Our use cases for Red Hat OpenShift revolve around telco environments, where we deploy telco applications using container microservices architectures. We have around 32 to 35 OpenShift clusters, with multiple worker and master nodes running on them, totaling more than 500 nodes across pre-production, test, and various production environments. We onboard different applications onto these OpenShift clusters, which primarily operate in private data centers on bare metal rather than in VMs, since the motive of this client project is to align the telco environment with a cloud-native approach.

It enables customers to deploy any type of application. A lot of enterprises are moving to the Linux environment from the Windows environment.

When it comes to development, it saves time because, unlike Windows, you don't require a lot of different things and licenses.

I appreciate the features of OpenShift, particularly its built-in capabilities such as operators and integration with multiple identity providers. Operators eliminate the need for creating helm charts, and considering Kubernetes, which Red Hat OpenShift is built on, the enhancements make OpenShift a preferred choice for many enterprise customers.

The documentation and knowledge base for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are quite good, allowing for effective searches, though I would prefer something more interactive.

I have tried the Insight features in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), which provide a good overview of clusters, but most customers at the OpenShift level do not opt for the Insights feature for two reasons. Firstly, Insights is specific to individual clusters and does not offer a single pane of glass for multi-cluster environments. Having a centralized Insights feature for multiple clusters would be more appealing, especially for customers managing a fleet of 50 or more clusters.

There is one feature that could significantly enhance our time to market: enabling AI capabilities. For instance, if you have a fleet of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) servers, potentially thousands running, they can incorporate a built-in agent that monitors key metrics. This agent would allow us to easily query and track the CPU and memory status of all clusters. Instead of generating traditional reports through Insights, we could leverage AI to curate this information directly. If such features could be included in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), it would be a game-changer. There would be no need for external AI solutions; just an integrated AI agent would suffice. This enhancement could help minimize operational costs. From a customer perspective, while capital expenditures (CapEx) are already being handled through Red Hat solutions, we need to focus on reducing operational expenditures (OpEx), especially related to reporting. Even when Insights are generated, someone still needs to analyze them. By incorporating this advanced capability into Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), they can streamline processes and deliver valuable insights more efficiently.

We are using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for our customers. We have been using it at the infrastructure level for more than 10 years. However, we have been using Red Hat OpenShift only for the last two to three years as our container platform.

It helps reduce downtime. Overall, it's stable, but it also depends on the type of workload you are running. 

It is scalable. For example, creating logical volumes and extending disks is straightforward. This process is quite easy.

Red Hat's support is generally good, but sometimes they take a long time, which can be frustrating for customers, particularly when dealing with products still in development, such as new versions of Red Hat OpenShift. When bugs arise that lack solutions, both customers and Red Hat are searching for answers, leading to delays until new releases are issued.

Positive

I have used Ubuntu and CentOS. I find Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) better than Ubuntu and CentOS.

Its deployment is easy. The number of people required and duration depend on how many servers you're deploying.

We utilize a hybrid environment with some of our customers operating in the public cloud, allowing us to manage both on-premises and cloud infrastructures.

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

I used it previously in environments for APIs, Apache Tomcat, and JBoss. 

The most valuable aspect of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is its reliability. The support is very good. 

The knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is excellent. It is very easy to search for solutions to problems and apply new features. 

The main concern is the price. 

I used Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for five years recently, and about ten to twelve years overall. The last time I used it was last year.

It's reliable. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) did not help much with our uptime or security.

The support with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is good, and it is similar to Oracle. 

Positive

In the bank, we use Oracle Linux, but previously we used CentOS.

It was easy to manage in terms of provisioning and patching. We used other products to update the systems, though I don't remember the name. I had other teams to manage the environment. I was satisfied with the management process and the management experience.

It's expensive.

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a ten out of ten. I would recommend it to others. It is very stable.

Our use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are diverse; it powers our servers, runs desktops for our development network, as well as some of our production hosts, and we'll see if it expands further.

Red Hat is giving that level of enterprise support helps us build a Linux ecosystem that makes sense for business.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps us solve pain points by providing tremendous support from our Red Hat representatives. 

