Azure DevOps Server (formerly Team Foundation Server, or TFS) is the on-premise version of Azure DevOps. To license Azure DevOps Server an Azure DevOps license and a Windows operating system license (e.g. Windows Server) for each machine running Azure DevOps Server.
N/A
IBM Terraform
Score 8.8 out of 10
N/A
IBM Terraform (formerly Hashicorp Terraform) is a cloud infrastructure automation tool used to create, change, and improve production infrastructure, and it allows infrastructure to be expressed as code. It is available Open Source, and via Cloud and Self-Hosted editions.
Jira has been growing in hardware design teams since is being integrated with CAD software. The best of Azure is that you can manage since level of access control to multiple types of teams. Another bonus is that Jira has more mobile features that let your team stay connected …
Because of the microsoft ecosystem and the product is also build on ms services cloud which uses azure internal services so it is easy to integrate. more reliant support available for the microsoft services because of the well established user community of the product and …
Azure DevOps is a fully integrated solution that solves all of the problems that our separate tools did in a much easier-to-use way. Before we implemented DevOps we had three different solutions that we had to integrate with each other and required a lot of manual intervention …
Managing projects is a breeze using Azure DevOps Server, and the tool also automates testing and checks to see if the project is within its scope. Intuitive, with a low learning curve for novice users; it's also simple to collaborate on projects and keep tabs on their progress …
Honestly speaking, GitHub is better in terms of version control and JIRA has better functionality when it comes to Agile boards, other than that, the UI could have been a bit better for Azure DevOps Server. In all other areas, I feel overall Azure DevOps Server is better.
In my opinion, DevOps covers the development process end to end way better than JIRA or GitHub. Both competitors are nice in their specific fields but DevOps provides a more comprehensive package in my opinion. It is still crazy to see that the whole suite can be used for free. …
I was new to the agile methodology when it was first introduced to the Enterprise. Different project teams opted to leverage different project management tools, two of the most common being Jira and DevOps. For someone overcoming a huge learning curve already, I felt that …
My organization already has an established Microsoft relationship which allowed us to move faster in procuring the product. The alternative would require my large organization to move at a snail's pace at procurement. This is not necessarily a hindrance for most other …
Overall Atlassian products seem to be less stable. Azure DevOps [Server (formerly Team Foundation Server)] also has Test Center and Build functionality built in. This prevents needing a handful of separate products loosely coupled together to get a comprehensive solution to …
I was not involved in the purchase decision for this product. Since I have started working at my company, we have always used [Azure DevOps Server]. So I can't comment on how it performs vs its competitors. I have used many project management tools that are not as robust, but I …
I've used and currently use JIRA, which is a similar software to Azure DevOps Server. Azure DevOps Server is more detailed and comprehensive than JIRA. They both offer many of the same features and capabilities but Azure has a better overall interface and is more in-depth. It …
Azure DevOps Server is a fantastic tool and my favorite for organization and management of large application building projects. It was selected for its ease of use with a user-friendly design that allows any team members, particularly outside of developers, to quickly get up to …
At the time we brought Azure DevOps in-house it really was the only game in town. Our company migrated from Visual SourceSafe to TFS to Azure DevOps without any issues or downtime. Git isn't overly intuitive so I never recommend it and shy away from it. I loved it when …
Microsoft Azure DevOps is the one that integrates everything you can possibly use and provides a solution that eases your developing process. It has a strong support community and well-written documentation. No matter what you do, you will always find the right pipeline. It is …
Azure DevOps server has quite an upper hand while we compare it with other tools in the market. Its not just a tool in fact its been a complete suit. If we look out at other products available as alternative options to Azure DevOps Server, they are meant for a specific purpose …
TFS gives and edge over JIRA for inbuilt version controlling that TFS has. TFS provides a GIT version control repository that offers centralized TFVC and distributed GIT Version control. Version controlling is a key feature that promoted TFS over JIRA in the implementation of a …
The advantage of Team Foundation Server is the integration capability with Microsoft technologies and products, such as Visual Studio. Although this is an important consideration, Team Foundation Server is not a straightforward tool and needs to be improved to work seamlessly …
Git and GitHub are very popular right now and they are OK. But they do not integrate automated Testing and Building... The Work Item Management of Jira is about as complicated as the one of TFS so we use Trello. The other Source Control Systems are more complex to use because …
AWS CDK is like a cloud-specific alternative to Terraform. As its name suggests, it's from AWS & only works with AWS, a job it does excellently. If your cloud provider is not AWS, then you really only have Terraform to choose. If you are on AWS, it boils down to which one you …
IBM Terraform is better as the providers just work. Ansible is still finicky with their community modules for cloud, especially for Azure. We do not need to build execution environment containers like Ansible. Using statefil for drift analysis is also helpful to review changes …
Dbt was fine, but you end up with an extremely bloated repo/project. Often where all of the models are the same, named similarly, and generally just doesn't adhere to the concept of DRY coding. In Terraform we're able to template a lot of this work and dynamically generate …
HashiCorp Terraform is much better than Cloud Formation. For one, the language is just easier to use, but more importantly, the provider ecosystem is much better in HashiCorp Terraform than in Cloud Formation.
I'm beginning to look at Pulumi. In my opinion, it looks like it would be a good replacement for HashiCorp Terraform, and it has the advantage of configuration via scripting, rather than via HCL, which is HashiCorp Terraform configuration markup language. In my opinion, the …
We have used Vagrant to develop our application in a virtual box environment and prepare it to be packed with Packer. The image created from these two tools will be deployed by Terraform.
