Our primary use case for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) revolves around running and managing critical enterprise workloads. We rely on RHEL’s stability and security to support key applications, including Oracle databases, EBS (Enterprise Business Suite), and NMS (Network Management Systems).

One of the standout advantages of RHEL in our infrastructure is its integration with Ansible, which allows us to automate configurations, streamline patch management, and reduce manual intervention across multiple systems. This automation helps us maintain consistency, enhance security, and minimize downtime.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has significantly enhanced our organization's efficiency, security, and automation. As the foundation for our enterprise workloads, RHEL provides a stable and scalable platform that ensures high availability and performance across critical applications. One of the biggest improvements we've seen is through Ansible, which has helped us automate configuration management, deployment, and patching processes. This has not only reduced manual workload but also minimized the risk of human errors, leading to a more resilient infrastructure.

One of the most valuable features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for our organization has been its simplicity and automation capabilities. Managing enterprise workloads can be complex, but RHEL streamlines this through Ansible, allowing us to automate configurations, deployments, and patching. This has significantly reduced manual intervention and improved operational efficiency.

Security is another critical factor, and RHEL’s robust vulnerability management ensures continuous updates for Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVEs), keeping our systems protected. The integration of Red Hat Insights allows us to proactively identify and mitigate risks, strengthening our overall security posture.

Additionally, the stability and scalability of RHEL have been essential for supporting key applications like Oracle databases, EBS (Enterprise Business Suite), and NMS (Network Management Systems). The long-term support and extended lifecycle maintenance ensure smooth operations, minimizing downtime and disruptions.

Overall, RHEL’s combination of automation, security, and reliability has enabled us to optimize infrastructure management, improve security, and maintain seamless operations for mission-critical applications.

One significant area for improvement is SAP certification and compatibility. Many large enterprises rely on SAP workloads, and RHEL’s limited official certifications for certain SAP solutions create challenges for businesses looking for seamless integration and performance optimization. Expanding certification coverage and tuning RHEL for SAP applications would strengthen its positioning in enterprise IT landscapes.

Another key improvement would be user-friendly patch management. While RHEL provides strong security updates, further enhancing the patching process—especially with live-patching options—could minimize disruptions and make the update workflow even more intuitive for IT teams managing large deployments.

Additionally, expanded cloud-native support would be beneficial as organizations continue shifting toward hybrid and multi-cloud environments. Strengthening native integrations with cloud service providers, optimizing containerization tools, and improving Kubernetes compatibility could boost RHEL’s efficiency in cloud deployments.

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

One of the key contributors to its stability is the predictable release cycle and long-term support. Red Hat provides extended lifecycle maintenance, allowing organizations to run workloads without unexpected disruptions. Additionally, the continuous security updates and proactive vulnerability management reinforce system integrity, reducing potential risks and downtime.

Moreover, RHEL’s robust package management system, combined with Ansible automation, further enhances stability by ensuring consistent configurations across multiple deployments. The ability to automate patching and system updates significantly reduces errors that could impact performance.

Overall, RHEL stands out as a highly stable and dependable solution, making it an excellent choice for enterprises seeking a secure, scalable, and resilient operating system.

The knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is excellent. You just need to search for your concern, and the answer is right there most of the time, and it's accurate. If something isn't there, support is also good. If you log a ticket, the response and the level of attention that you get on a support ticket is very good.

Positive

We are in both the cloud and on-premises with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). On the cloud, we use Azure. On-premises, we have VMware and Nutanix.

I wasn't involved in discussions about considering other solutions before choosing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for my company, however, if that decision came to me, I would have chosen Red Hat since I have previous experience with Red Hat in my last organization. 

We did have SUSE before we chose Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). We still have SUSE since SAP workloads run on SUSE, as they have better collaboration between SAP and SUSE. We tried changing that to Red Hat maybe a year ago, however, the response from the SAP team was not supportive as they wanted to go with SUSE due to some licensing and support models that were not clear to me.

The transition is straightforward. The documentation is great. It's accurate. If you have a Red Hat account, you have access to knowledge articles. 

We're on the cloud and on-prem.

We don't use AWS for purchasing Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

One of the key areas where we see ROI is through automation with Ansible, which has helped us streamline deployments, patching, and configuration management. This has significantly reduced manual effort and minimized human errors, leading to higher productivity and cost savings.

Another major factor is security and vulnerability management. RHEL provides continuous updates for Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVEs), ensuring we remain protected against emerging threats. The ability to implement proactive security measures has reduced downtime and the costs associated with mitigating security incidents.

When considering setup costs, pricing, and licensing for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), I always advise others to evaluate their organization's scale, workload requirements, and long-term support needs.