The flexibility that we get through Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and the ability for people to build their own tools as they're working without having to deal with something like PowerShell or hack it through backwards ways in Windows is a real relief. 

Interactive Brokers is powered by our workforce, and we have really brilliant engineers, top to bottom, especially our developers. The flexibility that we get through Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and the ability for people to build their own tools as they're working without having to deal with something like PowerShell or hack it through backwards ways in Windows is a real relief and something that we couldn't operate without.

We deploy Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in both cloud and on-premise environments in a hybrid environment. Currently, our management of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems when it comes to provisioning and patching has gone through many changes throughout the years. We are currently using KVM. We're exploring OpenShift and some other options, and I am satisfied with that management experience.

Security requirements were considered before choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). We've been primarily with Red Hat for a very long time, and security concerns have kept us with RHEL throughout the years as we have not been comfortable with anything else.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) supports our hybrid cloud strategy effectively, and many of the options I've seen at the conference will make spreading out into the cloud without compromising our on-premise systems more convenient than it might be with another distro. I assess the knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as very strong; the customer relations management, support, and the fact that it's an open-source platform gives you huge clarity versus Microsoft or some other type of closed environment.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) can be improved by providing more support for on-prem. As you go by industry by industry, the more regulation and control you need over your data, the more precious data sovereignty becomes, and being able to work in a hybrid environment with a push in that direction would be better.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for 11 years now, and our company has been using it for maybe close to 20 years at this point.

The stability and reliability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are very good. It's not throwing out mystery patches that break things constantly, as certain other server solutions do, so that stability has been strong because we can say we don't need that patch now, and review them on their own merits. We are looking forward to RHEL 10.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales to the growing needs of our company excellently, and the scalability is a big draw.

The customer service and technical support of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has been wonderful so far. The community is a never-ending well of support, and my personal experiences with our customer relations manager have just been top notch.

I would rate the customer service for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as a solid ten out of ten. I have less experience needing their support for technical issues. Just as a partner, it has been very strong.

Positive

We have considered other solutions in our Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) journey. There have been arguments this way or that, however, they've never been enough to dislodge us. We do run Windows and other things. That said, our whole program base and everything we do back and front relies on having an enterprise Linux solution.

The biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the appreciation of being a Linux shop with enterprise-level support, enabling us to keep it up. Trying to imagine running a worldwide company purely on free open-source software would be wholly unsustainable and require unfathomable levels of worker hours, so having the power and flexibility of a Linux ecosystem with that level of enterprise support makes it all work.

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

My main use case for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is server administration, so we provide a group that delivers server software from RHEL, including Ansible and Satellite.

The features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that I appreciate most are the standard ease of use through Satellite and Ansible, which help us keep up with our demands. The benefits of those features for my company include managing compliance issues or demands we face for the business, so we need to keep up with patching on a regular basis, which is important.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) could be improved, and it appears 10 is a good way forward. Having been in this industry for so long, I don't have much on my mind, however, there is generally a barrier to getting used to it. The Lightspeed is improving it to help newcomers, so it seems a good idea.

My thoughts on RHEL's built-in security features are that they might be better; we haven't really gotten security to be very smooth, so we're not using much of it, and we have other tools to ensure compliance. At the moment, there is nothing I really miss from RHEL's features.

I have been using Red Hat's products since 1990. I've been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) since 1996 or 1997; RHEL came in the 2000s.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped to mitigate downtime and lower risks since we don't have much downtime when it comes to Red Hat systems; it's quite stable. The stability and reliability of the RHEL platform are good.

Regarding scalability, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has been able to scale to the needs of the company; we haven't met any limitations yet, and we mostly deploy it with scale-out and scale-up strategies, but we haven't managed to scale up fully yet.

My experience with customer service and technical support is that they respond, which is good. Sometimes, the bug fixes take a little while, especially on their supporting systems such as Satellite. From one to ten, I would give the customer service and technical support a seven or an eight.

Positive

While using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I considered other solutions such as Ubuntu for client-side use; tying it into Microsoft software, such as Microsoft Entra ID, which was not possible at the moment when we started looking into it, could work even more with connections or using external vendors.

