We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux for file transfers and changing file permissions. It is also used to check file spaces and for migration purposes. Our tools are hosted on the Linux environment, and our agent services run on it.

We use Red Hat Linux to start and stop our agent services during migration, install new agents, and transfer files. The primary benefit is that it's a widely used open-source solution with good support. Now that we've migrated from CentOS to Red Hat Enterprise Linux, we will realize some benefits. Red Hat Enterprise Linux has more features. 

I like Red Hat Enterprise Linux's clustering capabilities and high-level architecture. It has high availability, built-in disaster recovery, SSH features, and scripting. 

The documentation is excellent. Since it was acquired by IBM, the open-source tools and technologies hosted on the Linux environment have been updated with many new features. 

It would be great if Red Hat had its cloud instead of using AWS, Azure, or GCP. Red Hat Enterprise Linux should have a dedicated cloud. I would also like to see more Windows support. 

Red Hat Enterprise Linux could also be more user-friendly and use AI or machine learning to automate processes. That is the most dynamic feature in the information technology industry.

I have used Red Hat for five years.

We have intermittent issues with stability, but we're hoping they will improve in the latest version.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is quite scalable. We can place a lot of agents on Linux servers, some on the cloud, and a few on-prem. It can handle the workload. 

I rate Red Hat support eight out of 10. We have communicated with Red Hat support via email. 

Positive

Before Red Hat Enterprise Linux, we used CentOS. Another Linux flavor I've used is Ubuntu. 

The first deployment of Red Hat Enterprise Linux had a learning curve, but I've learned a lot since then. Once you know the process, then it's straightforward. It uses a command-based process, but if it were based on a GUI or a console, like a Windows installer, that would be a significant improvement. 

Red Hat Enterprise Linux requires some housekeeping. We have to restart and patch servers weekly or biweekly and check the CPU, memory size, file size, the database used, and whether the IP network protocols are defined. All this happens monthly, weekly, or fortnightly.

I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux eight out of 10. 

We are using the solution for automation. Mainly, we're doing a lot of automation with it. One of the projects, for example, is for ensuring payments processes on forms. We streamline and optimize the insurance claims process using OpenShift. This has enabled us to do faster claims processes and make resource utilization more efficient than it was. Everything can be done online. There are no papers involved. 

It is mainly just cutting out redundant tasks. The focus was mainly driven by driving costs down and efficient resource utilization. We wanted a solution that could make deployment easy and ensure scalability.

The biggest benefit has been the automation. It affected our delivery schedule. Instead of doing something in two weeks, we do it faster. We've cut down our production time. And people are able to focus on other tasks since they're automating a lot of things. Even with our clients, when they have issues, we have created a system where they can send out a ticket. And from that ticket, we can diagnose, and it's easier to solve the issue at hand. 

In terms of cost per head, we've seen a drastic drawdown from that. It is mainly optimizing a lot of our systems and resources.

The high availability is great. It's available most of the time - even when we're doing upgrades, provisioning, configuration, and patching. It made things easier for us. 

The automation is great. I'm a big fan of offering convenience to people and making systems easier for people to understand and use. 

There are good features, such as proactive monitoring as well. It offers predictive analytics, which helps you identify issues before they impact operations. We can foresee several problems. On top of that, this is how we can combat those problems. These types of features are really valuable when considering a company's strategy and when it comes to the impact of operations. 

We are able to move workloads between different clouds or our data center using Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

The knowledge base on offer is quite extensive. We started learning from a third-party provider since we've had a lot of use cases. Maybe you are installing something, or maybe during virtualization, you have to do something, and you need more information. The Red Hat OpenShift community is quite huge. Even a resource such as YouTube has people releasing videos on common problems. Even outside of Red Hat itself, the Red Hat community is very good. The information is extensive. The knowledge base is there. There's a lot of information sharing. People do not try to gatekeep information. 

When it comes to provisioning and patching, so far, we have not had a lot of issues. We currently are using a subscription model. In terms of getting security patches and updates, they support us quite well. There's a 24-hour support base and they're quite good. 

I've tried the Leapp and Red Hat Insights features. It helps with proactive monitoring. It did analyze the system configurations and compares those against databases of known problems and fixes. Basically, there's a pool of data that has common issues and it analyzes how you've configured your system and then compares them. It can come back to you and say, "Hey, this is your problem. Why don't you try the solution?" It's like a good AI tool. It gives us a lot of help. It's quick. Thanks to this feature, we sometimes find that we don't really need to open a ticket for support.

