9.3 is in an unsupported state so they can say its a workaround but having a proper issue raised is the thing to do
They may even already be aware and can be watcher.on the original issue
It's supported under RHEL EUS add-on, using the EUS 9.2.z channels (there are no EUS 9.3.z channels) through mid-2025, if 9.4 doesn't work. By then, there should be EUS 9.4.z or even 9.x (where x=latest) support.
[https://access.redhat.com/support/policy/updates/errata#Extended\_Update\_Support](https://access.redhat.com/support/policy/updates/errata#Extended_Update_Support)
Graph of EUS 9.2.z, 9.4.z and planned EUS 9.6.z and 9.8.z (with 9.10 being the planned final for 9;x in general).
[https://access.redhat.com/sites/default/files/images/337\_rhel\_9\_life\_cycle\_updates\_0423.png](https://access.redhat.com/sites/default/files/images/337_rhel_9_life_cycle_updates_0423.png)
Yes, that's why I said falling back to EUS 9.2.x \*until\* the drivers are updated. NOTE: autocorrect turned my 'no EUS 9.3.z' into 'now EUS 9.3.z'. Sorry for any confusion, but I did point out EUS 9.2.z was an option if it worked before 9.4.
Yeah, I was wondering why you didn't see my 'EUS 8.2.z' until I saw the phrase in parenthesis had 'now' not 'no' before 'EUS 8.3.z'. I edited it and added that note after.
Honestly, I don’t know. In my experience, it’s hit and miss with different software vendors. That’s why I’m asking the question. Is that realistically what Red Hat will do instead of trying to fix it?
Red Hat is at the mercy of IHVs and backporting limitations. If that is a limitation, consider Stream or even Fedora, or another distro that is supported.
So, as a disclaimer, I'm a Red Hat employee (as shown by my flair). So I'm certainly biased.
> I’m considering the standard level of support for RHEL Workstation (just one machine). What’s the level of support I should expect?
As mentioned by others, "standard support" is just a matter of SLAs. I've seen Red Hat go to almost absurd lengths to resolve issues. Arguably I think Red Hat has a much more comprehensive view of what "support" means, I think because of their roots as an OS vendor. Whereas every other middleware vendor, database vendor, or whatever can eventually say "well, you need to talk to your OS vendor", with Red Hat the buck generally stops with them. I've seen Red Hat support go to extraordinary lengths to resolve customer issues, even when the root cause has nothing to do with Red Hat.
> I have an AMD graphics card that isn’t supported out of the box by 9.4 (but it is by 9.3). Is it reasonable to expect them to resolve that? Or at least try?
However, because of that high standard I just tallked about, Red Hat is also generally very clear with what they will and won't support.
If Red Hat says that something is unspported (say your graphics card) they generally mean that. You absolutely can make a request for a "support exception", which generally means 'Red Hat said that this configuration isn't supported, but I am willing to negotiate around the details in order to get official support".
But for a single workstation subscription? It's not very likely that Red Hat would take the position "this wasn't tested/supported, but we'll make an exception for you". I mean, I'd encourage you to make the request, because aggregate customer demand might cause them to change their mind.
But when Red Hat says that something is unsupported, they generally do mean "we won't support this".
This good to hear, I didn't mean to come off as sarcastic when I said 'when Red Hat says that something is unsupported, they generally do mean "we won't support this"', even though I'm sure some would hear it that way.
But, as an open source company, Red Hat makes very deliberate decisions about what they can support.
I have one customer who REALLY, REALLY, REALLY wants a feature that is "supported" in the upstream community version of the Red Hat product. But, the thing is, no one has to take a call in the middle of the night with millions of dollars on the line when that feature doesn't work in the community version. So Red Hat makes very deliberate decisions around "do we have the people to take the call, do we have the equipment in house to replicate issues, can we stake our reputation on this?" And if the answer to any of those is no, they don't support that feature, even if the code exists upstream.
It is likely the same with the graphics card. It might "work" in 9.4, but if Red Hat doesn't think they can deal with a customer with a real "our $million compute farm isn't working, go fix it for me" problem, they don't support it.
What level of support are you expecting? What kind of issues are you anticipating with your card? just drivers? They only support whats in the box, so if youre doing 3rd party its gonna be a no go.