The deployment is very easy. I've been doing it for a while too. Satellite helps a lot. AIP helps even more.

From my point of view, the biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the stable environment it provides, along with the solutions going from A to B, from all the way from A to Z; we get the patches, it's updated, and it's alive.

The price is always an issue, and it depends on what you get; we have lots of development, yet I'm not economical and don't deal with finance, so it's not my area of expertise anymore. 

We haven't made any upgrade or migration plans to stay current with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 10 since that's just released; most of our systems are running 8 and 9 at the moment, so it depends on the applications running on them, their dependencies, and we have many systems that can't be upgraded, however, we want to stay on track for the most important systems.

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

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) at the enterprise level to host various applications. RHEL is our enterprise strategy for the Linux operating system, and it helps us host most of our mission-critical applications.

The feature of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that I appreciate the most is the security features. The security features of RHEL protect our environment. By having strong security hygiene with RHEL, we are able to provide business value back to our stakeholders.

I have been involved in Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) migrations and upgrades. I would describe the experience of RHEL migrations as challenging since it's not an easy task to migrate thousands of machines in one major release window. RHEL has helped to mitigate downtime and lower risks, as we keep RHEL current with patching.

The image model that is currently being deployed with RHEL 10 is going to be a way of improving RHEL. I'm using CICD pipelines to manage the OS, just as we do applications. We don't have specific metrics on how much less risk has been lowered or how much downtime has been mitigated, howrever, we do keep our systems patched within 30 days of CVE being released, so our risk exposure is quite low.

To make Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a ten out of ten, addressing the enterprise management tools, such as SELinux policy management and firewalls, would bring it much more in line, especially regarding security features and overall operations management.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for approximately 14 years.

The stability and reliability of the platform are excellent.

We have scaled both in the data center as well as in the edge with over 15,000 devices.

We have a very good relationship with Red Hat for support and customer service. We have a TAM service, so from a support perspective, our cases are handled very efficiently.

Positive

I considered other solutions while choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), and we have a combination of RHEL and open-source free versions of RHEL. The biggest difference between RHEL and those open-source versions is support; at the end of the day, it's the partnership for support from Red Hat versus the binaries where it's self-managed and self-maintained.

Currently, we deploy Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) on-premises and we use open-source technologies to provision and deploy both bare metal and virtual.

The biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the whole ecosystem and partnership with Red Hat.

We have enterprise contracts with Red Hat, and regarding pricing, we have a good deal. On a scale of one to ten, I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) an eight.

I used Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for my past job where it was used for VMware. It was always on VMware, JBoss, or WebLogic for web-based apps and similar applications. In my current job, we use it as a base OS for AAP or for VSOS, for a Docker host, a pod host, or various applications.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is valuable for us since it's stable and reliable. 

Some of the new features they're adding to it, such as RHEL 10 and the AI, sound really helpful. The federal security features are also beneficial. Especially the AI feature sounds useful.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps simplify processes and having support is super helpful. When I have an issue and try to track it down without success, I can submit a ticket and get support. They're usually able to troubleshoot the issue, so having support is beneficial for me.

Our upgrade or migration plans to stay current involve using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 8 for much of our infrastructure, while also deploying RHEL 9 for the past six months. Once RHEL 8 is deprecated, we'll probably start looking to migrate to RHEL 10 and building net new servers.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) definitely helps to mitigate downtime and lower risks through access to AAP. I've also heard you can do an in-place update for the kernel, which is something I'm curious to try but haven't had the chance yet.

Improving Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) requires good documentation and having a way to onboard people for new technology they're introducing. The AI will be helpful for that since they have that now. The SE policy is not very clear on how it's supposed to be implemented, which they can improve upon, or perhaps I don't know where to look for that information.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in my job for probably ten years or more.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has been pretty reliable from my experiences so far, with no major issues.

Customer service and technical support from Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has been pretty good overall. It has been fairly responsive, although I have had times when it was somewhat slow to respond to tickets and requests. I've had coworkers who have experienced that as well, so that could be improved. The response and quality of their responses could be better in some cases. In other cases, it's adequate for what we need.

