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 The knowledge base is now outdated and lacks documentation for features in RHEL 9, relying instead on old documentation from RHEL 7.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.

Negative

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.

I use it for a commercial platform for a bank in Ecuador. We have a product development for development in JBoss. We can have multiple channels on the left side in TBM and ES. 

I have a product in development that serves as middleware. We have multi-channel on the left side and multi-database on the right side. We don't use an AMQ yet. It's broad.

The valuable features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for on-premises are its flexibility and compatibility; it works exceptionally with JBoss. 

We find that the performance of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is very good, and the deployment is very easy. On YouTube, for example, they processed nearly 10 million transactions over nine years. 

Security is important, and it performs efficiently and is confident compared with a firewall and WAF, or whatever you use as a firewall to protect our deployments. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps with uptime and security; with every deployment, we evaluate security and apply vulnerability scanners, covering every vulnerability without any problem.

I don't know where Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) can improve; I just know that I don't use the cloud version, but I know the price, and I think it has many similar features to use JBoss with old features. 

In the last years, we have tried to quote a project using JBoss, but the license on cloud was cheaper than the on-premise license.

I have used the Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) operating system since 2016.

I use documentation and community forums for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). There's plenty of knowledge in many forums, and when I have trouble, I can find a lot of support on the web; there is a lot of information we can find.

Depending on the support I have to use, we didn't have a problem; we have a local reseller who helps with the Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) support directly. We use a partner for direct support with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). Our business in Ecuador is a local partner, and the name of the partner business is ASAP. Mr. Jimmy Rodriguez provides support and attends to our needs very efficiently.

Positive

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is more expensive compared with WebLogic, and I prefer JBoss against WebLogic. The main differences between the Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) operating systems and Windows and Solaris are concerning performance; the best performance is in the order of Linux, Solaris, and then Windows.

Achieving security standard certification is necessary for my business, and I'm always recommending Red Hat Enterprise Linux to my clients. 

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

I am working with a FinTech company. We have clients in the US, and for these clients, we have applications that are hosted in Amazon Web Services Cloud. We use the Red Hat Enterprise Linux operating system to run these applications.

We have a data center as well. In our organization, we are using a hybrid model. We have the AWS cloud and our data center is using VMware. Some of the workload is in the data center, and some of the workload is running in AWS.

We have various products, and we are trying to move all of the products to the AWS cloud. Our legacy applications are hosted in the data center. We are planning to move this data center to the AWS cloud in 2025. We are using AWS lift and shift technology for that.

The console is user-friendly. The web console provides an interface to manage all your resources.

Overall, I am happy with it, but I believe, security-wise, it could be better.

I have used Red Hat Enterprise Linux for almost eight years.

We never faced any major issues.

We are not taking any support from Red Hat. If we face any kind of issue, we just search on the web.

Neutral

I am very comfortable and happy using the Linux operating system. My experience with Windows is very bad.

There are no significant issues; it is very easy to set up. The implementation takes a couple of weeks.

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

Most of the applications I work with, including our primary enterprise-level application, necessitate the robust capabilities of an enterprise-grade operating system. Therefore, we utilize Red Hat Enterprise Linux to ensure optimal performance and stability for these demanding applications.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is praised for its exceptionally precise documentation, which greatly aids in the learning and implementation process. Troubleshooting is straightforward, and solutions to any arising issues are readily available through a simple Google search.

For provisioning Red Hat Enterprise Linux, tools like Terraform and Ansible are commonly used to automate the process on a base machine. While Terraform handles various provisioning tasks, Red Hat provides its software for patching, although OpenSCAP is also a strong alternative for effective patch management.

Our organization uses Red Hat Insights, leveraging its user-friendly single dashboard to monitor all aspects of our systems. This centralized platform has proven invaluable for maintaining an overview of our infrastructure and ensuring operational efficiency.

