Vagrant is a tool designed to create and configure lightweight, reproducible, and portable development environments. It leverages a declarative configuration file which describes all software requirements, packages, operating system configuration, and users.
N/A
Unidesk (Discontinued)
Score 5.7 out of 10
N/A
Unidesk was a virtual desktop technology from the Massachusetts company of the same name, and acquired by Citrix. It has reached End of Life (EOL).
I would recommend this tool to a colleague looking to create a repeatably deployable local dev environment based on their staging and production environments. I would recommend this mostly for individuals or teams requiring environments with server-side software such as php, et al. There are likely less processor-heavy and smaller tools for simpler projects.
Right now, I would advise it to anybody who has 1,500 or fewer users they wish to provide desktops for. I would advise to go with persistent desktops or use a UEM solution like AppSense or RES Workspace Manager when trying the non-persistent desktops. I would suggest that using an AppVirt product like App-V with Unidesk still makes a lot of sense as you can use Shared Content Store Mode and sequence once for many. AppVirt solutions still have value with isolation. I would suggest looking at Turbo browsers for their redirect feature to an sandboxed browser running legacy IE or a browser with Java or Flash (to eliminate security threats related to these running locally on the system). Also, I would suggest looking at Atlantis for deduplicating those desktops and allow them to perform quicker with less storage required. Unidesk by itself is awesome. It really simplifies things. Throw it together with other products and each compliments the other well. Also, Unidesk makes some of those other products more valuable as you're not completely reliant on them like you would be without Unidesk.
Vagrant is decentralized so anyone can make a container package to get a project started. you aren't limited to wordpress, or even one style of wordpress install (you can make a sage.io wordpress environment).
Vagrant easily lets you set ports and URLs for local development.
I have yet to have a problem with Vagrant, as opposed to MAMP and DesktopServer, which both gave me SQL or other issues.
Because Vagrant is a low-level tool with many ways to configure it, there is a steep learning curve. You don't just have to learn (or install) Vagrant, but also Virtualbox, Ansible and possibly some Vagrant plugins to keep boxes up to date.
Support on Windows doesn't seem great. I'm a Mac guy, so it's been very difficult getting things to work as expected when a developer wants to work on Windows.
Perhaps I didn't configure it correctly, but the default shared folders are not the best for performance. There are also frequently weird issues regarding file permissions.
Disaster recovery options for the Unidesk solution are not easily accessible or require personalized attention from support.
Issues when creating software layers do not always have a obvious fix. Make sure to look for and follow Unidesk's published "recipes."
The software/OS layering introduced by Unidesk is not "sanctioned" behavior by Microsoft, and thus you're at the mercy of Unidesk's ability to keep up with widespread changes to operating systems.
I liked lando better because lando seemed extremely easy to setup compared to other VM's and it seemed faster though that project was simpler. Virtualbox I ran on windows and it has a gui and has often been slow. The vagrant boxes I used did well but had slightly more problems than lando.
AppVolumes seems to be a lot less mature as a product. It does have some benefits over Unidesk e.g. the fact it doesn't include the OS Layer (image management) side means I can just use it for the app layering piece if I like. I can also deploy my application layers to physical desktops BUT I have had less success compatibility wise with my applications as AppVolumes 'AppStacks'. I believe Unidesk has a better handle on the do's and don'ts, or at least may be a little more honest about them. I also don't enjoy the Console with AppVolumes and while I can use it without the image management or tied into the stack the way Unidesk is...you also lose that image management and need to couple it with another product in some scenarios. FlexApp to me is stronger than AppVolumes. FlexApp is coupled with a profile management solution called ProfileUnity which makes it a more attractive alternative (at least at the time of me posting this). However, I prefer other UEM products at this moment in time. I also value the image management and ease of a single console for all of Virt Desktop management that Unidesk provides.
Storage density with Unidesk (via the use of OS/application layering) is 60-70% improved over standard persistent one-to-one virtual desktops.
Unidesk virtual machines can be deployed in under 10 minutes by a lower tier of technician without the need to "touch" the vCenter hypervisor.
Reliable performance across Unidesk virtual workstations. Added desktops/layers does not adversely effect performance nearly as bad as older persistent desktops.
