We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux for virtualization and multi-cloud environment integrations.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has improved our organization by at least 10% in the business unit and multiplies across the other business units as well.

The most valuable features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux are the mobile applications and getting real-time notifications. With other solutions, each cloud infrastructure is hard to manage with different notifications coming on, but Red Hat Enterprise Linux is able to go on-premises and cloud.

A lot of improvement is required to get security compliance, especially with the privacy of the data, managing it, and storing it.

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

The solution's initial setup involves initial hiccups going back and forth to the requirements and the architecture, but so far, so good.

We have seen a return on investment with Red Hat Enterprise Linux regarding timely customer delivery, leading with innovation, and going into cloud solutions. It has progressed, and the maturity level has improved. So, we are learning as we go along this journey.

A lot of improvement is required to get security compliance, especially with the privacy of the data, managing it, and storing it. I'm sure Red Hat Enterprise Linux will be able to improve in the future.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux's effect on our system's uptime or security has been really positive. Especially with the customer's feedback coming out, I would definitely like to continue its usage.

It has enabled us to achieve 50% security standards certification. It doesn't fall into that domain, but the overall security policies do help integrate with it.

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux in a hybrid-cloud environment. It has not yet supported our hybrid cloud strategy. It's still a work in progress, but I'm sure they will be able to do it in the future.

The knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux is really helpful, especially in connecting different cross-functional communities.

Our in-house monitoring services team with the network operating center manages our Red Hat Enterprise Linux systems regarding provisioning and patching. It has quite a good integration with Red Hat.

We have tried Red Hat Insights, and it's really helpful for the market competitive intelligence portal we have in-house and how it interacts with external parties.

We have tried Red Hat Enterprise Linux system roles, and it is helpful for on-time delivery.

We have tried the Red Hat Enterprise Linux web console. It has helped us 50%, and it still needs to be reviewed in more detail.

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

My primary use case is for web applications and database applications. I've come across quite a few use cases at different companies.

The most valuable feature is the package management. It helps a lot. I also like the support. 

Red Hat is a Linux-supportive and well-managed offering. It helps a lot in terms of when we're working in production, it gives us the confidence that our packages are legitimate and genuine and we always have support available. It helps a lot. Red Hat Enterprise Linux gives peace of mind compared to other unsupported Linux distributions. 

I also like Red Hat Satellite. 

I haven't used Insights yet but it seems interesting. 

The ability to patch Red Hat Enterprise Linux through Satellite is a huge contributor to mitigating all of the compliance requirements.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has absolutely affected our security's uptime. None of the other distributions are nearly close to what you can get with Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Red Hat Enterprise Linux is something that helps a lot in ensuring that your secure application is up all the time and that you're not getting hit by vulnerabilities. It is an easier way for you to mitigate vulnerabilities when they're around.

The knowledge base is very useful. The only thing is that you need to have an account to get access. In terms of the content, the relevance, and being able to use the knowledge base to address things I've needed to deal with, it's awesome. For example, I was trying to add proxy configuration to the package manager once and if it wasn't for the knowledge base, I wouldn't have been able to do it.

I like it the way it is. 

It's getting easier for the community to use it free of charge. If you have an account, you get to use it. It would be better if the community could use it on their own for lab projects.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux since 2011. It's been 12 years. 

On the few occasions I needed to reach out to support, I was very satisfied.  

Positive

I have used Linux distributions but when it comes to the work I'm doing at my company, we always use Red Hat Enterprise Linux. 

The biggest differences between Red Hat Enterprise Linux and the other OS' are the support, Satellite, Insights, and the fact that Ansible was acquired by Red Hat so you can use all its automation and toolings. The entire ecosystem works very well together.

Red Hat has not personally enabled me to achieve security standard certifications in the projects I've worked on but I could see how it would help. 

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

We do a lot of patching and upgrading with Ansible and we keep the host up to date all the time.

Red Hat Enterprise Linunx's most valuable feature is patching. 

I am not happy with Red Hat's support. It is difficult to find knowledgeable people. It's hard to troubleshoot. 

