Our primary challenges typically revolve around software-related issues, especially when it comes to third-party software or our in-house applications.

Our decision to use CentOS, and now its successor, Rocky Linux, was rooted in the desire to stay close to the Red Hat ecosystem. We have continued this approach by selecting distributions that are as similar as possible to RHEL. The aim is to ensure that our development and testing process aligns with the standards of the industry and our customer base. We want to maintain a consistent and reliable development environment, which is why we choose distributions like Rocky Linux or AlmaLinux.

The implementation process is relatively straightforward. We typically start by cloning the repository, which contains various configurations and packages. Since we have a considerable number of workstations, specifically around eighty, we find this cloning approach to be efficient. Once the repository is cloned, the system can be set up to automatically perform updates and package installations.

When we need to set up a new workstation, we utilize a kickstart configuration which contains essential information about the workstation, such as its IP address and other specifications. After a new workstation is added, the kickstart process efficiently sets up the machine according to the specified parameters. The key is having a well-organized system for repository access and automation, which ensures a smooth and efficient workflow when working with Rocky Linux.

When evaluating a replacement for CentOS 7, we initially had to consider certain specialized requirements before making a decision. Regarding the choice between AlmaLinux and Rocky Linux, both options were strong contenders due to their close alignment with the CentOS path, which we were transitioning from. We conducted testing and analysis on both AlmaLinux and Rocky Linux. Initially, it was challenging to determine which one to choose, but we opted for the distribution that appeared to have a more significant user base and community support. This decision is often crucial, especially in open-source environments, as a larger user community can provide valuable assistance with development, information sharing, and problem-solving.

There is a wealth of valuable information available online when it comes to using Rocky Linux. It provides clear guidance on the initial setup steps to get your system up and running for experimentation. Once the system is up and running, you'll notice that, as a user, the experience is quite similar to using other Linux distributions like CentOS or RHEL. The primary differences tend to surface when it comes to system management and administration, where you may notice distinctions between Rocky Linux and other distributions. However, with the available resources and documentation, navigating these differences becomes manageable. I would rate it eight out of ten.