GitLab DevSecOps platform enables software innovation by aiming to empower development, security, and operations teams to build better software, faster. With GitLab, teams can create, deliver, and manage code quickly and continuously instead of managing disparate tools and scripts. GitLab helps teams across the complete DevSecOps lifecycle, from developing, securing, and deploying software. Differentiators, as described by Gitlab:
Simplicity: With GitLab, DevSecOps can…
$0
per month per user
Kubernetes
Score 9.3 out of 10
N/A
Kubernetes is an open-source container cluster manager.
As mentioned earlier, the features like chart visualization sets it apart from the others. Other than that, GitLab is open source while other are not and comparatively more secure that its other counterparts. Also, GitLab supports adding other types of attachments which is not …
When i was using the other platform, Some time i face down time, But GitLabs its not happening for single time. GitLab is having easy user interference as compared to other platforms. Pull Request, Code review, Issue tracking, Merging, Access control and User Roles is having a …
GitLab is miles ahead of the competition. In so many words, having a simple UI with robust security and the ability to conduct Git actions takes the cake. The competitions like to say they can do these things easily but their products are more confusing and hard to use.
GitLab allows a self-hosted version that is easy to setup and configure. It is also open-source as compared to GitHub. The integrated CI/CD tools is a plus, since we do not have to worry about those tools, unlike Github. The All-in-one solution of GitLab made sense for our …
Gitlab offers the best support for CI/CD pipelines and the highest degree of customisation for workflows, permissions, and integrations. The integration of BitBucket with JIRA is better than GitLab but CI/CD features are limited in comparison. GitLab's built-in Container …
Gitlab provides basic functionality like any other git tool. Some features of push and pull requests , clone and merge is handled equally well. It lacks in AI features which are there in GitHub and setup processes are difficult. Cost difference is the only concern while …
GitHub is an inferior product from most points of view. We had to use it and the teams finds no positives about it. Everything is a downgrade from our previous GitLab solution.
GitLab CI\CD is vastly superior to workflows, for example doing a manual node is just "when : manual" …
It's much simpler than the competitors. The one important feature Gitlab stand out is the CI/CD pipeline. GitHub required integration with external CI tools but Gitlab has this feature built-in. Compare to Jenkins and Teamcity, It's easy to use without any additional Plugins. …
Gitlab seems more cutting-edge than GitHub; however, its AI tools are not yet as mature as those of CoPilot. It feels like the next-generation product, so as we selected a tool for our startup, we decided to invest in the disruptor in the space. While there are fewer …
i have more exoerence in GitLab rather than bitbucket . As personally , it is good for me to understand how things is going on. i have used personally and also in organisation . It is great for developer to see there 3 months ago code and also can come up with new solution to …
Because with Visual Studio code, it was very easy for us to install GitLab in it and have easy access through the terminal and due to GitLab, it was easy to implement codes regarding API and AWS services to make our software better. Gitlens and all features help to check the …
GitLab provides a far superior platform due to it's great integration and CI/CD focus. And while in the beginning the UI might look a bit overwhelming with use you will find it way more useful than it's competitors. The variables and settings also make way more sense and it's …
My feedback may not be important here because when I joined the company they already had GitLab and we still use it due to the ability to do CI/CD Integration, deployments, debugging, code owners approval, and Jira integration. So far we have not had any major blocker that has …
Github is more open-source first and enterprise-first second in their approach. The reverse is true for GitLab. Both are exceptional products and it highly depends on the specific needs of an org
GitLab has a open-source community and great documentation that provides support resources and community contributions. AWS CodeCommit is used for integration with other AWS services in the AWS ecosystem and also have a low community and support compared to GitLab hence …
It was a management decision to use GitLab over other tools. It integrates well with RBAC using Terraform. Runners are easy to setup. Almost all the features the organization used before are available in GitLab.
For small projects or companies that do work on a few only code repositories selecting one of the git code hosting services like GitLab, GitHub, Bitbicket etc does not make a big difference.
But, if you are on a code development company that handles too many repositories and …
Software delivery is the key objective and GitLab made it much easier to hit the group quickly. It worked well with automation, and integrations with other SDLC tools used in the Organization and it is really easy to use. It's widely adopted and has the power to deliver what we …
GitLab's online IDE and code modification is much better compared to Stash. While pricier than Bitbucket, Gitlab also provides CI CD configuration better than BB.
It stacks well against OpenShift. The only downside for OpenShift is the multiple operators and the custom logic implemented in the product, plus the upgrades, which tend to be a bit longer due to the more complex implementation. Overall, these are similar products but with a …
Nomad is a simpler, more down-to-earth alternative to Kubernetes. In some sense, it is more similar to Amazon's ECS, but with more bells and whistles. For use cases not requiring the whole complexity of Kubernetes platform, Nomad can provide a much simpler and at the same time …
We evaluated Docker Swarm as usage of docker is very distributed in our company. But docker swarm has not as many features as kubernetes and we have large, complex architectures which require good scalability and robustness - this is a huge strength of kubernetes compared to …
Well, me and me team select Kubernetes for the natural solution and the easily assignation of resources to deploy a solution than could have multiple clients in the same infrastructure, so, for each one client we are running a set of different pods, and that's why we select …
Kubernetes cluster is cable to manage multiple nodes on on-premises or cloud infrastructure. In Kubernetes, we can easily add new nodes when ever required. We can easily update and rollback our application hosted on Kubernetes with the help of rolling and blue green deployment. …
Most of the required features for any orchestration tool or framework, which is provided by Kubernetes. After understanding all modules and features of the K8S, it is the best fit for us as compared with others out there.