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linunx since 2009. 

We used Solaris before Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Solaris' environment is closed, while Red Hat Enterprise Linunx is open-source. 

Red Hat Enterprise Linunx's knowledge base is good, and you can find answers there. 

I rate the product a nine out of ten. 

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux across different versions, from six to nine, to run various applications. Our main area of focus involves using Satellite support to manage and patch both the Red Hat Enterprise Linux OS and specific applications like OpenShift and other products supported by Red Hat. We have multiple environments, including Azure, AWS, and a standalone eXs host. 

Red Hat Enterprise Linux's patching process needs improvement, particularly in achieving consistency. Currently, when you patch, you might not have control over the timing, leading to different software packages ending up at different patch levels. This lack of consistency can make it challenging to manage and control the various components effectively. My background is in IBM AIX, so the patching is based on the technology level and the service pack level, so all the related patches stay at the same level.  

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

I would rate the knowledge base offered by Red Hat as average. I would rate their support as a three out of ten.

Negative

We also use IBM AIX. I prefer AIX, but Red Hat Enterprise Linux is cheaper. However, IBM has real technical support. You can call a 1-800 number and get a technician on the line. That's real technical support. Red Hat requires you to email them and schedule a call. 

Overall, I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux as a five out of 10. 

I don't see Red Hat Enterprise Linux's built-in security features as effectively simplifying risk reduction and compliance. We use AIX, but still, we face a lot of vulnerabilities from Red Hat that need frequent patching, often monthly. This frequent need for updates, along with the rapid changes in Red Hat Enterprise Linux releases, can be frustrating and lead to instability. In the banking industry, where we take vulnerabilities seriously, these frequent releases and lack of stability can be problematic. 

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux in different application servers. 

The tool's most valuable feature is simplicity. There is value in having a fully CLI-based operating system instead of a GUI-based one. It is lightweight and can be leveraged without resource constraints. 

I want Red Hat Enterprise Linux to stick to the open-source routes. As a company, we experience challenges in managing the budget. 

I have been using the product for three years. 

From a licensing perspective, Red Hat Enterprise Linux is flexible. We leverage our licenses based on the VMware cluster. 

Accessing the knowledge base from the public perspective is challenging. You can get much more from the documentation if you are a supported organization. If Red Hat Enterprise Linux continues to keep the documentation open-source, it will benefit us. 

We leverage Ansible to help with the upgrades. It makes upgrades easier. We rely on a reseller for Ansible AWS upgrades. 

We are shifting our Red Hat Enterprise Linux servers from version 7 to version 8. 

I rate the product a seven out of ten. 

We are moving toward a microservice architecture and using OCP4 as a platform. We run most of our APIs in OCP ports, so the base image is always Linux. It's a Linux image, and we add our own dependencies. We have a private and public cloud, so it's a hybrid cloud system, and we rely on on-premise data centers as well as the cloud. 

Red Hat Enterprise Linux supports our hybrid cloud strategy because we can have Red Hat Enterprise Linux on the public and private cloud, improving compatibility. 

If the compatibility is high, it's easier to move and migrate. If I have some components on the private cloud on Red Hat Enterprise Linux and components on the public cloud. 

Red Hat Enterprise Linux stands out for its stability and support, which are critical for enterprise applications in the finance sector. We don't want any downtime, so we need fast support and quick issue resolution. 

The main security feature is the regular patches and updates. When we do a security scan, there should be patches readily available. Security is essential in finance, and Red Hat Enterprise Linux helps us build a solid IT infrastructure foundation. 

I've used the Red Hat Enterprise Linux Web Console to configure the products. It's a nice tool with an intuitive interface that gives you a better picture of what you're configuring. It's helpful. 

Red Hat Enterprise Linux should be available in a free version that developers could try on their own machines before deciding to implement the enterprise edition. It would be nice to have a community version available with all the features so developers can become more familiar with Red Hat Enterprise Linux. 

I have used Red Hat Enterprise Linux for more than nine years. 