RHEL follows a subscription-based model, which ensures access to continuous security updates, patches, and support rather than a one-time licensing fee. While the upfront cost may seem higher compared to some alternatives, the value comes from its predictable pricing, enterprise-grade security, and extensive support ecosystem.

For organizations with large deployments, leveraging Red Hat Satellite and Ansible automation can help reduce administrative overhead, making the investment in RHEL more cost-effective in the long run. Additionally, Red Hat provides different pricing tiers based on usage—ranging from standard support to premium offerings, allowing businesses to tailor the subscription to their specific needs.

For startups or smaller teams, I often recommend exploring Red Hat Developer subscriptions, which provide access to RHEL for development and testing at a reduced cost. Similarly, cloud-based RHEL instances through AWS, Azure, or Google Cloud offer flexible pricing models, allowing businesses to scale efficiently without heavy upfront infrastructure investments.

Ultimately, I advise organizations to conduct a cost-benefit analysis, factoring in security, automation, and long-term stability rather than looking solely at initial setup costs. RHEL's value extends beyond pricing—it’s an investment in reliability and enterprise support."*

No

My main use cases for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) involve running a lot of applications that run on Linux, as my company is more Linux-based than Windows, so we prefer Linux over Windows.

The feature of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) that I appreciate the most is the logical volume feature as it's so easy to increase partitions and disk space. This logical volume feature benefits my company as sometimes we have a client whose data storage needs are unknown at the outset, allowing us to start small. As things increase, we can easily increase it without taking the server down, and we can do it seamlessly while the server is online.

One of the pain points that Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) helps me solve is security, as RHEL is more secure than Windows. I have migrated from RHEL 6 to RHEL 7 to RHEL 8 to RHEL 9, however, it's just been a manual install; while Red Hat has a tool to use for migrations, I've never used that and have just reloaded to the new version. The upgrade wasn't bad at all; it was actually a smooth upgrade.

When it comes to managing my Red Hat Enterprise Linux systems for provisioning and patching, I use Ansible Tower, and I'm very satisfied with that. It allows me to schedule jobs and go to sleep while looking at the email in the morning. That's a very effective and efficient product for me.

My upgrade or migration plans to stay current involve starting eventually, especially since I work in the government world, where we use their tools to harden the system. When those tools are available, we'll start looking to migrate to the next version of Red Hat. When those tools are ready, we'll start putting RHEL 10 into our development environment to start testing.

The only improvement I can think of for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is that I'm unsure how their migration tool works to go to the next version. I've heard people say it doesn't work properly, however, I haven't looked at it myself. If the migration process was seamless without backing up data and restoring data, that would probably be the biggest improvement, as managing over 3,400 servers manually is quite substantial.

I've been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) since 2002.

RHEL it is very stable and very reliable.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales effectively with the growing needs of my company, as all our developers can develop code and software on a Linux-based system using RHEL without any complaints about functionality.

Their support is fairly good, as they work to resolve issues, though sometimes it takes a while due to time zone differences affecting ticket responses. 

I submit tickets that might get answered early morning, and I only reply once I get to work, which causes some delays. However, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) support is great, as they go beyond their duty to help resolve issues and provide solutions even for third-party software such as XRDP.

I would rate Red Hat's customer service and technical support an eight out of ten.

Positive

When I first started, it wasn't really my choice to make. I originally used CentOS. Ansible is the best product when it comes to Linux.

I would describe my experience with deploying Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) as very easy, as I use a kickstart file to deploy an OS in about ten to 15 minutes, and Ansible is another very significant feature that Red Hat provides to accomplish many tasks quickly across multiple servers.

I'm not really sure how to assess Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)'s built-in security features in terms of simplifying, risk reduction, or maintaining compliance.

The biggest return on investment from using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is due to the feature Ansible, as before we started using it, I was manually updating all systems. It definitely saves me a lot of time since I can set things up in Ansible Tower and let them run without having to manually log into systems or watch processes.

We aren't currently considering another solution; we do use a little bit of Ubuntu; we prefer Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

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

We use a lot of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for developing products for our customers. Since Red Hat is known as a popular option for many of our customers, it provides a standardized platform for us to deliver products on. 

Ansible has helped my company by managing disparate systems, allowing us to configure for specific use cases and providing common configurations, so it helps us wrangle all the disparate situations and configurations that we have across various different product teams in our labs.

When working with the Linux system, especially dealing with thousands of systems, Ansible is probably the most helpful tool. It has helped my company by managing the complexity of disparate systems, allowing us to configure for specific use cases and providing common configurations across various product teams in our labs.