We often use the Red Hat Enterprise Linux web console for things like viewing system performance and logs, managing user accounts, and configuring network settings.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is robust, stable, and well-documented compared to the open-source versions of Linux.

I find the most valuable aspect of Red Hat Enterprise Linux to be its ease of customization. The operating system allows for the simple addition of kernels, modules, and other applications, making it highly adaptable to various needs.

Red Hat has several areas ripe for improvement. In the Asia Pacific region, where cost-optimization is highly valued, Red Hat's support and subscription costs are perceived as high and could be reduced. While their security documentation is comprehensive, some solutions lack open-source availability or training resources, unlike platforms such as Ubuntu. Furthermore, the quality of documentation and training sessions, particularly for OpenShift, could be enhanced. Addressing these issues would strengthen Red Hat's offerings and better serve its customers.

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

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is extremely stable.

When Red Hat is involved in virtualization or OpenStack, moving from one virtualization platform to another becomes easier. However, when scalability is needed, it depends on the underlying infrastructure security, which is part of Red Hat import.

Communication quality is very good. I find very helpful people in the support section, and the Red Hat portal is robust for main solutions and support. When I receive support, I often find very interesting solutions.

Positive

I previously used CentOS, Ubuntu, and Debian, among other Linux distributions. However, with the growing popularity of containerization technologies like Kubernetes and Docker, solutions like Red Hat OpenShift are becoming increasingly common, particularly in regions like Bangladesh, India, and the Asia Pacific. That is why we are using Enterprise Linux.

The initial deployment and migration of Red Hat Enterprise Linux are straightforward, particularly for cloud-based solutions. However, on-premises migrations present a slight challenge due to the complexities of CVS solutions and potential application compatibility issues. This can involve numerous parameters that require careful consideration. My lack of experience with Red Hat's migration tools may have also contributed to the perceived difficulty.

Red Hat could gain a competitive advantage in the Asia Pacific region by adjusting its pricing strategy. Lowering the cost of enterprise-level offerings could attract organizations seeking operating systems or Kubernetes solutions, as these tools are essential for many businesses in the region. This adjustment would make Red Hat a more appealing choice compared to competitors with potentially higher pricing.

I have not found another operating system that matches Red Hat Enterprise Linux; it receives a perfect score of ten out of ten.

The Red Hat Enterprise Linux upgrade process is generally smooth. However, patching occasionally causes issues, typically due to application incompatibility or bugs in the updated packages. This necessitates restoring from a backup to maintain functionality. While this is a recurring problem, the infrastructure itself remains stable throughout the process.

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. 

Positive

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.

I typically use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in my federal government contracts. Federal government customers are the only ones that use Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

Most government agencies use Red Hat Enterprise Linux because they have a requirement for commercial support. That is the only reason why Red Hat Enterprise Linux gets used over any other Linux distribution.

The only reason our clients use Red Hat Enterprise Linux is because Red Hat offers commercial support. 

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is a solid product. They have decent support, although not the best. They have a good knowledge base and a well-developed ecosystem.

Recently, Red Hat did a strange thing where they took over the CentOS project and changed several things in their pipeline. I don't believe that I, or the vast majority of Linux systems engineers out there, are fans of their development process for the operating system.

The way that Red Hat used to work was that they had a free version. It was the community version called CentOS. Everything that Red Hat developed, they backported to the CentOS community. About four or five years ago, they took over the CentOS community and they killed off CentOS. They were pushing the Red Hat Enterprise Linux stream variant, which was supposed to be the replacement. I wish they would just go back to the way it was before. I do not like the new development process and the new hierarchy. The vast majority of people in the Red Hat open-source community also do not care for it much.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux since its inception. I started using Red Hat Linux in 1999, but I do not remember what year it became Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

They are typically slow to respond. I feel their first-line support is lacking in knowledge.

Their knowledge base is pretty decent. It is pretty standard. Linux is such a mature product now that the knowledge bases for all the major distributions, even the open-source free ones, are so vast. I do not know if any Linux distribution offers any real advantage over others when it comes to the knowledge base.