We are using Consul for service discovery and as a job locking so we don't have two jobs or …
CloudFormation is only for AWS so if you're trying to deploy to another cloud provider then Terraform is your product. Terraform has lots of public support so you can find answers to questions by Googling. CloudFormation is easy to view the resources/services that are …
Terraform is a large step ahead of the previous generation of infrastructure-as-code providers. I'd never go back to, e.g. Puppet or Chef, Ansible, etc. That said I think that Pulumi has a good chance of displaying it, in no small part because the Terraform language itself …
AWS CloudFormation is better if you just want to stick with AWS because it's integration with AWS is better, provides auto-rollback in case of failures, and has GUI to manage and view the stacks built. Terraform is better when we want to stay cloud-agnostic. Terraform is better …
I can't find these applications listed, but other IaC tools I have used include: AWS CloudFormation, Azure Resource Manager Templates, and GCP Cloud Deployment Templates. For a comparable tool, I have the most experience with CloudFormation.
Chef and Terraform are not apples to apples because Chef is more focused on config management, whereas Terraform is more focused on provisioning. However, I can say that where they do overlap in configuration management is that Terraform is the preferred tool because it has an …
Terraform is the solid leader in the space. It allows you to do more then just provisioning within a pre-existing servers. It is more extensible and has more providers available than it competitors. It is also open source and more adopted by the community then some of the other …
Terraform is open source and has strong community support. It is cloud-agnostic versus competing products like AWS cloud formation, hence has a distinct advantage. The scripts once set up are easy for developers to administer during development, hence during production …
- Terraform syntax is much easier to read and learn than Cloud Formation.
- Terraform already supports AWS as well as several other cloud providers.
- Terraform is backed by a great and supportive open-source community.
Terraform shares the methodology of creating configuration files for your infrastructure with tools like CloudFormation. However, Terraform is cloud-agnostic unlike CloudFormation which is AWS specific. Terraform can be used to maintain AWS and OpenStack clusters …
CloudFormation is the lingua franca of AWS. You certainly can't go wrong using it, but I like the syntax and open-source nature of Terraform. That's mostly a personal preference. I have not tried any other non-Amazon tools for provisioning AWS. And, of course, the AWS tools …
In our case it was best suited when we started working remotely, we were able to track everything in out projects easily, able to share our codes, give reviews for the codes and also create integration and deployment CI/CD plans for the release and testing. It helped our team members with the productivity, early prototyping and release. Create summarised reports of different aspect of our projects. Even in other scenarios it is one of the best tools to use for collaboration and project management. I haven't found any specific scenario where it is not appropriate
8 because it's currently best-in-class and is completely essential to use in contrast to not expressing your infrastructure as code. That said, new contenders are nipping at its heels, and I expect stronger tools to emerge in the coming years. Hopefully the Terraform team is able to keep pace.
The errors generated by the plan and preview commands are pretty cryptic, it can be hard for newcomers to the scripting language to understand how to address problems.
Access controls around workspaces is limited which makes it harder to secure reduce the scope of teams ability.
Analytics around user usage, applies and plans would be helpful for managemenet.
Because we are a Microsoft Gold Partner we utilize most of their software and we have so much invested in Team Foundation Server now it would take a catastrophic amount of time and resources to switch to a different product.
For standard users the interface is friendly. but if you are a manager some tools are a little confusing to use, like the query system that you always need to create from scratch. Templates should be more helpful for queries and for standard procedures that you need to duplicate PBIs over time. The search history of Work Items is a little painful to use.
The syntax itself is pretty straightforward. The documentation is well-maintained & easy to follow. Most cloud providers, even smaller ones, maintain official provider libraries, making discovery & learning a breeze. Some, like GCP, even provide high-level libraries on top of their own more primitive provider, making building complex infra much more manageable. The language itself is cloud-agnostic, so you can literally manage resources from multiple providers in a single Terraform repo.
Terraform's performance is quite amazing when it comes to deployment of resources in AWS. Of course, the deployment times depend on various parameters like the number of resources to deploy and different regions to deploy. Terraform cannot control that. The only minor drawback probably shows up when a terraform job is terminated mid way. Then in many cases, time-consuming manual cleanup is required.
I have not had to use the support for Azure DevOps Server. There have never been any issues where I was not able to figure it out or quickly resolve. Our Scrum Master has used support before though, and the service has always been prompt and clear with a customer-focus
Terraform is community driven but does offer support for it's Enterprise product. When contacting the team at HashiCorp we have always gotten resolution to our issues. They have been very responsive in returning our calls and answering our questions as they come up. We are currently using the open source model.
Azure DevOps is a fully integrated solution that solves all of the problems that our separate tools did in a much easier-to-use way. Before we implemented DevOps we had three different solutions that we had to integrate with each other and required a lot of manual intervention to make sure they worked correctly.
dbt was fine, but you end up with an extremely bloated repo/project. Often where all of the models are the same, named similarly, and generally just doesn't adhere to the concept of DRY coding. In Terraform we're able to template a lot of this work and dynamically generate assets based on variables instead.
It has streamlined the pipeline and project management for our agile effort.
It has helped our agile team get organized since that is a new methodology being leveraged within the Enterprise.
The calendar has improved visibility into different OOOs across the project team since we all come from different departments across the larger organization.
Using code, we are able to build and deploy cloud resources faster and more consistently than producing the same resources in the console manually.
For applications that share architectures, we can reuse code to expedite development. We can also do the same with modules that are shared across the organization.
By defining all of our resources as code, we can deploy complete environments with "batteries included." For example, we can use code that spins up servers in a cloud provider and at the same time, creates monitors with in our monitoring provider. Likewise, when the servers are decommissioned, the monitors are decommed along with them. In the past, the creation and decom of the monitors would have been a disjointed, manual step. With Terraform we get it all with one "terraform apply."