I'm supporting a client in North America, specifically in Canada, where they are using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) servers in their retail business. They utilize it for back office software service, specifically a software called BOSS (Back Office Software Service). We are using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) on almost 1,200 servers, but this year, we have started migrating to Rocky from Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

Vulnerability management and patch releases are done on time. There are no delays, and we are not leaving our environment vulnerable, which minimizes risks.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) has helped us mitigate downtime and lower risk. With our current patching process using Kpatch, we frequently do not reboot the servers. We only reboot once a year during application downtime to upgrade to the next kernel level, while all security patches are applied live.

Some of the best features I noticed with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) include the LVM and the patching mechanism through the Satellite system. We do patching whenever there is a security vulnerability, and we are able to do it with the support of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). For me these two big features, LVM and patching, are essential. 

If I can resolve an issue myself, that would be ideal, as it means I wouldn’t need to raise a case at all. The KB articles should contain all the necessary information for reference.

It would be great if they're able to reduce the price. It will be easier to convince customers to use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) instead of open-source solutions. 

I have almost five years of experience with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

Scalability is fine; I don't have any challenges there. However, we are not using many of those features because our application is not ready to utilize them.

We use their knowledge base to find the solution.

I would rate the technical support with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) a nine out of ten. 

Positive

The customer is moving to Rocky. It is not our decision; we still insist on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) due to its security and additional features. The customer is moving away primarily for cost-cutting on licensing. 

Compared to other Linux distributions such as openSUSE, SUSE, or Rocky, I believe Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) offers better features. In Rocky, we don't have a live patching mechanism.

Deployments or migrations are quite easy for us since we have been working with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for the last five or six years. It feels like a piece of cake. Whether it's a minor or major version update or a migration, we don’t face any significant challenges. The process is smooth.

Initially, it took us two days to spin up a VM with all the requirements when on-prem. Now, the code is in GitLab. We have set up a code to build the servers, so after submitting a request in ServiceNow, it can be ready the next day. It is all automated.

It was on-prem, but last year, all of the servers were migrated to GCP.

There isn't much difference whether it's on-prem or on cloud, because the patching mechanism we follow through the Satellite system remains the same. From an admin's perspective, there isn't much difference between cloud and on-prem support.

As we lift and shift, our application is not cloud-ready or digital-ready, so we are still working in legacy mode. Therefore, we need to recode the entire application stack to make it compatible with cloud features.

If Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) can reduce its pricing, then it would be easier to convince others that there is not much difference between open-source solutions while still receiving several features for a licensing cost.

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

I use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) to manage applications and for system administration. The latest version is Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 10, which has AI with Red Hat Lightspeed inside the operating system, where you can write natural language in the terminal. I am using artificial intelligence inside Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). I am working with Ansible, which is an automation tool from Red Hat. I install Ansible inside Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and make many automations.

Red Hat Insights helps in monitoring Linux servers, providing CVEs that need updating in the operating system, and giving information about server security.

In the latest release, there are three important new features: Red Hat Lightspeed with AI integration, image mode capability allowing Red Hat Enterprise Linux to be imaged and transferred to another VM, and Quench-key cryptography for enhanced security. The AI integration through Red Hat Lightspeed is particularly significant as it differentiates it from other operating systems.

SELinux is valuable for security purposes. SELinux is very good because we can give the correct permissions to the employees. 

Red Hat Lightspeed, added in the latest version, and image mode features are also significant features.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is already good and perfect. They can continue to improve the AI features.

I have 10 years of experience working with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). I worked as an operating system specialist for five years, performing administration tasks such as managing LVMs, users, groups, disks, and performing troubleshooting inside the operating system.

Their support is very good.

Positive

I worked with SUSE and changed to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) because I worked at IBM for five years, and IBM bought Red Hat. All systems were integrated into Red Hat solutions. 

SUSE is very similar to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), but I prefer Red Hat solutions because their support is much better. I believe that the support and updates from Red Hat are superior. For example, Red Hat has a feature called Red Hat Insights, which allows me to proactively manage incidents and identify vulnerabilities. SUSE does not offer these features.

The deployment is easy.

Red Hat saves time with integration with tools such as Ansible for automation. 

I am not involved in the pricing, but it is not very expensive.

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

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.