What advice do you have for others considering OpenShift Container Platform?

If your concerns are primarily security and feature enhancement, OpenShift offers substantial value. It is suitable for larger teams concerned about security and usability. Smaller teams with less stringent requirements might consider other solutions. Careful cost estimation is crucial to avoid unnecessary financial burdens. I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

Overall, I would rate it a nine out of ten. It is a very good solution overall. I would definitely recommend it to others.

I rate the platform an eight.

I rate the product an eight out of ten.

I will recommend the solution to others. Overall, I rate the tool a nine out of ten.

Overall, we are very satisfied with OpenShift. I would rate OpenShift Container Platform an eight out of ten.

Overall, I rate the solution a seven out of ten.

I recommend studying the documentation thoroughly and preparing the infrastructure according to the guidelines. Following the documentation is crucial, and most issues reported were related to network problems. Therefore, I suggest becoming proficient in troubleshooting network issues to identify and resolve problems. I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

Before choosing OpenShift, I advise you to know your application landscape very well. Only then will you know if you require OpenShift. If you are unclear about your application environment, layout, and structure, it is potentially not a good idea because you don't understand it. Overall, I would rate the solution a five out of ten.

I am a person who is a bit more infrastructure-focused. JBoss is a middleware software, and I don't really work in that space. I am more into the underlying infrastructure, Red Hat Enterprise Linux, Red Hat Containers and Kubernetes, and that sort of stuff, including OpenShift and OpenStack. I am not really into the application layer. Overall, I rate the solution a seven out of ten.

Overall, I rate OpenShift Container Platform a nine out of ten.

I would advise other people looking into this solution – if they could afford their pricing plan – to go for it as it's a great product. I would rate this solution a seven, on a scale from one to 10, with one being the worst and 10 being the best.

It's a very cool product. You can trust it. We have plenty of complicated microservices systems deployed through this platform, and it does the job. We see the results. I only have good feedback about it. It's nice to see technology getting better and better, doing things automatically. The platform can fit every organization, with the right configuration. It can do whatever you need it to do. It's very impressive to see how the technology of this platform does it.

I rate OpenShift a nine out of ten. I think it's the way to go. Lots of companies are adopting it.

I rate OpenShift a ten out of ten. Project onboarding time is a major pain area for us, but OpenShift isn't the issue; it's a company problem. When we want to onboard a new project to the platform, it takes some time due to internal processes which aren't dependent on OpenShift. If we manage to streamline our company processes, there's no reason for problems to occur while onboarding. We didn't consider building our own container platform. As the application team, we weren't asked to do that; we were provided with OpenShift and started using it. Red Hat is very supportive and an old organization, so it's easy to trust them.

I rate the solution an eight out of ten. We recently experienced a Log4j vulnerability issue, and the OpenShift team released a patch to which we upgraded, but they could have done a better job. Regarding the platform helping us meet regulatory constraints, I have yet to deal with this area. In terms of automation, most people I know use Github, Jenkins, or some other third-party platform and integrate with OpenShift. We didn't consider building our own container platform because Kubernetes is an excellent platform, and OpenShift is built on top of it. We're satisfied with what we have and see no need to start from the beginning. Red Hat is an excellent partner; we never shared code, but we used to have review meetings where we shared room for improvement with the product and gave some suggestions. For example, we would like a backup process or system implemented, and we have communicated this to Red Hat.

I rate the solution nine out of ten. Regarding automation, we don't build up any pipelines in OpenShift; we have our own tools to automate build processes and then deploy them to the platform. We didn't consider building our own container platform as it would be difficult. My advice to those considering OpenShift is that it's user-friendly, flexible, has robust security, and features are frequently updated. Red Hat provides good documentation, so the solution is easy to learn and adapt to your use cases.

I rate the solution a ten out of ten. We didn't consider building our own container platform because it's too big a job. We're a bank, and most banks focus more on developing functionality than building a container platform and instead look for the best available tool. We also use Red Hat Linux and chose it because it's very stable and reliable. The biggest lesson I've learned from using the solution is how easy and simple it is to deploy, how little we need to focus on infrastructure, and how it allows us to prioritize functionality.