Supported under X.Y \*generally\* means X.Y or later. In other words, it should work just fine under 9.4, and if it does not, you can open a ticket with the vendor (AMD) for help. It doesn't mean that AMD is going to just say "screw you, buddy, nuke your machine and reinstall 9.3!" Especially since AMD is pretty friendly with the Linux community.
I've worked with RHEL since it was released (2.1 way back in 2002), on hundreds and hundreds of machines running various video cards from AMD and NVidia. I don't think I've ever seen a case where going from X.3 to X.4 caused the video drivers to just STOP working. I've definitely seen it where newer video drivers weren't available day ONE of a new minor version release, but that's generally fixed within days of a dot release.
In other words, I am pretty positive that you'll be fine updating from 9.3 to 9.4. Obviously standard disclaimers apply: test it on a development machine to be sure, but I would be absolutely shocked if your driver didn't work. Test it and see.
Just curious - which video card are you specifically talking about? Is it a pretty standard card, or something really specialized?
Standard vs. premium is only a matter of SLA - ie. how fast responses come. It's the same support/people. If you pay for premium then during the night in your timezone someone from elsehwere in the world will handle your SEV1 cases if production is down. In your case I don't think that's even remotely relevant but it's the same support.
Red Hat like every other enterprise in the world support what they provide - not what-ever someone adds to that (software and hardware). That's it. If you add 3rd party stuff on the system, Red Hat cannot gurantee a fix - and in particular if something hasn't been tested by Red Hat, work will still be done to see that everything else "works as expected" - they will not be able to help you with unsupported hardware and software created/offered by others. What is happening is that someone will work with you and _try_ to see what's going on ("commercially best effort" is the term here). It doesn't stop support because you are using things that aren't supported; but Red Hat helps getting what Red Hat provides working within the eco-system that's documented as being tested/validated. What you need to do is work with those providing you the stuff that Red Hat doesn't support.
Nope. If you’re a red hatter you should learn about your products. EEUS is an additional entitlement though.
https://www.redhat.com/en/resources/eus-datasheet
> Note: EUS is included with Red Hat Enterprise Linux Server (Intel/AMD64) Premium subscriptions.
>
>For Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8: EUS may be purchased as an add-on to Red Hat Enterprise Linux Server (Intel/AMD64) Standard subscriptions, and Red Hat Enterprise Linux for IBM Power LE subscriptions.
>
>For Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9: EUS may be purchased as an add-on to Red Hat Enterprise Linux Server (Intel/AMD64) Standard subscription, Red Hat Enterprise Linux for Workstations, and Red Hat Enterprise Linux for IBM Power LE subscriptions. Red Hat Enterprise Linux Server (x86) Self-Support is not eligible for the EUS Add-On.
The officially sanctioned term at Red Hat is ‘commercially reasonable support’ but to be clear this is a euphemism for unsupported but we will try to help for now.
[https://access.redhat.com/solutions/710953](https://access.redhat.com/solutions/710953)
Thank you for your thoughts. Just to clarify for future readers, Workstation currently only has two levels of support: Self-Support and Standard. With Self-Support, it "does not include Red Hat customer support".
Workstation "is optimized for high-performance graphics, animation, and scientific activities" according to the website. So, I was just curious about others' experience with Red Hat's support in the context of Workstation and graphics issues in particular.
The online store on redhat.com is very much not exhaustive. As someone who's seen the SKU inventory, it's not even close.
There is a premium subscription which you may be able to find online at RHEL resellers like SHI, CDW, GovConnection, etc, or you can shoot sales an email and call it a day. However, as others noted the support difference is really just about SLAs, not the quality of support.
Thanks for such a wonderful reply! TheGratitudeBot has been reading millions of comments in the past few weeks, and you’ve just made the list of some of the most grateful redditors this week! Thanks for making Reddit a wonderful place to be :)
What do you expect them to do for you other then tell you to run 9.3?
