CoreOS rkt / Container Linux (project ended) vs. Red Hat OpenShift on IBM Cloud

CoreOS rkt is well suited for any development environment where operating systems and hardware are not homogeneous. CoreOS rkt allows us to write code on one machine with the confidence that it will work on any other. This has been immensely helpful as our developers are often switching to the latest and greatest machines and operating systems. CoreOS rkt is less suited for environments that are not Software as a Service. There is often no need to bring the entire developer environment and associated dependencies when delivering a one time product. In these environments CoreOS rkt just adds unneeded overhead.

Incentivized

RedHat OpenShift is not only suited for IBM Cloud but can run in ANY cloud. We installed in Azure Cloud, for example. It can also run on Linux servers or a Power 9 machine. It is built for multi-cloud or on-prem environments. IBM support provides such excellent guidance in the installation and configuration that no other product on the market can beat it.

Incentivized

• Running a secure container without messing up with low-level details
• Very clear and straightforward approach to building a container
• A way to go for new projects thinking of containers
• Comprehensive and well-written documentation compatible with UNIX keep it simple way of thinking

Incentivized

• Multiclick provisioning of resources makes it super easy to manage pods and deployments. We don't have to maintain code for the same
• In built security features and customizability ensures that organization wide standards are integrated well into the containers
• Automated backups, scale ups and fail recovery makes sure of minimal down time

Incentivized

• Market share, it's often very difficult to find new talent who use CoreOS rkt.
• Lack of wow features, CoreOS rkt doesn't necessarily offer any immediate advantages over other container solutions.

Incentivized

• I wish it had better compatibility with docker file syntax. We had issues when it couldn't build standard docker files
• Wish it had better documentation
• Wish they offered fully supported client libraries for the Openshift API rather than dumping it on a 3rd party

Incentivized

I think response time for IBM Cloud support should be improved.

Incentivized

Docker, lxc, Ubuntu Snappy, partisan chroot+unshare Reformulating the problem and realizing a container is not necessary when a testing environment with clearly defined behavior.

Incentivized

We evaluated a number of potential solutions and ultimately chose Red Hat OpenShift because it was compatible with our existing technology. Time and costs savings have been realized throughout the company since we implemented Red Hat OpenShift, and the IT department has been freed up to focus on activities that are more valuable.

Incentivized

• Developers spend less time configuring and more time coding.
• Less time training developers as CoreOS rkt lets them use whatever hardware and operating system they want.
• Reduced our IT costs, solutions are containerized using CoreOS rkt meaning they can write one solution with many developers in mind.

Incentivized

• Our customer satisfaction and NPS score has had positive outcomes based on new architecture
• We are focused on business outcomes vs running the service and maintenance
• OpenShift on IBM Cloud has had a direct, positive impact on TCO, ROI, and payback period
• Our staff is more focused on higher-level business activities, i.e. acquiring & customer retention

Incentivized