My company is not particularly happy with the current pricing models that are available. We have been starting to diversify so that we can deploy machines quickly onto Foxconn or other platforms. We will probably use Oracle Linux instead because we don't want to deal with the licensing issues of putting Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) up and then tearing it down a week later. Our management chain is not satisfied with the current pricing model.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for at least a decade.

There are always bugs in any software product, but it seems pretty stable.

The technology of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) scales greatly, but the pricing doesn't scale as effectively.

The customer service and technical support are outside of what I deal with as a system administrator. I use the Red Hat support through the website most often to look up technical issues, which works effectively. If I were to rate that support from the website on a scale of one to ten, I would give it an eight or nine.

Positive

We transitioned to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) from Fedora approximately a decade ago. More recently, we've decided to diversify so that lab compute loads that are internal, which are going to be kicked over repeatedly, are moving to Oracle Linux. We have also acquired several companies whose systems are set up to run on Ubuntu, so our environment is diverse.

We manage our Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems with our own internal Ansible playbooks for performing upgrades and patching, so it's all integrated for us.

Our upgrade and migration plans to stay current are a continual process. People in our labs prefer to maintain what they have because they want to stay at steady state indefinitely, but that isn't possible. We are continually working on eight to nine upgrades simultaneously.

I see a return on investment when using this product in general, as it helps us support our product development teams, which generates revenue.

I have not been involved in any cloud migrations because that's handled by a separate team. Regarding upgrades, transitioning from version six to seven was more complex. We are currently in the process of upgrading much of our version seven base to versions eight and nine, which is progressing more smoothly.

I haven't purchased Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) on AWS Marketplace, as that falls outside of my responsibilities and would be handled by the cloud team.

Regarding Red Hat management for security, we have dedicated security teams that assist with evaluations, and we partner with them for implementing solutions to security issues. 

Overall, I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) an eight or nine out of ten. The pricing structure is the main factor preventing it from receiving a perfect score, as improved pricing would enable more ubiquitous use.

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

The benefits are reliability, stability, and good support.

I find Red Hat Enterprise Linux stable. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Positive

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

We also have SUSE Linux for one specific product.

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

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

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

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

Our use case involves modernizing applications for our clients. We take the application, extract the main functions and features, and modernize them to have those features in the cloud with a new customer experience. One way to do this is to prepare a new platform or solution in the cloud. Then we get the data from their on-premise services and move this data to the cloud. 

We mainly have customers from the public sector, telecommunications, and fintech, and these customers require many systems to modernize because most of them are 15 or 20 years old, and that's why they need to modernize for a better customer experience and journey.

It's almost a standard for us because all of the infrastructure in the cloud is based on Red Hat Enterprise Linux. We are using OpenShift as an orchestration platform. We work with several orchestration platforms, such as Kubernetes and EKS from AWS. In the case of Red Hat, we are using OpenShift. The main feature of OpenShift for us is the continuous integration, continuous delivery, and security; the granularity of security is important for us. They have a lot of features on top of Kubernetes. 

Red Hat is a good partner for us, and the service and support guides are really valuable for understanding and improving our knowledge in this area.

The main benefit of Red Hat is the huge community. They are delivering better quality by constantly updating and adding features for different products. The stability and quality of their service are very good.

I believe they need to improve in terms of compatibility between services. I know that it's difficult to follow the different versions and maintain compatibility. For example, in OpenShift, they have several internal tools that are not completely compatible with the product, and that's an area they need to work on. Supporting different versions and ensuring compatibility between these versions is necessary for us to continue putting effort into this.

We started on-prem about 15 years ago, and we have been working with Red Hat Enterprise Linux on the cloud for five years.

The quality of their services is high because they have people internally working on improving features every day.

Red Hat is a good partner. I would rate their support an eight out of ten.

Positive

Two of our clients switched to Red Hat because they have support from the organization. The management of their products, in terms of documentation and processes for installation and configuration, is well-documented. It's not like other open-source products in the market that lack the full support of an organization. This is the main reason they pay for licenses or subscriptions; there's an organization behind the products supporting them.

Upgrades or migrations are pretty straightforward and not complex, according to our experience.

We require a small team of between three and five people for upgrades or migrations. For such projects, we mainly have developers and cloud engineers. For the data itself, we also have data engineers.

Pricing is sometimes an issue for our clients because it's not a cheap solution. The different licenses have a high cost, and perhaps they could improve by offering different kinds of discounts or lowering the price to make this solution more appealing compared to other cloud providers.

Moving workloads between centers depends on the knowledge of the data and the frequency of synchronization. It depends on different factors, but normally, it is a matter of knowledge about the data structure and the different mechanisms and techniques for moving this data. It's not only a matter of tools; it's related to understanding how the data is structured and how often it changes.