We realized the benefits of using RHEL in months. We were told when we were doing the onboarding, we'd see benefits in six months. For us, it took a little over eight months. That was due to some of our internal processes that we had to do, some sign-offs, et cetera. Still, it took us less than a year. Over time, we are down 20% to 30%.

In the beginning, we didn't start on the cloud. Only now are we fully transitioning to going off-site. There are still some clients who are a little resistant to going to the cloud. It's nice to be hybrid, to accommodate both. We've done a lot of virtualization and server consolidation. So far, everything is running smoothly. 

When moving workloads between different clouds or data centers, it's not that simple. There are a lot of things that you need to consider, including prerequisites and things like hardware, network, operating systems, et cetera. Once you get the hang of it, it becomes easier. However, in the beginning, it was very, very challenging. Coming from a development background, I found it easier to use command lines.

I've hit some snags doing updates or changing things for clients. 

It would be nice if they improved vulnerability management. They could add more security tools and tools for provisioning. 

I've used the solution for two years. 

The stability is good. We don't really have any downtime. I'd rate stability nine out of ten. 

We've had no issues with scalability. It's quite user-friendly. 

During the implementation, we did have to open a support ticket. They assisted us effectively.

Positive

I've never tried other solutions. I know of other solutions, such as Ubuntu. However, my interactions with that solution have been minimal. 

The initial setup was a little bit complex. The instructions, however, were very clear, and our deployment strategy was clear. Still, for the technicians doing it, it was complex.

The setup took about a week and a half.  

I've been involved with two upgrades so far. They were challenging. There were a lot of teams involved. There needed to be a lot of migration planning. We had to use the Link Utility and we did a lot of testing first. We spent a long time verifying the applications and checking dependencies. It was quite a learning curve.

There is some maintenance needed in the form of system updates. 

We did get a lot of help from RHEL. We had senior engineers guide us through the setup.

We've seen an ROI of around 30%.

When we went through IBM, it was quite expensive. Now, we are going through AWS, which is less pricey. 

We started off as a partner to IBM, and IBM opened up the opportunity for us to build certifications for Red Hat through the certification program. Then we became support specialists, taking on RHEL projects. We are in the process of becoming a reseller. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. We're doing a lot of big data infrastructure and they are giving us good stability and performance.

We use it for SAP applications. We use it for web hosting, and then we use it for clustering.

We were previously using Windows Servers, but we had challenges with the compatibility with SAP applications, the support, and the frequency of patches. We had compatibility challenges when we wanted to go for an upgrade. We use the SAP HANA database for SAP applications, and the migration process from Windows to Linux was easy. We also got better support. While troubleshooting issues and doing RCA on unplanned events, the support we received from Red Hat was good.

Because of the reduction in compatibility issues, the number of downtimes was reduced. The escalations were reduced from the application side. The frequency of the patching was reduced, so such planned activities were reduced. With Windows, we were forced to go for patching even if the application was not ready for patching. Red Hat Enterprise Linux is a good platform for SAP applications and the database in our organization. We prefer Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

Patch management with the Red Hat Satellite server is also good. When it comes to automation, the automation tool for regular tasks on Windows was very backward compared to the Red Hat automation tool that we are now using. Red Hat Ansible is far ahead. We could automate many more tasks on-premises using the Red Hat platform as compared to the Windows platform.

Red Hat Insights helps us understand vulnerabilities and avoid any downtime and risks. If needed, we can easily reach out to the Red Hat support team for any help related to patching or changes.

The knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux is very good. It is easy to understand. It is not too technical to understand. New users and application support teams can easily understand the information given in their knowledge base.

Initially, we used to do installation and patching manually, but we later implemented the Red Hat Satellite server, which was suggested by their team. We started using the Red Hat Satellite server. It has made deployment, patch management, and lifecycle management very easy.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has affected our system's uptime. Earlier, the downtime was around six to eight hours, whereas now, it has come down to one hour. We also need less manpower for upgrades.

The file system is very good. We also have flexibility. We can scale the file system and add the mounts on the go without any downtime.

On Windows, for security, we need to have many applications and supporting tools installed externally whereas we get them with Red Hat Enterprise Linux without any issues. Application management is also easy compared to Windows.

Build management is also easier than Windows. When we had to deploy an application on Windows, the process was difficult compared to the Red Hat build process.

If someone wants to build automation, we can give them access to Red Hat Ansible Tower, which was not possible with Windows.