Neutral

My experience of deploying Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in general has been pretty good so far. I use Image Builder, which is developed by Red Hat. I use that to create the image, and then satellite servers actually deploy it. For the most part, it's seamless and reliable.

The biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), from my point of view, is having the integration between all of the various platforms, whether it's AAP, or satellite, and IDM. We use satellite, AAP, and IDM, and the integration between all of these has been super helpful.

We haven't had a need for other solutions while using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) currently, but if something came up, we would probably consider it.

I have been involved with upgrading from Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 8 to RHEL 9, and from RHEL 7 to RHEL 8 because RHEL 7 has been sunsetted. In these cases, we build net new rather than doing in-place upgrades.

For upgrades, we use satellite to deploy, and AAP for our host provisioning and whatever we need to layer on top of the infrastructure. For managing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems regarding provisioning and patching, we use AAP. We have a written playbook that reaches out to the host and takes a snapshot of the host in VMware. Then it runs the patching and reports back if it succeeded or failed.

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

My main use case for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is hosting applications.

My company benefits from using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) by having more secure workstations and inviting more beginner users.

The feature of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that I appreciate the most is the new Boot C that's coming out. That's been pretty interesting. 

RHEL helps me solve the pain point of feeling disconnected from the community. I've been feeling more involved and considered. Previously, a lot of documentation was for connected instances, and I work for an air-gapped network. Now I appreciate seeing that the documentation actually has disconnected settings. It's neat to be included in there. 

I appreciate the documentation. The knowledge bases are pretty good. Usually, when I have an issue and find a Red Hat knowledge base, it addresses the issue.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)'s built-in security features are really well designed for simplifying risk reduction and maintaining compliance. I see many new technologies coming out are geared toward security or enhancing security. It's neat that it's continuing to evolve.

My upgrade or migration plans to stay current with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) involve leaning on our unclassified environment before we can upgrade, as I'm in a disconnected network. As soon as we're able to, I'm trying to upgrade as often as we can. It's because I want to utilize all the new tools coming out in 9.6 and now 10. We just got to RHEL 8, and I'm already ready to leap RHEL 8 to get the newest features.

Improving Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) can be tough, however, a significant area is collaboration tools. We have many Windows users that use Outlook and Skype or Teams to collaborate on our network. They want Linux desktops due to the fact that they want to use containers. Their biggest complaint is, 'I need two workstations to do my container work and one to collaborate.' If somehow RHEL can start introducing or collaborating with Teams and Outlook so their users can work with their Windows peers, that would be great. But I don't think that's available yet.

Regarding pricing, setup costs, and licensing, there needs to be more of an education piece to it. For instance, when purchasing 10 or 100 node licenses, they could suggest, 'We also offer this 1,000 node license instead, and it'll save you specific amounts.' Just more education on their offerings would be helpful, because usually, we're coming out with the requirements, and then they just provide it to us. They could inform us about saving by bundling it differently or using alternative approaches.

I've been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) since 2012, which is 13 years now.

The stability and reliability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) have been pretty good. We haven't had any issues, major crashes, or anything similar.

The scalability of the Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) platform has been able to meet my company needs for servers. The workstations are a little difficult, but overall it meets our requirements.

Regarding customer service and technical support of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I really enjoy it. 

With many other vendors, I have problems with support and back and forth, getting escalated, routed all over the place. Usually, when a case gets assigned to someone from Red Hat, it's handled in a timely fashion, and it's precise. There's no guessing or reading from scripts. It's direct to the point.

I would rate the customer service and technical support of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) an eight and a half to nine. The only reason for not giving a perfect score is that there could be more knowledge base articles or documents. There's not always a Red Hat instance for what I'm looking for, however, when there is one, it's always accurate.

Positive

Before implementing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I used CentOS and Fedora. The main difference between Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and those prior solutions is the support.

I would describe the experience of deploying Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as pretty simple and straightforward. The GUI is really interactive, and it's really easy to build from scratch.

The biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), from a technical point of view, is that it reduces man-hours. 

With Ansible, it definitely reduces man-hours in patching or being able to configure or manage systems across the country with hundreds of systems. The approximate reduction of man-hours that RHEL provides is in the hundreds. I couldn't imagine administering a couple of hundred servers one by one. 