I would definitely recommend having the vanilla experience because, contrary to popular belief, OpenShift is not Kubernetes; it's actually written on top of Kubernetes and adds an extra value of authentication, auditing, and logging on top of that, but it does require a familiarity with Kubernetes to properly utilize its capabilities. After being acquainted with Kubernetes, I believe it is worthwhile to dip their fingers and brains into the distinctions that OpenShift provides in contrast to other basic Kubernetes implementations. I would rate OpenShift Container Platform a seven out of ten. It is really expensive. That is not something you would employ unless you had a strong business case for your application. That is, not in terms of the enterprise version. You may use our OKD, which is a community version we provide, which is less expensive. However, it is not a supported version of OpenShift; it is only supported within the community. However, because the OKD community is small, there is a low likelihood that someone would respond to your inquiry if you run into problems and need to locate answers elsewhere.

I would recommend using OpenShift Container Platform, giving it a rating of eight out of ten.

It is beneficial to be aware of Linux or Unix concepts when working with the solution and managing clusters. I rate the solution a ten out of ten.

I’d rate the solution seven out of ten. We haven’t used it too long. It’s still in production. After six months, we’ll likely have a better idea of how it is going.

I rate this solution a seven out of ten. Regarding advice, it depends on the use case and what kind of platform a company wants. For example, if they want something on Kubernetes with at least basic amenities, like logging and monitoring and similar things out of the box, then OpenShift is good for them. But, if they want to modify the Kubernetes how they want, it is not a good solution because it is not flexible. OpenShift Container Platform gives you a lot of features out of the box, but you cannot modify it. So, if they want to use Kubernetes how they want, then the open-source Vanilla Kubernetes is better for them than OpenShift.

I would rate this solution 8 out of 10.

I would rate this solution 8 out of 10. If you care about your performance and the support, I would recommend it for enterprise mission critical applications.

I rate OpenShift Container Platform eight out of 10. It's an excellent solution. It might be a bit more difficult to maintain than some solutions, but it brings you a lot of value.

Ensure that you need all of the features that it has because otherwise, it's not worth the investment. Be careful what version you're getting into because that can be problematic to change after you've already invested in both the training and the infrastructure. I would rate it a seven out of ten. Considering some of the problems we've had, even though some of them are self-imposed, I would hope that a containerized environment would be flexible to be able to give us some options there.

Take some time to understand and learn the product before starting it. Our Red Hat products integrate well in our company. My company has a background with Red Hat. The people from our company had established relationships with Red Hat. I would rate this product as an eight out of 10.

We are a Red Hat partner. We're a consultancy firm. We started using OpenShift version two, then we migrated to OpenShift's version three and now we are on a complete version four. We tend to use all deployment models - on-premises, public and private clouds, and hybrid options. If a company is considering the solution, I would advise that they maybe start working with some guys who have experience with the product. It will be much more work otherwise, and you can save time by avoiding POCs. Overall, I would rate the solution ten out of ten. Even though the pricing is high, I knew what I was getting into, and for me, for the value we get from the product, it's worth the cost.

A common mistake is to assume that the solution can change the architecture type. e.g. some people think by using this solution they can change their application architecture into a microservices architecture. OpenShift is an orchestration architecture. These types of solutions are not intended to be run as a microservices architecture. Very often, the two become confused. As the cost of this product is expensive it should only be considered for large enterprises. There will also be a need to hire technical people, and this may also involve a training cost. There has to be a cost-benefit. It can be done as a single solution, but the solution itself is huge. You also need to make the best use of the solution. If you are processing millions of transactions, that would describe an adequate use. You need to calculate the solution costs against the work it is designed to do, otherwise, it becomes a cost overhead. Certainly, for a single application, it would be a waste of money. I would rate OpenShift Container Platform a nine out of ten.