Neutral

I have worked with all operating systems. I have been doing this for 30 years. In the military, I was a Windows and Linux systems administrator. I was using Solaris Unix back then. I have been using Windows for about 30 years, and then I have used all Linux distributions such as Ubuntu, Debian, Red Hat, Mandrake, Yellow Dog, etc. If there is a Linux distribution out there, I have probably used it in a project somewhere.

The only reason that I, or anybody else, uses Red Hat Enterprise Linux is because it offers commercial support. That is it.

The Red Hat package management system is inferior to most other package management systems in the Linux world, mostly to the Debian-based ones that used the App system versus the Red Hat RPM package management systems. Red Hat is also not as unified or as streamlined as other distributions.

The setup is pretty simple and very straightforward. I would rate it a seven out of ten for the ease of setup. Its upgrades are moderately straightforward.

The management depends on where those systems live. On-prem ones are managed differently than the cloud ones. Cloud-to-cloud ones are managed differently. Red Hat is slightly more work-intensive than other Linux distributions. I feel that Debian-based distributions, such as Ubuntu, Devuan, and AntiX, are easier to manage than the Red Hat-based distributions, and obviously, Red Hat Enterprise Linux is the flagship for all those distributions.

It is used just to meet requirements. Being government agencies, they do what they have to do to meet requirements. It helps them meet the requirements of having commercial support, and that is about the extent of it.

I am not a big fan of Red Hat Enterprise Linux. I use it because government customers have a requirement to use it, but outside of that, I would never voluntarily use it. In fact, I recommend against using it. 

We do not use features that are proprietary to Red Hat Enterprise Linux. We do our best to avoid proprietary tools. We stick to open-source tools. Typically, we use things like Ansible to achieve those goals.

I am a consultant, so I have worked with both on-premises and cloud deployments. I have used it in both Azure and AWS. It is client-defined. Our workloads are not hybrid workloads. They are usually dedicated. If we put a workload in the cloud, it is all in the cloud. If we put a workload on-prem, it is all on-prem. I do not know if Red Hat necessarily provides any special features to support hybrid workloads, and if it does, we certainly do not use them. We try to stay away from Red Hat-integrated tools and utilize industry-standard tools. We use Terraform and Ansible. Ansible is now owned by Red Hat, so it is technically a Red Hat tool, but it is also an open-source project.

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux an eight out of ten. It is good for commercial usage, but I would never use Red Hat Enterprise Linux in a startup environment.

Our primary infrastructure operating system is Red Hat Enterprise Linux, predominantly RHEL Eight. While some products utilize RHEL Seven, RHEL Eight point Zero is the standard for most of our operating systems and servers. However, server choices may vary based on specific industry requirements. Our underlying infrastructure relies almost exclusively on Linux distributions.

Our primary Linux installations use Red Hat Enterprise Linux in an on-premises VMware environment, with some instances deployed on AWS.

The built-in security features simplify risk reduction by allowing direct control of the root system's access.

Red Hat's knowledge base is excellent.

While Red Hat Leapp and Insights are helpful tools, they are not part of my daily workflow.

The web console is a good feature.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux enhances uptime and security, boasting faster boot times than other operating systems.

The most valuable feature of Red Hat Enterprise Linux is its security, which is more secure than Windows. 

Integrating certificates from third-party clients into Red Hat Enterprise Linux can be challenging due to the operating system's stringent security policies.

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

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is stable.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is scalable.

The technical support team was professional and quickly resolved our issue.

Positive

We use Oracle for our database, Ubuntu in our testing environment, and Red Hat Enterprise Linux in our production systems due to its increased stability.

The cloud migration from Red Hat Enterprise Linux Seven to Eight was straightforward due to the absence of underlying infrastructure complexities. However, the on-premises migration presented challenges from existing infrastructure dependencies, resulting in numerous errors.