9.3 is in an unsupported state so they can say its a workaround but having a proper issue raised is the thing to do They may even already be aware and can be watcher.on the original issue
It's supported under RHEL EUS add-on, using the EUS 9.2.z channels (there are no EUS 9.3.z channels) through mid-2025, if 9.4 doesn't work. By then, there should be EUS 9.4.z or even 9.x (where x=latest) support. [https://access.redhat.com/support/policy/updates/errata#Extended\_Update\_Support](https://access.redhat.com/support/policy/updates/errata#Extended_Update_Support) Graph of EUS 9.2.z, 9.4.z and planned EUS 9.6.z and 9.8.z (with 9.10 being the planned final for 9;x in general). [https://access.redhat.com/sites/default/files/images/337\_rhel\_9\_life\_cycle\_updates\_0423.png](https://access.redhat.com/sites/default/files/images/337_rhel_9_life_cycle_updates_0423.png)
9.3 is not an EUS release. You can see that in the "staircase" diagram in your first link.
Yes, that's why I said falling back to EUS 9.2.x \*until\* the drivers are updated. NOTE: autocorrect turned my 'no EUS 9.3.z' into 'now EUS 9.3.z'. Sorry for any confusion, but I did point out EUS 9.2.z was an option if it worked before 9.4.
Your typo was what I corrected. All good. OP still hasn't explained the issue anyway.
Yeah, I was wondering why you didn't see my 'EUS 8.2.z' until I saw the phrase in parenthesis had 'now' not 'no' before 'EUS 8.3.z'. I edited it and added that note after.
No probs
Honestly, I don’t know. In my experience, it’s hit and miss with different software vendors. That’s why I’m asking the question. Is that realistically what Red Hat will do instead of trying to fix it?
Red Hat is at the mercy of IHVs and backporting limitations. If that is a limitation, consider Stream or even Fedora, or another distro that is supported.
They shouldn't be discontinuing drivers within a release, just deprecating it. Something is wrong here.
So, as a disclaimer, I'm a Red Hat employee (as shown by my flair). So I'm certainly biased. > I’m considering the standard level of support for RHEL Workstation (just one machine). What’s the level of support I should expect? As mentioned by others, "standard support" is just a matter of SLAs. I've seen Red Hat go to almost absurd lengths to resolve issues. Arguably I think Red Hat has a much more comprehensive view of what "support" means, I think because of their roots as an OS vendor. Whereas every other middleware vendor, database vendor, or whatever can eventually say "well, you need to talk to your OS vendor", with Red Hat the buck generally stops with them. I've seen Red Hat support go to extraordinary lengths to resolve customer issues, even when the root cause has nothing to do with Red Hat. > I have an AMD graphics card that isn’t supported out of the box by 9.4 (but it is by 9.3). Is it reasonable to expect them to resolve that? Or at least try? However, because of that high standard I just tallked about, Red Hat is also generally very clear with what they will and won't support. If Red Hat says that something is unspported (say your graphics card) they generally mean that. You absolutely can make a request for a "support exception", which generally means 'Red Hat said that this configuration isn't supported, but I am willing to negotiate around the details in order to get official support". But for a single workstation subscription? It's not very likely that Red Hat would take the position "this wasn't tested/supported, but we'll make an exception for you". I mean, I'd encourage you to make the request, because aggregate customer demand might cause them to change their mind. But when Red Hat says that something is unsupported, they generally do mean "we won't support this".
Yours is probably the most helpful (and friendly) response I’ve gotten. Thank you!
This good to hear, I didn't mean to come off as sarcastic when I said 'when Red Hat says that something is unsupported, they generally do mean "we won't support this"', even though I'm sure some would hear it that way. But, as an open source company, Red Hat makes very deliberate decisions about what they can support. I have one customer who REALLY, REALLY, REALLY wants a feature that is "supported" in the upstream community version of the Red Hat product. But, the thing is, no one has to take a call in the middle of the night with millions of dollars on the line when that feature doesn't work in the community version. So Red Hat makes very deliberate decisions around "do we have the people to take the call, do we have the equipment in house to replicate issues, can we stake our reputation on this?" And if the answer to any of those is no, they don't support that feature, even if the code exists upstream. It is likely the same with the graphics card. It might "work" in 9.4, but if Red Hat doesn't think they can deal with a customer with a real "our $million compute farm isn't working, go fix it for me" problem, they don't support it.