We haven't experienced any major outages or downtime. Most of our issues are quickly resolved. We don't typically upgrade to the latest and greatest because we want to ensure stability, and we have a lot of the components on the old system. We wait for a while to upgrade so we can see the most widely used and most stable version. 

I rate Red Hat support eight out of 10. 

Positive

We had Satellite and Red Hat Enterprise Linux from the beginning, but we also use other flavors like Amazon Linux. 

I rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux nine out of 10. 

We host Red Hat Enterprise Linux on our VMware Cloud and manage our customers' machines.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux machines are more stable than Windows machines.

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

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is a reliable operating system that can run for long periods of time without any issues.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux should modernize its UI to make navigating the screens easier.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for around four years.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is stable.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux can be easily scaled on a virtual machine.

The technical support is good.

Positive

I was not involved in the initial deployment but it was straightforward. The deployment took around 15 minutes per machine.

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

I recommend using Red Hat Enterprise Linux over an open-source OS because it offers better support.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux requires minimal maintenance.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is a reliable solution and I recommend it to others.

We use containers to create RPM packages for graphics drivers.

The main reason to use Red Hat Enterprise Linux is to maintain support for creating images for various purposes, including what we use for gaming. We rely on a range of supported tools and resources, and this enables us to build images tailored for specific target devices.

The RPM manager is paramount for us, as we need to generate these packages for our customers, enabling them to install the packages on their systems at a later time. The knowledge base they offer has proven to be quite efficient and we haven't encountered any significant challenges.

The technical support should be improved. I believe it would be beneficial to notify the customer in advance of any planned maintenance so that we can better coordinate and plan our customer interactions accordingly.

We have been using it for six years.

Recently, we encountered issues when the Red Hat server was in maintenance mode, and we attempted to capture images directly from another server for our builds. Although I set up alerts for planned downtime on the Red Hat server, I didn't consistently receive these alerts. I would rate it seven out of ten.

Neutral

We follow a weekly patching schedule to fetch the latest updates. Our process involves applying these patches to the image and then generating containers, which we subsequently upload to our registry. We accomplish this using Ansible.

The only inconsistency we've noticed so far is with the server, which might be the only aspect we could potentially raise concerns about. Overall, I would rate it eight out of ten.

We are a Linux shop, so a lot of our engineers are familiar with Linux. We try to push Red Hat Enterprise Linux instead of Windows. The reason for it in the beginning was licensing. Some of it was because of the way the contract was set up. It was cheaper, but we do use it now just for the ease of it. I do not know if it is because of Ansible, which we use for a lot of our day-to-day operations, that we tend to lean more toward Red Hat.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has affected our system's uptime or security. I know Microsoft publishes zero-day vulnerabilities for Windows as fast as Red Hat, but we noticed that in terms of problems or alerts that we get for attacks or viruses, there is not anything on the Red Hat side. That is why we feel that it is more secure. It might be just the nature of Red Hat where all services and ports are off. It is not like Windows where everything is on, and you have to turn it on. I was having a conversation with one of the gentlemen who is also attending the Red Hat conference, and I got to know that there are built-in NIST features with Red Hat that we could turn on, so we do not have to try to figure out how to harden our system.

The testing of the updates or the packages of the kernel is valuable because I used to be a part of the Fedora project. I know it is all vetted out before it gets to production, but a majority of it is the support and the relationships I have with the Red Hat employees assigned to our account.

As they move over to newer versions, certain things change, which is expected as the technology matures or new things come out, but what really surprises me are the features that are there in the cloud, such as Red Hat Insights. They are not there on-prem. There are a lot of things on the cloud portal that I did not notice before, and I was surprised because we were unaware of them. Red Hat is doing a lot of investment in that sense.

The knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux is good. It is easy to parse through all of the knowledge base. I do not know if Windows does it because I have not looked at it, but in Red Hat's knowledge base, there are a lot of things. They fast-track a lot of things in their knowledge base, even when they are not yet official. Especially with the tie-in with Bugzilla, even though it is not a true KB, we can see and follow if other people in the world are hitting a certain problem or something similar to what we are experiencing. I like that.

