We primarily use it for OS purposes. 

It's very good for support compared to other operating systems. For decades, it's been providing good support and service. Even during implementation, there's a dedicated team to answer any queries. We are a very big company running critical applications and having that support is very important.

The patching tool is good. We're also introducing the possibility of automation.

The built-in security features are okay when it comes to simplifying risk reduction. It makes life easier, especially in regards to the lifecycle and what we need to install, et cetera. The features and tools help us to maintain security overall. 

It is easy to maintain compliance.

The portability of applications and containers is good. Now we are just starting with the containers and anything related to Kubernetes. 

Red Hat is always providing security on time. Any vulnerabilities are immediately dealt with to fill the gap and deal with the issue.

It's a good tool. I'm very confident with this product.

The system role features for automation security configurations, et cetera, for Ansible, we started using it. We are new in terms of automation. We'll start to use it heavily in the near future. Ansible is another great tool from Red Hat.

It enables us to maintain consistency across systems over time. My role is to maintain stability, even during upgrades and patches. So far, it's been a positive experience. We use the entire ecosystem around Red Hat.

We use Red Hat Insights. From a security perspective, we may stop using it. With Insight, if you have Red Hat Satellite, it gives you an in-depth view of everything. The only thing missing is the insights related to performance. We may not continue with it. We'll see if we'll push it and have everything on the cloud. 

In the area we are using it, we are satisfied.

Maybe in OpenShift, which is our next step, there can be more improvements with integration with Kubernetes. We're not experts there yet. 

Maybe it could have a better user experience and less coding. Reducing the effort for the end user or administrator would be ideal to make daily operation and maintenance easier. 

If they can make the integration with Ansible easier, that would be ideal.

They should offer more in terms of learning materials to make learning easier. 

They need to make things more affordable or accessible. 

The solution is stable. We barely have any issues with a server setup. So far, it's manageable. The biggest challenge is the criticality of releasing patches. When we have any critical alerts we action them. We tend to try to wait for the release of a stable version. 

How many people use the solution depends on the application. We likely have thousands of users. We do have some products that maybe only have a few or a few hundred. 

We've had no challenges with scaling. It can support any type of load within the data center. 

Support is excellent. 

Positive

We did use a different OS. I have used Unix in the past. I started with Unix 30 years ago. I've also used SUSE. Red Hat offered more service and support. 

I was involved in the deployment. Our team managed the process. It's pretty straightforward. We handle implementation, tuning, and patching. 

How long it takes to implement the product depends. We're trying to mitigate the time by automating with Ansible. We want to handle one VM or server in five or fewer minutes, however, it can take days. At this point, we can provision servers in a few minutes. It's becoming faster. 

We have a team of ten to run the infrastructure on the OS level. 

I'm not an expert on ROI. We are paying to use the solution, however, the utilization we get and the support both offer good value. 

The pricing model isn't something I deal with directly. The pricing is fair, especially compared to virtualization like VMware. We do use VMware and are thinking about moving sandboxes and testing over to Red Hat. This may end up being a big cost savings with our CAPEX and OPEX. 

From the price level, the cost is almost the same for us, if we look at Red Hat versus SUSE, however, we get a higher level of support with Red Hat. 

Red Hat was always our first choice. 

We're a Red Hat customer. 

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten. 

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux as an operating system for hosting Oracle databases.

Compared to Windows as a server operating system, Red Hat Enterprise Linux seems more secure, and we've had fewer intrusions onto our systems. That one, for us, is the single most important thing. In a few instances where we've had intrusions, we've been able to detect them very quickly and get patches that fix those security holes very quickly, thus preventing further intrusions.

In the cases of clients I've worked for, I've never been involved in a ransomware attack or a significant reportable data loss. That is why we continue using either Red Hat Enterprise Linux or Oracle Linux.

The most valuable features are its stability and resilience in that we rarely have to take down the systems completely to patch them.

The operating system configuration and function selection could be improved. Configuring the operating system and selection of options takes a lot of expertise. I'm now going to retire, and I've been doing this for many years. Trying to train people to make those choices is proving to be difficult. However, to get applications to run efficiently in those environments, those selections are absolutely crucial.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux should include simpler storage management.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for 20 years.

I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux a nine out of ten for stability.

