Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)

I guess to give it more context, my first job in the Linux ecosystem was in web hosting. And that was basically a Cintas shop and it was all run extremely lean and very bootstrappy do it on your own. You don't get any support. And for that environment, it was kind of just the way it is. It's very cutthroat. You have to move super fast. Once I moved over to the corporate side, every company I've worked with has been on rail. And the thing that really kind of makes it the best choice compared to using another operating system, another flavor of Linux and just kind of figuring out your own is the amount of support that Red Hat gives rail as far as extra tools like Satellite Insights and what's coming up now with Ansible and especially Ansible. Lightspeed, but also SLAs and stuff like that. Because yeah, I mean it was good learning in that first environment because there were no tickets, there was no support. It was figured out. But nowadays it's just nice to have an SLA agreement. I can just open a ticket. I say that that's something that does really well, but I also want to see it expanded, just more like vendor support at an enterprise level. I'm not sure yet what that would mean. I just have that every time we come up for renewal, I look at the price tag and it's like, what else can we do here? I like what Red Hat is doing just more.

It's definitely well-suited specifically for patch management and deployment. I haven't used it in any areas outside of that, so I'm not sure. I don't know. I don't know if it'd be good for application stuff. I don't know. That might be a weak point, but I don't know for sure. I haven't used it to do application setups or calls or anything like that. Just patching and deployment. So that one is kind of our one.

Where it's very well suited is just if you're rolling out systems quickly, web front ends, and so forth. I think it's really well suited for that. Even backend operations. It does a good job. However, I do think that it's not as industrial-proven as other operating systems out there. Like say the banking industry, they love AIX, cause it's IBM, it's been around forever and it's rock solid. And to try to get that much computing power in an intel box is difficult. So RHEL is limited in what it can do versus some of the P series and I series stuff that IBM does.

Like I said before, with the automation environment RHEL is well suited to run the Ansible Navigator and the Ansible execution environment builder. So we can create our execution environment on RHEL natively instead of having to figure out how we do it as Ubuntu or other platforms.

It's well suited for installing pretty much anywhere and it's usually the documentation is very good and there's a lot of support from the documentation and training to make good use of the product. It's not as good as a workstation, it's better as a server product. It's not necessarily good in kind of other situations as well because of some of the licensing constraints.

I mentioned it provides a consistent base for our developers, for our applications. In an institution or enterprise where you want security, you want a specific type of setup to your system. Red Hat excels at that. It's not really geared toward that side of things, but we have users, I'm a power user who likes to use Linux on my daily commuter laptop and I prefer to use a Fedora or a Debian than a Red Hat just for the difficulty of configuring a specific use case like an end user would be.

Stability and performance are top-notch and if any issues are encountered their support is also excellent

Critical production environments are the best for RHEL case as the product ensures the security, stability and it is backed by the world class support that the most of the companies (and their shareholders) would appreciate.
It might not be too suitable for the startups or even some Dev teams within large enterprises, depending on their internal culture and practices. Though things definitely improved over the last few years and there is no strong case for the teams not to use RHEL nowadays.

Stable and support are great.

In my opinion RHEL is extremely capable for most all work done. Maybe not as easy for some office type applications but still very capable.

Stable operating system. Easy to support at scale

Unless you're tied to a specific OS for the app, there is no reason why you wouldn't want to use Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

We use it as our primary OS and replacement OS for Microsoft.

Well suited for those who are network savvy. And for those who like CLIs.

Development environment for developing microservices based solutions. The orchestration to carry new applications from development to production deployment.

Workloads on public cloud where customers require reliability and supportability for applications and targeted hardware for multiple years.

It's very useful for our Linux servers.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux works well with Oracle Database workload.

Large scalable environments. Currently working toward SAP setup. Things have been stable so far. Uptime is great, aside from normal patching reboots. The only thing I can think of where Rhel wouldn't be too great is a workstation. Works well for most things, but I've found a few tools that there isn't a Linux port for.

A strong, reliable system for web site and web application hosting.

We use RHEL because it gives us security when setting up our services. We try to standardize our DC and work as much as possible with RHEL due to its ease of use, its support and the information that is found is very useful when running into a problem. I'm happy using RHEL.

I have had a very easy time imaging RHEL machines and getting them to the state i desire. I find pam very confusing and how to make changes that are required in the classified environments. it would be nice if there were an easier way to see required dependencies to prevent me walking back and forth multiple times to complete one install.

Installing and configuring RHEL has been an ease to learn and execute. Most of the applications that I run requires linux or unix, which RHEL is my companies choice because of it reputation and the resources it provides.

RHEL is well-suited for applications where stability and security are critical, as well as where the ability to scale it and still manage efficiently is crucial.

It is less well-suited for environments where there are individual, specific requirements, where newer versions of libraries and applications are required, and particularly in migration of legacy .Net applications.

I think based on experience the stability the ease of patching and troubleshooting it is suitable for any application development. Less suitable when it involves integration with other windows servers for implementations such as SQL or other instances since the configuration seems complicated for most Windows users, command line most of the time is intimidating.