We don't manage Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for provisioning and patching because we work with the cloud directly. These services are managed by AWS.

We move workloads between on-prem and the cloud using Red Hat Enterprise Linux. For this, we are using other tools, such as Divisio, which is also supported by Red Hat. We have Apache NiFi and Kafka for messaging delivery and integration between the services.

If you have a multi-cloud strategy, Red Hat is a better fit. However, if you only use one cloud service like Amazon or Google, I'm not sure if Red Hat provides great benefits compared to the cloud provider. Our clients have had only one cloud provider.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

We mainly use Red Hat Enterprise Linux for general applications. We have Red Hat Enterprise Linux for identity management. We use it for NTP services. Most of the bank services that run on Linux run on Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Our core applications include bank cards solutions.

It is a stable operating system, and that is why we use it. We have many team members who understand how to use Red Hat Enterprise Linux, so it's much easier to use this version of Linux to deploy services.

There is ease of use. A lot of resources are available online if the team wants to understand something. There is also the ability to use various automation tools to run multiple tasks.

For risk reduction and compliance, we have CIS benchmarks. There are various configuration files that we are able to update and change. Using the benchmarks available from CIS, I can have a template and automate that across multiple machines using automation features such as Ansible. When examining permissions for file systems, enabling login, and enabling file integrity, these are the items we would use for security.

The simplicity of patching Red Hat Enterprise Linux is most valuable. We just use the DNF update. We use the Red Hat satellite for our patch repositories, which is quite simple. I look at it at an infrastructure level because I'm in the infrastructure team, not in the application team.

The knowledge base is good. When we troubleshoot or have issues, we go to the Red Hat website. There are a lot of documented issues. They have a good knowledge base.

Identity management could be simpler. Red Hat Enterprise Linux has Identity Manager, but it is not as simple to use as Microsoft Windows Active Directory.

I have been working with Red Hat Enterprise Linux for a very long time, approximately 15 years.

It is stable. I would rate its stability a nine out of ten.

So far, I have not been affected by significant issues in terms of security.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is scalable, so I would rate its scalability a nine out of ten.

We are using it across two sites. We have 6,000 people.

I have contacted tech support of Red Hat Enterprise Linux for some questions. Their tech support is quite good compared to other companies.

Positive

Before working with Red Hat Enterprise Linux, I used CentOS and Microsoft Windows. While comparing CentOS with Red Hat Enterprise Linux, I see stability as an advantage; Red Hat Enterprise Linux is quite a stable operating system.

I have done cloud deployments and upgrades.

It does not require a lot of maintenance. For managing Red Hat Enterprise Linux systems, when it comes to provisioning and patching, we use Ansible, which allows us to patch multiple machines. We normally use Red Hat Insights. Once we configure our machines to talk to Red Hat Insights via Red Hat Satellite, it can tell us the vulnerability status of various machines in the environment. Then, we can decide which machines are most vulnerable and patch accordingly. We can use automation tools such as Ansible to run various patches across the environment.

We have used Leap to do the upgrades from Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 to Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8. Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 was going end of life. Upgrading from one version to another can be a bit complex. It is sometimes an issue because of multiple compatibilities. You need someone who is a bit skilled on the operating system.

We did the deployment ourselves, not through an integrator, reseller, or consultant.

We have four people involved in maintenance because we have many servers.

The cost of Red Hat Enterprise Linux is reasonable.

I would recommend it for mission-critical applications. It's a good operating system to run mission-critical applications.

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux a nine out of ten because of the support, stability, and ease of use.

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux for our applications. I use it for many applications, especially SAP.

We install it on the server so that we can install our applications running on that server.

The benefits I get from this operating system are that it's secure, easy to use, and stable.

I find the clustering feature of Red Hat Enterprise Linux the most useful. It helps us to cluster our application service to maintain high availability.

I access the knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux through their websites. The knowledge base is helpful to me.

The Image Builder is easy to set up, and overall, it is helpful to me.

I recommend that they improve their virtualization product, specifically the management console.

Support should definitely be improved.

I do not have any complaints with the stability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux in multiple locations. We are using it in the IT industry.

I would rate their support a three out of ten. I find them slow to respond. The quality of support is not acceptable in the way they provide solutions.

Negative

I manage Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems by installing it from the disk, specifically from a CD-ROM. It requires maintenance from our side. We have 11 people for maintenance in the team.

I have not seen a return on investment since I started using it. The cost is a reason for that.

I find the cost of this solution expensive.

I would recommend not using Red Hat Enterprise Linux because there are better products out there. I prefer SUSE because of the cost and other features.