No system is infinitely scalable in a linear manner. As you scale up anything, the fact that you're scaling adds overheads. If I were to compare Red Hat Enterprise Linux to Windows, I would give Windows a seven because you run out of scalability much faster on the Windows side.

I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux a nine out of ten for scalability.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux's technical support team is not that great.

Negative

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is expensive, but it's hard to quantify. Oracle doesn't have a license. You just download Oracle software and use it, but their support is way more expensive. So they're about the same. With these types of operating systems, you need to have some support. With Red Hat Enterprise Linux, you need to pay a massive upfront licensing fee in order to get support. You don't have to pay a licensing fee for Oracle, but then you pay a massive support fee to get the support.

They're about the same overall. I don't really make that choice for my clients. I ask them to ensure that they do have some support from someplace. If they suffer a breach and need someone to help fix the problem, they should have something up and running when it happens instead of running around trying to arrange it.

Most of my clients have particularly sensitive information. We tend to run on-premises rather than the cloud because of security issues for those highly sensitive databases. We disconnect those databases from the internet so they are ultimately secure. That is something that you cannot do in the cloud.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux doesn't have any particular standout security features, which the other Linux tools don't have. I've also used the Oracle version of Linux, which seems very similar to Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Both seem to be as secure as the other. If I have to give a score in relation to stability, Oracle's version of Linux might be slightly more stable than Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

All the customers I've worked for have been using those operating systems for a long time. For instance, one of our customers has been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux since it was first available over 20 years ago. A return from that is difficult. They were using Unix rather than Linux. The applications they ran were ported from those environments, and migrating them to Red Hat Enterprise Linux was relatively painless. We did those migrations back in 1995 to 1997.

We tend to use the environment for running databases. So, we have very few real users directly connecting to the system. The people who connect to the system do so by applications.

We haven't needed any maintenance for a long time. My last company was a large organization, and we had the internal expertise to provide support. Some net contributors have fixed bugs themselves and contributed those bug fixes back into the Linux open-source community. It was a huge organization, and its IT department was as big as some software consultancies.

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

I use the solution for research purposes. 

The solution provides more detailed control. 

The product's built-in security features when it comes to simplifying risk reduction and maintaining compliance can be a tedious topic. It varies from user to user, however, it offers a lot of rapid releases. It helps us to simplify risk reduction and maintain compliance.

The portability of applications and containers built on the product when it comes to keeping your organization agile is good. It's easy to use.

It enhances our security. It helps us comply with company regulations.

When it comes to ensuring availability across physical virtual and cloud infrastructure, it's been okay so far.

It helped us to avoid emergencies due to security issues.

I consider the solution to be sufficient. I do not use it too much and therefore do not see any underlying problems with the solution. 

It's sufficient and it doesn't need new features. However, as new technologies enter the market, I hope they will keep up with the changing market.

From a product point of view, it's very efficient for servers. However, the solution is complex in terms of its architecture. It could be simplified. I'd like to see them introduce PDFs or documents to better explain technicalities to new users. 

Memorizing commands can be a bit tedious.

I've been using the solution for two years. 

The product has been stable so far. 

The solution is deployed to the data center, which is managed only by a few teams. 

About 150 people are using the solution. We also have 45 to 50 administrators as they are managing different areas.

The solution is scalable. However, I'm not sure if we plan to scale further in the future.

I have not interacted with support very much. 

I was involved in the deployment. The initial setup was very straightforward.

The deployment is fast and the process is efficient. 

I did a lot of the implementation myself. 

I did not evaluate other options. 

I'd rate the solution an eight out of ten. 

I'd advise new users to learn from someone who has done everything before. It's much easier than trying to learn by yourself from scratch. They should also have their own environment for testing. 

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux to run our GS and PSP applications.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux helps us avoid cloud vendor lock-in.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux helped us save on costs. 

The support and the stability are Red Hat Enterprise Linux's most valuable areas.

Upgrading between versions needs to be easier. For example, if we have Red Hat Seven running now and a Java exploit is found on Red Hat Seven, we need to be able to upgrade to Red Hat Nine online without any downtime in the environment. This is because it is not possible to reinstall the environment from Red Hat Seven to Red Hat Nine in production without causing downtime to the applications. Red Hat needs to have tools that ensure that we can upgrade from Red Hat Seven to Nine online without any issues.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for almost seven years.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is extremely stable.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is scalable. We have around 1,790 end users.