There can be a faster resolution. When we have production issues, they take around 30 to 60 minutes to come up with a solution. It would be quite helpful if their response is faster. They are also not reachable over the phone, so we need to wait for their callback for the ticket. If they are reachable over the phone, that will be quite good. Our account manager is reachable over the phone but only during certain times. Fast help would be quite helpful in the case of any urgent issues.

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

For reliability, I would rate it a ten out of ten. The downtime that we have is not because of the OS. That is generally because of the dependencies such as the network or VMware infrastructure.

I would rate it an eight out of ten for scalability.

We have around 4,000 users, but the Red Hat boxes that we use are around 2,000. 

In the case of any unplanned events, system crash, or something else, we get proper answers from their team. They help us with RCA, which is helpful in avoiding any such events in the future. We can also approach them when we want to implement something. When we were moving from version 7 to version 8, their support helped us. We could move a bulk of machines with a small downtime. The application team was quite happy because the downtime was for a very short duration.

Their support for urgent or production issues can be faster. I have had all kinds of experiences with their support. I have worked with their support for the last four or five years. We have had scenarios where we had to close a ticket with no resolution. We have also had an awesome and quick response from them. They have also helped us build up a process, which was quite tedious. Overall, I would rate them an eight out of ten.

Positive

We were previously using Windows Servers. We had challenges related to compatibility, support, and patch frequency. We were not very comfortable with Microsoft's support. Whenever we had any issues, they only asked us to reboot or wait for the patch. They kept giving us some patches. We were not comfortable with that because the applications were not ready for those patches, but they forced us to keep updating them with the patches. Red Hat support is better than Microsoft support. They do not just ask to reboot to solve an issue. They help us with a proper RCA.

We have hypervisors in the on-prem environment. We use VMware on that. We are using Red Hat Enterprise Linux on bare metal and hypervisors. It is quite comfortable. We do not see any issue with either of them. Initially, we had some issues implementing the cluster on VMware, but Red Hat along with the VMware team helped us overcome the issues.

Its deployment was quite straightforward. There was no confusion. It took us some time initially but that got reduced with the help of Red Hat Satellite and Ansible Tower. Initially, it took 30 to 40 minutes for deployment. With the help of Red Hat Satellite and Ansible Tower, it came down to 15 to 20 minutes. We also needed less manpower because the process was quite straightforward. Previously, we had a team of four, but the number was reduced afterward. 

Upgrades are generally quite straightforward because we have spent some time with Red Hat support and built a process for easy upgrades.

We had some challenges with the upgrade from Red Hat Enterprise Linux version 7 to version 8 because of certain dependencies, but the Red Hat support helped us build a process and automate it. It took some time, but it got easy.

We have not used Red Hat Enterprise Linux Image Builder. It did not match our requirements. We built our own images. After moving to the Red Hat Satellite server, image building was quite easy.

It is not fairly priced. If they can reduce the price, it would be nice. 

I understand that they do not have any big competition as of now. SUSE Linux is there, but Red Hat Enterprise Linux has overcome all the drawbacks that it had earlier. Initially, SUSE Linux was a quite comfortable platform for SAP applications, but Red Hat has improved in terms of development. Its kernel suits SAP applications very well. If they can also improve the pricing, it would be even better. They generally do not reduce the price, but they give add-ons. We can get licenses for the Satellite server, Ansible, etc.

I would recommend Red Hat Enterprise Linux because of its support and reliability. In my career, I have worked with various Linux flavors such as Red Hat Enterprise Linux, CentOS, or Ubuntu Linux. Overall, the Linux platform is very reliable for most applications. With Red Hat Enterprise Linux, we get support when we need it.

We do not use the web console much on the support side, but the application team does use it once in a while. They find it comfortable because, for application deployment, they require a GUI. We provide them with the console, and they complete their task. We do not use it ourselves. We are quite comfortable with the command line interface.

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

I use Red Hat Enterprise Linux to create directories and files and configure security settings for the Red Hat Certified System Administrator exam.

The knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux comprehensively covers the fundamental knowledge required for the Red Hat Certified System Administrator and Red Hat Certified Engineer certifications. My experience taking the Red Hat examination was positive, and I am satisfied with their product.

I can easily work with Red Hat OS because it is user-friendly, even for manual tasks. While it may be as expensive as Windows, they offer a four-month trial and provide cloud access. This is valuable for understanding Linux concepts and working within the Linux environment. Overall, it's a great learning experience.