It would be great to have an overview of how various Red Hat products work together. They can show how to tie all those pieces together and how to have the products that we work together for our day-to-day processes.

I started with the company around 2012, and they have been using it even before then. At that time, it was Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5, and now, we are up to Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9.

In 10 or 11 years of using Red Hat solutions, I have opened only one or two support tickets. It probably was something during a patch and during Satellite 5 to Satellite 6 migration. I would rate them a 10 out of 10.

Positive

In Linux, there are so many different flavors, but I am partial to Red Hat because I have been a part of the Fedora project. At our place, we have only two operating systems: Microsoft Windows and Red Hat Enterprise Linux. I know CentOS, but that is usually because the appliance from the vendor was set up using that. That is why we had a few instances of CentOS in the past, but nowadays, I do not see any other flavors of Linux.

For the majority of our use cases for Red Hat, we have on-prem deployments. There are some things that they are trying to spin up on AWS. I do not know if they are cloud-native apps or not, but I know our developers are now moving on to it.

I have been involved in the initial setup, upgrades, and migration of Red Hat Enterprise Linux. I did not have any problems while going from major OS versions. I always push new upgrades or homogeneous migrations, such as from version 6 to version 7 to version 8. There is probably an option to upgrade in place. Overall, with Red Hat OS, I have not seen many problems. A long time ago, when they went from Python 2 to Python 3, there were certain things we had to change in the script.

I know that Red Hat is moving to Wayland from X11, but I do not see any problems there. From Satellite 5 to 6, it was a bit hard in the beginning, but now, it is pretty self-explanatory. Overall, everything about which we had questions was very well documented.

In terms of our upgrade and/or migration plans to stay current, first, we look at the EOL and the roadmap of Red Hat because of security. We used to offer every single version before the said EOL happened, but now, we just do an n-minus-one. We try to maintain the newest and one level below version. SAP users are the biggest Red Hat Enterprise Linux users in our environment. They have a particular PAM and upgrade path that they have to do with Red Hat. We also wait to be certified to certain versions, but our main strategy is the newest and one major version down. We try to get everybody off the other versions.

Our provisioning is all done using VMware products. We have a vRealize automation, now called the Aria automation, to spin it up. Patching is done through Satellite. I do not do it, but when I watch them doing it, it seems it is just using remote SSH commands against the list of non-prod and prod servers. It is something simple. We do not seem to be doing anything complicated. I am wondering if there is a better way to do versioning control or patching and whatnot, but currently, it is very simple.

I am satisfied with the management experience not only in terms of patching but also the day zero to day one or day two stuff. We are interested in utilizing Ansible to eliminate human error and whatnot. During provisioning, we have Pearl scripts that we have to manually trigger. I know we can use Ansible for that, but it comes down to the cost of entry which is still very high. 

A lot of people are moving into the core count for licensing. We still have a few with one-to-one standard server licensing, but we are utilizing the virtualization host licensing. We license it based on the host, not based on VMs, which is cool. I was very happy that there was certain licensing with SAP to have access to SAP repos. Its cost was the same as the regular one, so I was happy about that.

The only pricing that bugs me right now is the Ansible pricing. We wanted to take a look at Ansible, but the biggest thing a year back with Ansible was that the management did not want to spend half a million on Ansible Tower. They wanted to see first if we would use it and not waste money. I do not know if things have changed now, but Ansible is probably still expensive. That is one of the routes that we want to go to. We will see if we can utilize Ansible Tower, so pricing-wise, that is the only thing that pops up. It is too expensive. The cost of entry seems quite high.

Overall, I do not see any issues with what we have spent on Red Hat. We also have learning subscriptions that we pay to Red Hat for the training, and I do not feel we have wasted any money.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has built-in features, but we do not use them. It is one of the things about which I need to talk to our account manager. There are so many different ways to skin a cat. My department has so much money, so they bought everything, but a lot of the security features, such as SELinux, are disabled for us. We handle the firewall rules, access lists, and other things at another location rather than on the actual VM itself. It does not hurt to do it at multiple places, but operations-wise, it would be a nightmare, so we try not to do it. I know there are a lot of cool new things built in Red Hat, and that is something we should circle back and take a look at.