The technical support is quick to respond.

We previously used Proxmox and switched to Red Hat Enterprise Linux because of the price.

The initial setup is straightforward because it is well-documented. The deployment time depends on the application. A small application can take around 20 minutes.

The implementation was completed in-house.

The cost is based on each organization's budget and infrastructure.

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

The ease of moving workloads between the cloud and our data center depends on the application architecture. If the application has a monolithic infrastructure, it may be easier to move to the cloud. However, if the application is already running mostly in the data center, it may be more difficult because we would need to recreate all of the infrastructure and topology from scratch. This is because there are so many parts to consider when migrating a microservices-based application to the cloud.

For someone who wants to use an open source Linux operating system, I would recommend Rocky Linux. However, they should be aware that open source solutions do not come with the same level of support as Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

Four network team members are required to maintain Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

The Red Hat knowledge base is good and well-documented.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is the only Linux solution that is supported for enterprise-level organizations. I recommend this solution for large organizations that want professional support for their Linux systems.

I use the product mostly for Red Hat OpenShift. We use the solution mainly for stability and to have a fallback within the Red Hat community.

There was a worldwide security breach, and everybody needed to patch their servers. Since we were running on Red Hat Enterprise Linux, the product patched a lot of it. It took a lot of effort out of our hands.

It is a complete ecosystem. That is its main feature. If you take all the latest products, it just works together.

The tool is very, very close. It makes some things difficult. On the other hand, that is what makes the product so stable. The product lags a bit behind in the market. The things we are running are pretty old. Yet again, that is why it is stable. The solution doesn’t switch with every new thing there is. The solution does not need to change that because that's what makes it good.

The product could run more recent tools and packages in the repositories. However, it might bring instability because they are new and less tested. I looked at CentOS, which was close to Red Hat. It had a system working, but a few months later, it didn't work again because the packages and contracts had changed. We couldn’t communicate anymore. It’s not desirable with Red Hat Enterprise Linux. We want stability. The price we pay for it is that we run on some older features.

I have been using the solution on and off for the last 15 years.

I have no complaints regarding the tool’s stability.

The product is scalable. We use the solution all the time. We use it in multiple locations. We have two physical data centers where we run it. We run it on a few 100 machines.

The technical support is very helpful.

Positive

I have used CentOS and Debian.

The deployment is straightforward. However, there’s a learning curve to understand it. The deployment would be difficult for a newcomer, but it’s normal. We use automation tools. The deployment takes us a few minutes because we use scripts.

The solution is deployed on the cloud. However, it’s an on-premise solution from the Dutch government. We do not have control over the physical servers. We just work on virtual machines. The license fees are paid by another government agency. We take machines, and then they bill us for it.

We used some integration for the deployment. That's why it was so fast. We use a base image as the setup, and then, on top of that, we install some extra things. It’s just about cloning an image and starting it.

The solution does require maintenance, but nothing more than the usual. We need a team of four people with Linux knowledge to maintain the solution.

The product is on the expensive side.

Very early in my career, we had evaluated SUSE Linux as an alternative to Red Hat Enterprise Linux. SUSE has its own niche market now.

We are not working in a hybrid environment. I work with the Dutch government, and the regular cloud solutions are not sufficient because of data safety.

Moving workloads between the cloud and our data center using Red Hat Enterprise Linux is not really an issue. The network connectivity is good. The data storage is fast enough. Cloud vendor lock-in is always a debatable discussion. Whatever we do, we always get vendor lock-in. We just choose what works for us at the moment.

The cost savings are mainly in time. We don't have to figure out everything if there's a priority-one issue. We can raise a ticket with the vendor and ask them to help us. It saves us costs. The savings are mostly in time because the product is not cheap. If you compare it to a free Linux OS, the total cost savings will be about the same. Our level of stress and effort is far lower. It's the real saving.

When my Red Hat Knowledgebase account works, it works fine. However, there are some issues at my company. I cannot log in sometimes. It's not Red Hat’s fault.