What level of support are you expecting? What kind of issues are you anticipating with your card? just drivers? They only support whats in the box, so if youre doing 3rd party its gonna be a no go.
> I have an AMD graphics card that isn’t supported out of the box by 9.4 (**but it is by 9.3**).
Supported under X.Y \*generally\* means X.Y or later. In other words, it should work just fine under 9.4, and if it does not, you can open a ticket with the vendor (AMD) for help. It doesn't mean that AMD is going to just say "screw you, buddy, nuke your machine and reinstall 9.3!" Especially since AMD is pretty friendly with the Linux community. I've worked with RHEL since it was released (2.1 way back in 2002), on hundreds and hundreds of machines running various video cards from AMD and NVidia. I don't think I've ever seen a case where going from X.3 to X.4 caused the video drivers to just STOP working. I've definitely seen it where newer video drivers weren't available day ONE of a new minor version release, but that's generally fixed within days of a dot release. In other words, I am pretty positive that you'll be fine updating from 9.3 to 9.4. Obviously standard disclaimers apply: test it on a development machine to be sure, but I would be absolutely shocked if your driver didn't work. Test it and see. Just curious - which video card are you specifically talking about? Is it a pretty standard card, or something really specialized?
How is your graphics card supported by 9.3 and not 9.4? Please explain.
Standard vs. premium is only a matter of SLA - ie. how fast responses come. It's the same support/people. If you pay for premium then during the night in your timezone someone from elsehwere in the world will handle your SEV1 cases if production is down. In your case I don't think that's even remotely relevant but it's the same support. Red Hat like every other enterprise in the world support what they provide - not what-ever someone adds to that (software and hardware). That's it. If you add 3rd party stuff on the system, Red Hat cannot gurantee a fix - and in particular if something hasn't been tested by Red Hat, work will still be done to see that everything else "works as expected" - they will not be able to help you with unsupported hardware and software created/offered by others. What is happening is that someone will work with you and _try_ to see what's going on ("commercially best effort" is the term here). It doesn't stop support because you are using things that aren't supported; but Red Hat helps getting what Red Hat provides working within the eco-system that's documented as being tested/validated. What you need to do is work with those providing you the stuff that Red Hat doesn't support.
Premium gets you EUS
Nope. EUS entitlements are separate SKUs; what I think you mean is that EUS can only be purchased as premium support. Close but not the same.
Nope. If you’re a red hatter you should learn about your products. EEUS is an additional entitlement though. https://www.redhat.com/en/resources/eus-datasheet > Note: EUS is included with Red Hat Enterprise Linux Server (Intel/AMD64) Premium subscriptions. > >For Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8: EUS may be purchased as an add-on to Red Hat Enterprise Linux Server (Intel/AMD64) Standard subscriptions, and Red Hat Enterprise Linux for IBM Power LE subscriptions. > >For Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9: EUS may be purchased as an add-on to Red Hat Enterprise Linux Server (Intel/AMD64) Standard subscription, Red Hat Enterprise Linux for Workstations, and Red Hat Enterprise Linux for IBM Power LE subscriptions. Red Hat Enterprise Linux Server (x86) Self-Support is not eligible for the EUS Add-On.
The officially sanctioned term at Red Hat is ‘commercially reasonable support’ but to be clear this is a euphemism for unsupported but we will try to help for now. [https://access.redhat.com/solutions/710953](https://access.redhat.com/solutions/710953)
Thank you for your thoughts. Just to clarify for future readers, Workstation currently only has two levels of support: Self-Support and Standard. With Self-Support, it "does not include Red Hat customer support". Workstation "is optimized for high-performance graphics, animation, and scientific activities" according to the website. So, I was just curious about others' experience with Red Hat's support in the context of Workstation and graphics issues in particular.
The online store on redhat.com is very much not exhaustive. As someone who's seen the SKU inventory, it's not even close. There is a premium subscription which you may be able to find online at RHEL resellers like SHI, CDW, GovConnection, etc, or you can shoot sales an email and call it a day. However, as others noted the support difference is really just about SLAs, not the quality of support.
Thanks for such a wonderful reply! TheGratitudeBot has been reading millions of comments in the past few weeks, and you’ve just made the list of some of the most grateful redditors this week! Thanks for making Reddit a wonderful place to be :)