I have seen Red Hat Insights. I clicked on it one time when our account manager was showing us something. They have so many features in the cloud that we do not know we can use. Maybe it is wrong to assume, but the reason I do not look at Red Hat Insights is that a part of our patching is already included. We are not that strict about what we patch in terms of the versions. It is useful, but Red Hat emails us anyway. They tell about the severity of an issue. We do not look at Red Hat Insights. We see those emails and we see CVEs. If a package is installed and applicable to our VMs, we just use Satellite and patch that particular vulnerability. 

I have also tried the web console once. It looked interesting, but we do not have much use for it because a lot of our customers or application owners are server admins. About 99% of our Red Hat installs are all minimal installs. We do not have a GUI. There is just a terminal screen. Even though they could console in and do whatnot, it is all done via SSH.

Overall, I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux a 10 out of 10.

My primary use case for it is to run Jenkins servers.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is critical for our operations. We use it for all of our Linux servers. 

It works. It's consistent. It's well-documented. These are valuable aspects to me. 

Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9 updates the Cipher Suites and the security proceeds it. I wasn't pleasantly surprised because a bunch of our server communication didn't work. Having the Cipher Suites updated is a good thing but was not convenient.

I feel positive about the built-in security features when it comes to simplifying the risk and reduction and maintaining compliance. I'm also a Windows Server administrator so, compared to my Windows Server experience, I have very positive feelings about Red Hat Enterprise Linux security based on how easy it is to keep things patched, up-to-date, and compliant.

Some of the repositories and some of the DNS versions are very old. I just deployed something using Ruby and the DNS stable repository was sufficiently old that the Ruby project I was using didn't work. 

I would like more transparency and better options other than using something like Ruby Version Manager. I'd rather be able to get modern, up-to-date versions from the base repositories.

We have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for ten years. We're on a bunch of different versions. We're anywhere between version six and nine. My personal project is on nine.

We still have Windows servers.  

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is very resource-intensive, and it's hard to secure because Windows, the base use case, is all things to all people. 

I generally like Linux server products. I like the way they specialize, and I like the default security posture.

We have a hybrid environment. We do have some things in the cloud. We're using both Azure and AWS as our cloud providers.

I was involved in the process of migrating our Jenkins servers to Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9. It was not straightforward or complex because we changed a lot of things about our deployment. We tried to improve and streamline, and in the process, we broke some of our pipelines. 

It was not smooth, but that was not necessarily because of Red Hat Enterprise Linux, except for some of the security upgrades. We could not use the old RSA keys that we were using with RHEL 6 with RHEL 9. This meant that we either had to loosen our security by allowing legacy keys or tighten things down. We chose to tighten things down.

Another challenge is that we have some old Red Hat Enterprise Linux applications that are running on very old versions. We are trying to get everything off of RHEL 6 and 7 and onto RHEL 9, but there are a few applications that are stuck on RHEL 6 for various reasons.

We are getting rid of all of our Linux servers, so the biggest challenge right now is migrating our applications to RHEL 9.

When it comes to provisioning and patching, it is pretty manual. The company uses VMware, and the process is pretty manual and involves a certain number of shell scripts. I know we're trying to adopt Ansible, but we're not very far along.

I've had a very positive experience with Red Hat Enterprise Linux. My only point of comparison is Ubuntu, which I use for personal projects. 

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is a solid enterprise product with a greater emphasis on security. However, Ubuntu Server is easier to use in many ways compared to Red Hat Enterprise Linux. This may just be a matter of familiarity, but I find it easier to get current versions of Ruby with Ubuntu than with Red Hat Enterprise Linux. 

This is based on my somewhat limited use, but it's my impression nonetheless. That's what keeps it from being a ten out of ten.