Look at what your priorities are. Do you want to switch fast, run the latest stuff, and be agile? Then, use open-source tools and contribute to that community. If you work for a big enterprise and mainly want stability, choose Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

I’m very happy with the solution. If someone is a technical person, they must get some training and an in-depth technical course on Red Hat Enterprise Linux. It will help them a lot. Although it is Linux, it is very different from other open-source Linux packages.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

It is for binding servers. It is for web servers, such as Apache and NGINX, and KVM virtualization.

We have servers running all time. We have not had any issues with Red Hat Enterprise Linux. We have had issues with Microsoft products over time. Because of the updates, we had downtime, but that is not the case with Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

It has been very productive for our organization. We have an online client buying or purchasing products from our website, which is available 24 hours.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is good when it comes to building with confidence and ensuring availability across the infrastructure. I would rate it a ten out of ten in terms of stability and reliability. In the case of our web server, I have had availability issues with Microsoft, whereas, with Red Hat Enterprise Linux, we have not had many such issues. There has been only 1% downtime, whereas, with Microsoft, we have had a lot more downtime.

We have support. If we have any issues with the distro, we can call their support team. We have reliable packages from Red Hat.

Network management can be easier. It is getting more complex. They can also give more customization for the CLI.

I have been working with Red Hat Enterprise Linux for six years.

It is very stable. We have three websites running on Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

It works fine. We have had servers running for ten years. We have been just updating them, and we have not had any issues or downtime.

It is scalable. We can upgrade it, and the upgrades do not impact the product.

We have a team of five people who are using this solution.

We have premium support. It is excellent. We have not interacted a lot with their support. We have almost five engineers working in the team, so we did not have to contact them a lot. We did have any major issues with the hardware or software. 

Neutral

I also use CentOS for educational purposes. Support and regular updates are advantages of Red Hat Enterprise Linux over others. 

For directory servers, we always use Microsoft because it is easy to manage and easy to control. Implementing and managing domain controllers on Microsoft is easy, and we can apply policies by groups (GPO).

Its deployment is very easy. It does not take long. Its maintenance is also easy. We can expand the storage for the operating system or the web server.

To those looking into implementing Red Hat Enterprise Linux, I would advise making use of Red Hat's community. 

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has had some impact in terms of security, but we have other security measures and procedures. We have not used SELinux and other embedded security features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

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

We are a telecommunications operator using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for our technical applications due to its supportability and robust management features.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux's built-in security features aid in simplifying risk reduction. In the past, patches fortified the security features, but now, with playbooks, we can automate and address any findings for any Common Platform Enumeration. When integrated with Red Hat Insights, the solution can identify the CPE and provide the remediation playbook. This expedites detection, remediation, and testing by Red Hat, thanks to the playbooks provided by satellite as well as malware detection.

Maintaining compliance with Red Hat Enterprise Linux is easy because it supports various out-of-the-box compliance policies, such as CIS. Whether we are running OpenSCAP on-premises or Insights, we can perform compliance testing using OpenSCAP to verify adherence to the Red Hat Enterprise Linux security guidelines, as well as other well-known guidelines and framework compliance. I have found that all the compliance policies I required were already included out of the box.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is ready to help keep our organization agile when it comes to the portability of applications and containers because all the applications are developed by the vendor. Red Hat Enterprise Linux is the preferred choice in our industry because the applications we use are swiftly certified by the vendor, so we don't have to verify them ourselves.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux provides enhanced security for our servers, and we are aware of patching requirements in advance. Additionally, the pre-certification of Red Hat Enterprise Linux applications expedites deployment as we no longer need to go through the certification process ourselves. Moreover, Red Hat Enterprise Linux offers excellent support, ensuring that any issues that may arise are promptly addressed, which is crucial for our environment where we must maintain an uptime of 99.99999 percent.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux enables us to achieve security standards certification because it is driven by various compliance policies that include everything we need out of the box. This makes it easy to enforce security rules, and security patches are applied regularly. With Insights, we have malware detection, CPE filings, and remediation capabilities. In addition to the reactive approach, we also benefit from a proactive approach, allowing us to stay informed about the events around us, which helps us implement temporary solutions if needed until a permanent fix becomes available.