I didn't have too much experience or exposure to OpenShift but I do remember that in certain areas our organization found Kubernetes to be more useful and met our needs in comparison to OpenShift. Although I can't compare, I think it's easier to customize Kubernetes because of …
Kubernetes is very unique. I do not think there are any competitors to take over its leading place. And you can always use Kuberntes with other tools to make the whole system better. Kubernetes is backed up by Google and has been tested over the years. It is reliable, fast, and …
When planning our latest product we tried out many hosted container service and a few local tools. These included services run by Google, Microsoft, and Amazon and tools from companies like Docker and Apache. We ended up selecting Kubernetes because it was compatible with all …
I used OpenShift v2 - which was pre-Kubernetes. (It now uses Kubernetes under the hood - but keeps it fairly hidden). Kubernetes was a ton more stable and easier to use. No more custom CLI to use in order to script together deployments. No more messy ‘push your entire code …
Docker Swarm is not as advanced as Kubernetes and there are no out of the box solutions for auto scaling and deployment strategies. Docker swarm doesnot have much experience with production deployments at scale. Swarm has a smaller community, and less frequent releases as …
With AWS ECS, you have to provision the virtual hardware, then use that hardware as a pool for your container service. Each service has to be built out and scaled independently. Kubernetes allows us to use a cluster of machines like a big pool of resources, scaling and shipping …
Kubernetes is a great alternative to cloud hosted expensive solutions. It is extremely well documented and maintained. It is probably the best home-grown solution available for container infrastructure management.
We already had an enterprise Kubernetes 8 set up, so once we got our namespace it took me about 2 weeks to go from not knowing anything to having a self-contained jar in a container, running on Kubernetes 8. In comparison, it took me two weeks to install Java on a blank server …
As I said earlier also - - K8s manage the workloads better as compared to OpenStack in terms of reliability, observability & reachability. - K8s is not limited to only a single networking or storage solution as compared to OpenStack.
It is well-suited for any project that needs VCS. It's an excellent choice for teams that might be remote or have to collaborate across teams. Plenty of features allow for async working. With its dashboards and reporting features, it is also suitable for nontechnical PMs or stakeholders. It allows for very bespoke customization and can most often do much more than you need it to.
Along with all the best features and support by k8s, the automatic container scheduling to worker nodes and also self-healing containers which is what I like the most. On the other side, when I was installing the k8s cluster on CentOS 8, it was quite difficult for me, but never mind it is working as we expected and it is a one-time effort. Especially, in my case, there are more than 7 application containers required to run and communicate with each other, so for us, Kubernetes is an optimal solution.
Local development, Kubernetes does tend to be a bit complicated and unnecessary in environments where all development is done locally.
The need for add-ons, Helm is almost required when running Kubernetes. This brings a whole new tool to manage and learn before a developer can really start to use Kubernetes effectively.
Finicy configmap schemes. Kubernetes configmaps often have environment breaking hangups. The fail safes surrounding configmaps are sadly lacking.
I really feel the platform has matured quite faster than others, and it is always at the top of its game compared to the different vendors like GitHub, Azure pipelines, CircleCI, Travis, Jenkins. Since it provides, agents, CI/CD, repository hosting, Secrets management, user management, and Single Sign on; among other features
The Kubernetes is going to be highly likely renewed as the technologies that will be placed on top of it are long term as of planning. There shouldn't be any last minute changes in the adoption and I do not anticipate sudden change of the core underlying technology. It is just that the slow process of technology adoption that makes it hard to switch to something else.
I find it easy to use, I haven't had to do the integration work, so that's why it is a 9/10, cause I can't speak to how easy that part was or the initial set up, but day to day use is great!
It is an eminently usable platform. However, its popularity is overshadowed by its complexity. To properly leverage the capabilities and possibilities of Kubernetes as a platform, you need to have excellent understanding of your use case, even better understanding of whether you even need Kubernetes, and if yes - be ready to invest in good engineering support for the platform itself
I've never had experienced outages from GItlab itself, but regarding the code I have deployed to Gitlab, the history helps a lot to trace the cause of the issue or performing a rollback to go back to a working version
GItlab reponsiveness is amazing, has never left me IDLE. I've never had issues even with complex projects. I have not experienced any issues when integrating it with agents for example or SSO
At this point, I do not have much experience with Gitlab support as I have never had to engage them. They have documentation that is helpful, not quite as extensive as other documentation, but helpful nonetheless. They also seem to be relatively responsive on social media platforms (twitter) and really thrived when GitHub was acquired by Microsoft
GitHub is an inferior product from most points of view. We had to use it and the teams finds no positives about it. Everything is a downgrade from our previous GitLab solution. GitLab CI\CD is vastly superior to workflows, for example doing a manual node is just "when : manual" in GitLab while you have to do clickops in GitHub to achieve the same. No overview of code in branches is a minus when we tried to figure out what our colleagues are trying to merge as it looked off.
As I said earlier also - - K8s manage the workloads better as compared to OpenStack in terms of reliability, observability & reachability. - K8s is not limited to only a single networking or storage solution as compared to OpenStack. - Networking (which is a key concept) is much simpler in K8s as compared to OpenStack. - It is possible to upgrade your applications without downtime in K8s but in OpenStack, you either have to divert the traffic or face an outage because you have to delete the whole stack & then recreate it.