We have to implement quarterly security checks and remediations that come out in bunches of 30 at a time. Having to do that on each box would take forever. I could probably only do four or five a day with our few hundred servers.

We did not consider any other solutions while using RHEL.

I have been involved in migrations or upgrades of RHEL, and I just completed a leap upgrade from RHEL 7 to RHEL 8. We manage our Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems when it comes to provisioning and patching by using templates from VMware to deploy our RHEL boxes, and for patching, we use Red Hat Satellite to provide the patches. We also use Ansible platform to run the plays, to kick off the updates and the reboots.

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

Our main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are for our centralized O&M platform, while on the edge we use CoreOS.

My company benefits from RHEL features by avoiding drifts in our solution. If it gets out of engineering, we don't exactly know if the solution is going to drift if someone implemented manual configuration.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps me solve pain points such as security, upgrades, patching, and all that is related to long-term support. 

The feature I appreciate the most in the newest version is the image mode and the upgrade in an immutable way. 

Security requirements are a consideration when choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). It's the platform that really allows for longer-term support in terms of security patches, which is also one of the requirements from our customers; this is why we are on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for those services. 

When it comes to managing my Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems for provisioning and patching, I start from zero. We provide a golden image scenario, and we install based on that golden image while customizing the product through our software itself, providing new bundles and everything around there. Patching is very similar; we provide additional packages and everything around the upgrades, and I'm looking forward to the image mode so that we can provide steps and immutable AB upgrades.

They should try to converge all the different product lines, in both Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and CoreOS and OCP based on CoreOS, to get to a single point where it would be easier to move from one to the other. 

Sometimes we build products for one specific application or product, and it would be beneficial to move to CoreOS due to further requirements, however, it's not always straightforward. All the different teams working on the different Red Hat products are pretty much self-contained, which is understandable, but if there were more of a common baseline, it would be much easier to consider moving from one license to another, from one product to another.

In the company, I've been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) directly for three years. Before then, we have been partners and have also been using CentOS and Fedora for a longer time, approximately ten years.

The stability and reliability of the platform are top class.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales pretty transparently with the growing needs of my company. It scales effectively when we need to add additional resources or knowledge, and it's straightforward for people to gain those and for our structure to implement even more servers around these others. Both technically and knowledge-wise, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales effectively.

The customer service and technical support are excellent, especially through the partner program. It's easier to get support over specific issues, and I have noticed when we had bigger issues that could have prevented market problems, there was a good escalation path towards the right people to get answers.

Neutral

I have considered other solutions rather than Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

When we were considering getting out of CentOS, we were evaluating everything, including other open solutions such as Rocky, as cutting-edge solutions such as Fedora. 

I personally pushed for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) since it was the best solution for us at that specific moment. I understand there are other solutions such as SUSE and Ubuntu that are all in the same market, however, with different approaches. I prefer the Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) approach.

The deployment is generally very easy.

The biggest return on investment while using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) from my technical point of view is the continuous patching and security fixes that are constantly being added and the support around it. If we are having an issue, we can directly reach the right people for support.

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as a product today at a solid eight out of ten, considering improvements already in place for the roadmap. With the features coming in RHEL 10, I could provide it an overall nine out of ten.

Our main use cases for using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) revolve around building managed services, as all of our Linux workload runs on Red Hat, and there isn't a different Linux distribution in our company. For most customers, it really depends, as we handle all kinds of business applications basically.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps us solve pain points by allowing us to offer support for our managed services, including very high service-level agreements in terms of availability and everything around CVEs, which is also what most of our customers are interested in. The features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) will benefit our company by addressing certain customer use cases we haven't explored yet, particularly with functionality rollbacks and making patch management a bit easier. As we are moving a lot to cloud-native technology, having a similar approach for our Linux operating system as we have for cloud resource orchestration containers is very useful, especially since the German market is a bit slower than the US market.

To manage our Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems regarding provisioning and patching, we use Ansible and also Red Hat Satellite as we are a Red Hat partner, and we are very satisfied with that management experience.