With Red Hat Enterprise Linux, we can build with confidence, knowing that it is available across physical, virtual, and cloud infrastructures. The operating system provides certifications, ensuring that we can deploy with 100 percent certainty, knowing that the applications will work. Additionally, it offers identity security and excellent support from the Red Hat team. Without this support, we would have to rely on searching within the community and downloading untested patches, which may function in small environments but not for larger ones with sensitive applications.

Red Hat Insights helps us prevent emerging issues related to security or noncompliance settings. One of the steps we take before going live is using OpenSCAP to ensure compliance with our standards. This is followed by our own security scanning and verification process. If any issues are not known within Red Hat, we can always refer to all the findings. Once the system is in production, regular monitoring allows us to use Insights to identify any new findings and apply necessary patches or workarounds. The knowledge base available on the servers enables us to take proactive measures even before a security patch becomes available. The new malware detection feature in Insights helps protect end-user information.

Insights provide vulnerability alerts and specific guidance. With each system, we can view the detected Common Platform Enumeration and receive advice on how to address it. These features have protected our systems from potential attacks, thereby increasing our uptime.

Red Hat has introduced a fast server, where Red Hat Enterprise Linux can be integrated or connected to via a client. This connection allows us to identify numerous vulnerabilities in malware easily and facilitates simpler patching. Activating the Red Hat addons on this server creates a perfect match when seeking a well-hardened OS using the gold image, as it eliminates the need to address issues from an existing image. Additionally, Red Hat Insights is a valuable and essential tool. In the telecom industry, we rely on basic products that necessitate an OS with robust security support and regular patches. 

We have not succeeded in creating an image from Red Hat Insights for Red Hat Enterprise Linux, including custom partitioning and custom scripts. This would have been helpful.

Red Hat Insights reporting can be enhanced by incorporating performance components, making it a central tool for vulnerability assessment, compliance monitoring, and much more. The performance component is available on Red Hat Enterprise Linux, but we need to maintain the dashboard on-premises, which requires us to switch between systems instead of performing all tasks from a single location.

Managing the destination for netting on the Netserver using Red Hat Enterprise Linux could be made more user-friendly.

I would like to have enhancements in the data files to help with deployments.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for over ten years. I started in 2012 using version five.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is stable.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is scalable, but the scalability is achieved at a different layer compared to adding memory to a virtual machine or container.

Compared to other support departments for Red Hat products, the Red Hat Enterprise Linux support team stands out as one of the fastest, most cooperative, and understanding teams.

Positive

The initial setup is straightforward. In the past, it was complex when Red Hat acquired Ansible because many of the modules were community resources that lacked full support. As a result, creating a playbook to deploy the OS was a painful process, as there was a chance it would not work, and we would not have the necessary support. However, currently, deploying Red Hat Enterprise Linux is easy. We have never deployed only one operating system at a time, but it would take less than one hour to do so.

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux an eight out of ten due to the complexity of its network boost management issue.

We have Red Hat Enterprise Linux deployed in one location.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is used in our environment to run the application for all of our customers, and only around ten people have access to it.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux requires maintenance for applying new patches, releases, and debugging. 

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux for servers. We have deployed application servers and database servers on it. We run Oracle Database, WebLogic, Apache, and JBoss on it.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is very important for our organization. We are very sensitive to security.

It is not difficult to move workloads between the cloud and the data center using Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Mostly, our teams use file servers centrally, and then they use scripts so that it is done automatically in the background. Initially, they may get problems while connecting due to the security or firewall, but once the connection is established, we do not see any problem with that.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has helped to avoid cloud vendor lock-in. I am not sure how much our organization has saved in costs by avoiding cloud vendor lock-in, but we would have saved a good amount.

It is very stable and robust. My team is very comfortable working with it for all end-to-end activities. They can work with it very easily. They prefer working through the console rather than the GUI.

Its resiliency is good. There is no doubt about that.

I don't prefer Red Hat Enterprise Linux for desktop over other options. 

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for a good amount of time. It has been eight to ten years.

It is very stable. I would rate it a ten out of ten in terms of stability.

It is very scalable. I would rate it a ten out of ten in terms of scalability. It is highly available and scalable for servers.

It is good. I do not see any challenges. I would rate their support a nine out of ten.

Positive

We choose an operating system based on the needs and the use case. We use different operating systems for different purposes, so they are not comparable. For example, for desktops, Linux is not the best. For desktops, Microsoft Windows is the best. Similarly, if you are using any Microsoft products, such as SQL Server, Microsoft Windows is the best option. However, nowadays, we also have Microsoft products installed on Linux.