We prefer not to install the Linux OS manually, so we opt to work in the cloud instead. The cloud platform provides a real-time experience, enabling us to practice for exams easily and enhance our Linux knowledge. This proves highly beneficial for students pursuing Red Hat certification.

While preparing for the Red Hat administrator examination, I worked with the cloud platform, which was generally good but occasionally experienced some lag. Sometimes, the platform would be very slow, making it difficult to open labs. It could take around 30 minutes to start a lab, and there were limitations on data persistence. Any work or files created would only be available for one week before disappearing, requiring recreation. This lack of long-term storage is a disadvantage of the Red Hat Cloud platform.

I am currently using Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

I would rate the stability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux seven out of ten because of the lagging.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is scalable.

The support team was helpful in addressing the lag in the cloud.

Neutral

I used UNIX before switching to Red Hat Enterprise Linux. UNIX did not provide adequate support for developers, making it challenging to work with. Though it's open source, UNIX lacked the features that we needed. So, I transitioned to Red Hat. Red Hat offers developers extensive support and access to technologies like OpenShift and Kubernetes. This makes it easier for developers and large companies to manage workloads and adopt new technologies.

I installed UNIX on my laptop and experienced no lag, unlike the lag I've encountered in the cloud with Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

Installing Red Hat is easy. We download the file and run it in our labs.

One Red Hat license costs USD 131, which I find reasonable.

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

We have 15 members in our group that use Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

I recommend Red Hat Enterprise Linux. It's much faster than UNIX and offers extensive management support, making it valuable for startups and engineering developers.

As an organization, we use Red Hat Enterprise Linux for its stability and security.

I have worked with it on the cloud as well as on-premises. We use it with AWS.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is great when it comes to provisioning and patching. I am satisfied with it.

The user base and the knowledge base of Red Hat are way better than those of others. They make the user install and solve the issues easily.

We have used Red Hat Enterprise Linux Image Builder. It is a great tool for managing multiple systems. It can copy an exact image of my existing server to multiple servers. It is a great way to save time.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has helped us a lot. After switching from Ubuntu to Red Hat Enterprise Linux, there has been a drastic difference. The stability and the efficiency have enhanced greatly.

At the moment, we only have AWS cloud, and Red Hat Enterprise Linux is working well. We have plans to switch to GCP.

The package manager of Red Hat is very convenient and efficient to use. With other Linux versions, such as Arch Linux and Ubuntu, package managers might not always be stable. When installing any software, the dependencies can vary, and there can be conflicts, whereas Red Hat has efficiently managed all of that so that users can install packages without any conflicts. We do not use the graphical interface, so the package manager and security features are mainly valuable to us.

After installation, the initial setup can be simplified or improved a little bit for new users coming from a distribution like Ubuntu or Windows. For example, for Arch, the user guide is very good. If a user does not have any experience, he or she can refer to the guide and install it successfully, whereas, for Red Hat Enterprise Linux, the user needs to have some understanding of Linux.

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

It is very stable for us. I would rate it a ten out of ten for stability.

It is quite scalable. I would rate it an eight out of ten for scalability.

Before using Red Hat Enterprise Linux, we were using Ubuntu as our main server. Ubuntu is more consumer-oriented, whereas Red Hat Enterprise Linux is more professional and work-oriented.

The main concern for us was how to get it installed perfectly. Before me, there was a fairly new person installing Red Hat, and he was not able to get it installed perfectly. The partitions were very differently implemented in Red Hat than in Ubuntu. That was one of the major issues for him.

My colleague was handling the main setup, but he was not able to figure out how to get everything to work. He was able to install it with the ISO, but he could not set up partitioning and Wi-Fi drivers. It was complicated for him because he knew Ubuntu, but Red Hat Enterprise Linux was complicated for him. We had to refer to the documentation for our network drivers and then we could get our Red Hat Enterprise Linux working. It took us around three to four hours.

In terms of maintenance, timely patching is required.

Overall, we have about 1,000 users of these servers, but we are the only ones who work with these servers. No one else in the company operates these servers because one mistake can bring down the entire server.

It saves us time. There are about 40% savings.

It is cost-efficient for the tasks it does and the improvements that it brings. For a professional environment, it is very cost-efficient. It was easy to purchase the subscription.

If a user is using it for commercial purposes, I would not recommend it. If a user is using it as a server or a workstation, I would recommend it.

We do not use the Red Hat Enterprise Linux Web Console much. We only use it for the initial steps to configure the users. Other than that, we do not use it much.

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