I am really excited about the new Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 10 and the Image Builder, which are the features I most appreciate and am definitely going to check out.

We consider security requirements a top priority due to the highly regulated nature of the German market and the sectors we work with, including automotive and financial institutes, so it really depends on the customers, however, having a secure operating system is crucial.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) supports our hybrid cloud strategy by allowing us to deploy virtual machines in both clouds without really feeling the difference between a private or public cloud.

The knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is pretty good and we use it heavily. We also contribute to it by raising issues so that they may be solved and verified.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) could be improved slightly even though the new RHEL 10 just came out and there are many helpful features in it. For instance, while Image Builder is good, improving the image mode could be beneficial, although it might have already been improved in RHEL 10. 

Additionally, for using third-party software, such as security scanners or patch management systems not from the Red Hat family such as Azure Patch Management, sometimes there could be improvements regarding support, as it can take a year or one and a half years to receive support for certain RHEL major versions, so partnerships on the Red Hat side and collaborations with Microsoft would help.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) internally for our managed services functions and for our customers since it became available. We are a partner of Red Hat where we do consultancy and resell RHEL and Red Hat Ansible, making the answer to this question complicated since we have been using it for about five and a half years.

The stability and reliability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are very good.

Regarding scalability, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales very well for our company needs.

Customer service and technical support for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are very good, as we are a platinum partner with some benefits. That said, even the regular customer support is most of the time very sufficient.

Positive

I did not use another solution before Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) in my company.

My overall experience when deploying Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is simple.

We deploy RHEL in both the cloud and on-premise, utilizing a hybrid cloud strategy.Security requirements are definitely a consideration when choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

I have been involved in upgrades or migrations of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), especially during the significant shift from RHEL 7 to 8, which included many upgrades and migrations.

We have many customer projects where customers use us as consultants to migrate from other Linux distributions.

For the Red Hat internal migrations, we use the tool 'convert2rhel' all the time.

The biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is stability, which benefits both us and our customers, since we do not have to use as many human resources to administer those machines.

I don't have too much to complain about pricing, setup costs, and licensing since we handle everything via a distributor in Germany and we work closely with them on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

I did not consider another solution while using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a nine out of ten. To make it a ten, improving the ecosystem with more support from third-party software would help.

My main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) now are mostly traditional workflows, web applications, and web servers.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has benefited my company by offering great features such as Satellite and all the enterprise features that provide us value, which enables stability and maintainability.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped me solve pain points by providing significant maintainability compared to other Linux distros.

It is very stable and enterprise-ready, giving me substantial stability and manageability. 

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped mitigate downtime and lower risk significantly.

With Satellite and everything else, we can effectively control which patches go to specific servers and reduce risk with different CVEs and insights, providing us with substantial control.

We manage our Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems using Satellite, which works really effectively, and we also use Ansible Automation Platform.

My assessment of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)'s built-in security features shows many cool features in the new version. From what I have used in 8 and 9, there are good features such as built-in firewalls.

Although SELinux is complex as it does a lot. I cannot fully understand it, so that could be simplified. The only thing that I really have difficulty with is SELinux, so perhaps there is room to make it more accessible.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for approximately ten years.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has been able to scale to the growing needs of my company. We are not a huge company, so it works effectively.

The customer service and technical support for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is pretty good. We have used them extensively and they work effectively.

Positive

Before choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), we were using legacy systems running on AIX, but all new implementations are now on RHEL. The main difference between AIX and RHEL is the support from third-party applications. When installing third-party applications, there is always support for RHEL and almost never support for AIX.

I would describe the experience of deploying Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as really easy. It is similar to other systems, and I am really excited to explore Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 10 and try Image Builder.

The biggest return on investment when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is the manageability we receive, with numerous features in the packages that free up substantial time from the operations side of things.

The pricing, setup costs, and licensing for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) are within normal operating system pricing ranges.

While using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I did consider other solutions. There are always many other options, such as another RHEL distribution, but RHEL is the only one that has extensive support for numerous other systems.

We have not fully implemented Ansible Automation Platform yet, but we are starting to integrate it and we really appreciate it. 

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) from one to ten overall as probably a nine.