I am not involved in its deployment and maintenance. We have a separate team with 40 to 50 people around the globe for that.

We most probably have both on-premises and cloud deployments on a private cloud, but I am not sure. Our infrastructure services team takes care of that.

We have got a good ROI, but I do not have the metrics. I would rate it an eight out of ten in terms of ROI.

Its pricing is good and competitive.

I would recommend it based on the use case and the budget. If it meets your needs and budget, Red Hat Enterprise Linux is the best option.

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

I provide consultation to clients for their mission-critical applications. Its primary use case is running containers and microservices on Springboard.

My customers use versions 7.2 or 7.3. I have used versions 8.2 and 8.4. I have tried version 9, but I use version 8.4 specifically because it supports HighPoint RAID for storing the data, whereas the client applications run on the much lower version.

There are benefits in terms of price, security, and stability to reduce the risk of applications going down or something like that. A vast majority of systems are on Red Hat Enterprise Linux than on other distributions, which is another benefit.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux helps to achieve security standards certification. They use it in the PCI DSS segment, so it enables the applications to be compliant with all these security aspects.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is very stable. It has been in the market for many years, and it is used by large organizations.

Their documentation and knowledge base are valuable. As an individual developer, whenever I have problems, it is easy to find the information. Their knowledge base is seamlessly integrated with the software. Whenever I have a question, it directly takes me to the knowledge base. It is well documented.

It supports scripting very well. Everything is scripted. A snapshot is taken in the VM, and the script is applied. It lends itself to better security and governance processes.

Its installation on a RAID or cluster system is something difficult. There are specific teams working on that. The GRUB configuration is also a little different from the other Linux distributions. 

In terms of additional features, as technology keeps evolving, the product will also have to evolve. For example, Microsoft Windows has come a long way. In Windows 11, there are so many features that are fundamentally the same as the oldest version, but there are other aspects or processes that have improved. macOS has also evolved over time. Similarly, in the Red Hat Enterprise Linux that I used in 2003 and the one that I am using now, some things are the same and some things have changed. Red Hat can continue to engage clients, understand the use cases, and update them.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux since 2002 or 2003. Red Hat has a vast variety of products. I have only been using Red Hat's operating system. I have not used Red Hat's other products.

It is very stable.

It is scalable, but I do not have experience in building hundreds of systems on a VM.

I have not used their technical support at all. I only use their documentation portal for self-support. Our production support team interacts with Red Hat's support team.

As a developer, I use both SUSE as well as Red Hat Enterprise Linux. My personal preference is Gentoo, but no one runs Gentoo on a production system. Gentoo is better in terms of customization. You can choose what you want.

I am not directly involved in its deployment, but I am planning to build an application. At that time, I will be deploying it myself. In the organization where I work as a consultant, there is a segregation of roles. There is a production support team, there is a development team, and there is a DevOps team. I am a part of the development team.

Its initial setup is straightforward. It is not complex. It also depends on the architecture, high availability, etc.

In terms of deployment, earlier, it was on-prem, but now, it is on the cloud. My client runs about 150 VMs on the cloud in the production, staging, and QA environments. Most of the things have been consolidated into VMs. The migration is complete. It was not that complex.

I have not measured that, but it should pay back for itself easily. The ROI should be reasonable. The cost over a period of time should be minuscule. As compared to other OSs, it is better to go with a big, known, and trusted vendor.

As a developer, I pay around 10,000 Yen, which is around $100 per annum for support. SUSE and Red Hat are typically the same without standard support. The pricing is not a big deal. Enterprise customers will pay for the support. Enterprises have the money for one or two products like this that are reliable and supported.

As a consultant, I advise customers to go for support. You mitigate risks by having support. For your personal usage, you can manage without support, but when it comes to the enterprise level, you need to delegate things to people, and it should be through the proper channel. You need a proper point of contact.

I would advise following the best practices recommended by Red Hat. It will minimize the downtime of the application or system. Partner with the vendor and get that support. Know the business case and build a strong relationship with the vendor. Trust them and tell them your use case, and they will come up with the best solution possible.