The migration of approximately 200 servers required a team approach to ensure continuous monitoring. Although two people could have completed the migration, a four-person team completed it within two days. 

The migration from Red Hat Enterprise Linux Seven to Eight was done in-house.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux offers a compelling value proposition for corporations due to its robust support infrastructure, which is essential for maintaining enterprise-level systems. However, the pricing model may be less attractive to individuals or small businesses. Compared to cloud-based platforms like AWS or Azure, which offer flexible pay-as-you-go options, RHEL's subscription-based model can become cost-prohibitive for those with limited budgets or smaller-scale projects.

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

We utilize Ansible to provision and patch our extensive server infrastructure. Ansible's automation capabilities enable efficient batching and management of security patches across all servers.

We test all the patches for some time before we add them to our production environment.

We utilize Red Hat Enterprise Linux in our private cloud and on-premises environments, but I've observed better performance in the cloud, likely due to the greater availability of resources.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux does require maintenance.

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.

Neutral

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 to host databases and Citrix desktops on our servers. This allows us to offer virtual desktops as a service to other companies.

We implemented Red Hat Enterprise Linux due to its widespread industry use and extensive resources for assistance. The platform's popularity ensures a seamless experience when installing applications and creating packages, as it's utilized by many and offers ample support.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux offers excellent documentation and resources, including those provided by Red Hat and the wider community. While I don't rely solely on Red Hat's websites for instructions or troubleshooting, experienced users like myself generally find ample support and clear guidance to resolve any issues.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux's widespread use in cloud and on-premises servers is its most significant benefit, providing access to various online resources and support. Furthermore, Red Hat's comprehensive collection of packages and built-in applications simplifies development, making it an easy and obvious choice for many users.

Our workflows have been seamless with our hybrid environment.

Before Red Hat support, we used CentOS without expert assistance. This meant our OS team spent significantly more time troubleshooting issues and installation failures. Implementing Red Hat has resulted in increased efficiency.

One of the most beneficial aspects of Red Hat Enterprise Linux is its performance, combined with the flexibility to install a wide range of available packages online.

Red Hat could enhance its user experience by incorporating built-in automation tools, eliminating users needing to install, set up, or configure external applications. By providing pre-installed, native automation tools within the operating system, Red Hat would streamline processes and improve user efficiency.

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

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is stable.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is scalable.

Our organization transitioned from CentOS to Red Hat Enterprise Linux due to the enhanced security and support offered by Red Hat. The availability of online support for our OS team, combined with improved performance and rigorously tested patches, were key factors in our decision.

Upgrading Red Hat Enterprise Linux is a straightforward process that involves running a single command to update and patch all packages. However, syncing the repository to the new one is a manual step. Despite this, I haven't encountered any issues. To perform the upgrade, I synchronize our Red Hat repository with Red Hat Satellite, execute the upgrade command, and verify the package versions to confirm successful updates.

The required personnel for server upgrades depends primarily on the number of servers and the testing duration. Potential connection issues may also influence staffing needs. Based on previous patching experience, approximately five people are needed for the off-hours patching process, typically conducted between two AM and six AM.

The upgrades were done in-house. 

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

Our organization has approximately 3,000 users and operates five data centers in the United States that utilize Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux maintenance is straightforward but necessary due to occasional unexpected spikes in CPU usage and storage capacity reaching its limit. This presents a challenge because storage and CPU load management are not fully automated, requiring manual intervention to address these issues effectively.

I recommend Red Hat Enterprise Linux to others, especially larger companies. Purchasing Red Hat support, while an added cost, saves valuable time and resources compared to extensive independent research.

I have been a sysadmin handling everything about Red Hat Enterprise Linux, primarily for on-premises environments. I have built projects based on Red Hat Enterprise Linux, including development and support projects in the companies. I have handled pretty much everything. Anything you can imagine, I have probably done with it.