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux as four out of ten.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux positively impacts my organization with its various capabilities. We use the orchestration processes with cloud services using Ansible.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has a vast set of features. I can use the setup features and many other features. Red Hat Enterprise Linux is a whole world.

To become more competitive, they might consider changing their licensing model, for instance, by offering an instance-based payment for cloud computing services. In the future, I expect features regarding changes to the subscription model.

I would prefer Red Hat Enterprise Linux to allow easier cancellation of instances unless they are needed.

I started with Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7.5 and 7.6, and now, I have Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9.0.

The product has been stable since installation.

It is scalable. I have not experienced significant issues with scaling it.

The technical support by Red Hat is great. I would rate them a 10 out of 10.

The knowledge base offered by Red Hat is accessible. As you log in with your Red Hat account credentials, you can find the knowledge platform on your dashboard.

Positive

The initial setup of Red Hat Enterprise Linux is not complex. We just need a Red Hat Enterprise Linux image to install on any operating system and use the console. Since I have worked with Linux for around 10 years, installing it is straightforward for me.

I just need to upgrade the operating system with the latest update, and after that, I log in to my Red Hat account from the CLI to connect to the Red Hat Enterprise Linux service.

We have seen a return on investment with Red Hat Enterprise Linux. If you are using the service properly, especially in cloud computing, understanding the services you are using and what technology and applications are required can help manage your ROI very efficiently. Excessive services that are not compatible with your applications can impact your ROI negatively.

When I started using it, Red Hat Enterprise Linux was free for all and open-source. It is now paid with access to many features to upgrade and use their services.

Due to multiple organizations and corporate systems in Pakistan relying on it, it continued to be used, especially in corporate and banking systems even after becoming a paid service.

The pricing is not always reasonable, but it also depends on your requirements.

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

In my latest job, I was working with microservices where the decision was made to use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for its core functionalities. I played a role in setting up the OS and was responsible for the initial installation, defining pods, and network configurations.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) offered robust support and stability, providing full alignment with manufacturing hardware which ensured the drivers and other infrastructure were highly compatible.

The support and escalation process for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is excellent. It offers more stability compared to other distributions like SUSE. Red Hat's compatibility with manufacturing hardware ensures smooth operation. Their knowledge base is particularly useful for troubleshooting and training, and their built-in security and compliance features simplify risk reduction. It is a mature and improved platform for corporate functionalities.

The performance of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) could be improved, especially under high load scenarios or when running applications involving AI. Providing support for AI in the knowledge base could be beneficial.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is known for its decreased downtime and stable performance.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) allows for disaster recovery planning across different states to ensure synchronized performance.

Customer support for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is rated as a ten out of ten. From the beginning, their support has been excellent.

Positive

The setup was smoothly conducted. The feedback received indicated that the installation was seamless and without interruptions.

I was responsible for the initial configuration and setup of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), working closely with other teams.

Though a bit expensive compared to competitors, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is still recommended because it works effectively and delivers value for its pricing.

The differences between Red Hat and SUSE, or Red Hat and Ubuntu, are that Red Hat is more mature and has better corporate-oriented functionalities.

I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) overall as a ten since it provides the necessary resources and support.

Our primary use case involves running custom applications on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). We mainly deploy it on-premises, with applications and custom-made solutions running on RHEL for our customers.

The most valuable features include the classical operating system features, extensive community support, and the integration of open-source with enterprise support. Our customers often choose Red Hat because they receive support for open-source software, which is a major reason for its use.

I am not sure what needs improvement as our customers haven't shared any specific feedback. Perhaps some minor enhancements like a more user-friendly knowledge base and faster technical support could be beneficial.

I have been working with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for over ten years, with a recent focus on it in the last few months.

I find that Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is highly stable, and I would rate its stability nine or ten out of ten. It is a fully enterprise-grade operating system, and stability is crucial for our customers.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is very scalable, and I would rate its scalability at nine or ten. Scalability is vital for our customers as they often expand their infrastructure.

While the technical support could be faster, the Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) community service is excellent. The technical support from Red Hat could be rated six out of ten because of the slow response times.

Neutral

The initial setup was very easy and straightforward. I didn't experience any problems during the setup process, similar to other operating systems.

The deployment process depends on customer specifications. After discussing and agreeing on the specifications, we proceed with the deployment. We guide customers and provide recommendations as needed.

I do not have specific knowledge about pricing as I am not a seller. The price varies depending on the customer and the project. Therefore, I cannot provide an exact evaluation of pricing.

Overall, I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) nine out of ten. The knowledge base could be improved to be more user-friendly as it currently requires getting used to.