I am not a big authority on Red Hat or other Linux or Unix products. Only recently, I have been exposed to the concept called hardening and penetration testing. I do not know whether Red Hat provides a hardened version of the OS. My basic distribution is Gentoo which provides a hardened version of Linux. On the client side, the organizations we work with have different departments, such as the security department and the compliance department. For security, they work with various options that are available. For penetration testing, we engage a penetration testing consultancy company once a year.

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

My organization has different departments. In my department, we mostly work with containerization. I am using Red Hat Enterprise Linux as a part of OpenShift. I use the basic package and base image of Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

For scale-up in our platform, we use CoreOS as the master, and for the workers, we use the Red Hat Enterprise Linux service. From OpenShift version 4.10 onwards, we cannot use Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 worker nodes. We were using Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 worker nodes, so we upgraded to Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8. 

For OpenShift, there are some recommendations from Red Hat in terms of what needs to be used for the control plane and what needs to be used for the worker nodes. When you are using CoreOS and Red Hat Enterprise Linux worker nodes, there are some difficulties in managing them. For example, when you upgrade OpenShift, you need to upgrade two times. The control plane is upgraded separately because it uses CoreOS. The control plane has a lot of certificate updates that will in turn be updated on the worker nodes, so you have one restart of all worker nodes, and then when you need to upgrade your worker nodes, there will be one more restart. 

Overall, you have two reboots in your production environment, which is an issue, but it is related to your choice of product in your environment. We have this issue because we opted to use Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 or Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 worker machines, whereas Red Hat recommends using CoreOS because it is pretty fast in terms of rebooting and functionality. When you upgrade the control plane, that itself will update the worker nodes, so you are done in one shot. When you need to upgrade your Red Hat Enterprise Linux machines, you need to use the Ansible Playbook. You can then upgrade to Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7, 8, or any other version. Regardless of the versions, you can upgrade the operating system and the OpenShift version. For this purpose and for some ad-hoc activities, we are using Ansible Playbooks.

For us, its security, management, stability, and hardening are most valuable. All of these features are better in Red Hat Enterprise Linux as compared to Microsoft Windows.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is very good in terms of risk assessment. It is also good for maintaining compliance. It is better than Microsoft Windows.

From the administration perspective, I do not have any issues with Red Hat Enterprise Linux. For me, it is more convenient than Microsoft Windows.

My organization has been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for a long time. They have been using it before I joined the organization.

It is pretty good in terms of stability. It is a stable product. I would rate it a nine out of ten in terms of stability because sometimes the packages can have bugs.

Its scalability is good. I would rate it a nine out of ten in terms of scalability.

We never encountered any issues while using OpenShift.

I have mostly been working with Red Hat Enterprise Linux. 

I have been involved in the deployment of OpenShift. It is pretty straightforward. We just need to get the licensing, and we just need to create a pool for our containers session in Red Hat Satellite. We can do the configuration from there. It does not take long because we are adding the nodes to OpenShift. During the scale-up process, we only need to subscribe to the nodes with the Red Hat subscription. It does not take much time. If we have a good spec, the scale-up would not take much time. It would take less than twenty minutes. It is pretty fast.

In terms of maintenance, when we have the bug report, we need to do the security assessments. Over time, there might be some bugs related to some packages. At that time, if it is critical, we will be scheduling a maintenance activity on our platform. 

Red Hat provides high availability from the application perspective. You get high availability when you are using OpenShift, so when you are doing a maintenance activity on the OpenShift side, there would not be any downtime. The high availability is very good. For the end-users, there would not be any application outages if you configure your application with proper replicas. They would not even realize that there is a maintenance activity happening to the underlying workers.

It was implemented in-house.

We did not evaluate other solutions. Red Hat Enterprise Linux is the choice of most of the companies.

If you want to integrate with OpenShift or build an OpenShift cluster with the master Red Hat Enterprise Linux and worker Red Hat Enterprise Linux, you can do that, but you need to plan your upgrade or maintenance activities. It would be better if you choose CoreOS for both. CoreOS would be a better choice in terms of maintenance activities or upgrade activities in the future. If you cannot afford that, you can go with the Red Hat Enterprise Linux operating system, but you need to do two upgrades. You first need to upgrade the control plane and then you need to separately update your worker nodes. That is the only thing you need to keep in mind.

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