In terms of security, it does a lot of things that most people still turn off. SELinux is turned on by default. They have pretty good firewall rules in their defaults. The audit rules always take tweaking, but, overall, it comes out of the box not too bad. I used to write scripts to harden them from there.

There are multiple ways to provision and patch. You have everything from local repositories to doing it by hand.

Their knowledge base is incredible. There is so much information out there. It has never taken me longer than 30 minutes to find an answer to anything, even very tough ones.

One company I worked for was a security company, and we did a lot of patching on everything. It was designed around security and email hosting, and uptime was pretty much whatever we wanted it to be. I have had a couple of times when the uptime was bad, but it was caused by a third-party solution. In fact, the Norton antivirus was definitely the worst. Red Hat had nothing to do with it.

I enjoy the patching processes and the way Red Hat Enterprise Linux has elements set up. I have never had a patch session fail, even when installing a thousand packages at a time. 

Their implementation of Yum is effective. I have used it quite a bit to pull additional information out because, for a while, I was doing security work. It is nice to have all the security information they provide on the inside. Their security library is well-maintained. I have used it exclusively for 15 years now, and I have been nothing but happy with it.

I wish IBM would give them more leeway. IBM seems to have restricted Red Hat Enterprise Linux more since the acquisition.

The organization moved away from Red Hat because IBM introduced paywalls and additional barriers that did not exist before, which made everything a lot harder. They moved from there to the Rocky version, which is a fork of Red Hat. It is run by people who have left IBM or Red Hat engineers who left IBM. Giving Red Hat Enterprise Linux more independence could be beneficial.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux exclusively for about 15 years.

It has demonstrated great stability, with systems running for multiple years without issues. I have no problem with uptime. It is as long as you want it to be.

It offers excellent scalability. The HPC system that the organization runs is a small one, but it has 8,000 computers. Each computer has at least 24 to 72 CPUs in it, and everything runs on Red Hat Enterprise Linux or Rocky. It is eminently capable. They run jobs because they do some of the hurricane forecasting and things. The things that they run on it take 900 nodes and 70,000 CPUs. You walk into that data center, the air comes out of the floor at 50 degrees. By the time it gets through the computers, it is about 110, so they are working them hard. The room itself stays at about 90.

Before the acquisition by IBM, support was incredible. I could directly engage with developers and get immediate assistance. It was great. 

I have not had a lot of experience with them post-acquisition. At this point, the entire department is moving to Rocky. It is not a huge change for me, but a part of the move was the lack of support through IBM.

Positive

The company we are contacted with has just moved from Red Hat to Rocky, which is Red Hat-based. It is a fork of Red Hat, so it is like all Red Hat derivatives. It is binary compatible. You can do anything you want with it. For the things the organization does with the HPC environment, it is a lot nicer because there are fewer restrictions. Open source works best for HPC environments. You have to recompile a lot of drivers and things to get things to work. Being able to do that is critical in that business.

For the most part, upgrades and migrations are very straightforward. In one of the cases, it was very straightforward to install the OS, but it was a lot more problematic to find all the pieces that ran the underlying hardware and get those working right. We had to do a lot of testing between lots of different versions of both the OS and the hardware drivers before we found good combinations. From what I hear, going from Red Hat to Rocky was a lot cleaner than going from Red Hat 6 to Red Hat 7. That was a big change.

In terms of maintenance, for the most part, once you get it set, you can walk away from it.

I do not have any insights, but I know why the prices went up. At the time, it made sense. I do not know what the pricing is like now. Previously, the pricing model was advantageous as it allowed unlimited installations for a single price, focusing on support. The recent introduction of paywalls complicates the cost landscape.

I have used the web console, but I am more of a command-line person. I did not see a lot of use for it, but I have used it in the HPC world because you can do some things that are handy, such as pulling in entire groups of things and building them as a boot group. It is nice to have when you need it.

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