I have tested VMware Tanzu but we didn't go with it because it comes in different flavors. If you want to use VMware Tanzu, for certain things, you need to buy another VMware product. For example, if you want to have pod services for your environment, you need to buy NSX. That's an extra overhead because you need a separate team that can manage NSX for you.

We're currently evaluating a product from IBM.

We considered VMware Tanzu. They are still in the pipeline. We are planning to implement VMware Tanzu inside our environment. OpenShift is very good, but we are considering VMware Tanzu because we already have a good VMware environment. We thought of using that VMware environment also for the containerization application. That's the reason for considering VMware Tanzu.

There weren't a whole lot of options. There was Mesos or home-grown or Kubernetes using Rancher. There wasn't anything that really compared to OpenShift at the time. OpenShift was a complete package. There were a lot of things you had to do manually with the other products. The Kubernetes world has changed a lot since then.

The fact that Red Hat was open source was a factor and the security was what we really liked about it. They use CRI-O, which is a secure runtime container, as opposed to using Docker, which is super-insecure running as root. Red Hat is definitely the leader in the container security world.

During the evaluation phase, I looked at Google Cloud.

At the time of our evaluation, our options were only OpenShift and Vanilla Kubernetes. Now, there is also VMware Tanzu, which wasn't as mature a product when we did the PoC in 2019.

I am currently implementing VMware Tanzu in my new role at another company. I have not seen any significant differences between Tanzu and OpenShift.

We looked at all the options, including Upstream Kubernetes, AWS, Azure, GCP, and Rancher.

Vanilla doesn’t have essential features like CI/CD integration, repositories, and community, similar to OpenShift.

We have found RedHat OpenShift to provide the best solution and ease of use.

We evaluated other solutions including Rancher. OpenShift is built with the developer in mind which is advantageous versus most other products on the market. We also chose OpenShift due to the peace of mind of knowing it is a solution supported by Red Hat. It is also an easy-to-use solution for our developers and has a great administrative interface.

My role was not one of evaluation, so I did not participate in choosing the product.

My team members evaluated Amazon EKS and Pivotal Web Services. OpenShift was the market leader in terms of a container platform and that's one of the reasons we chose it for our company.

We took a look at: OpenStack, Cloud Foundry, Mesosphere and Swarm.

Rancher was in the loop and kubernetes vanilla in ~2015.

Not really applicable to my situation. I support several products and recommend, then implement the best solution for my clients' needs.

In order to understand OpenShift, you must try Docker. Afterwards, you must understand orchestrators like Kubernetes (the OpenShift underground) and Swarm. You must work with developers. I also implemented Jenkies and Nexus in order to attain full, real automation.

I tried Rancher and other similar technologies, but their goals weren't the same as mine.

We evaluated VMware, but then I am biased. I will always choose Red Hat as I know all too well what it does as opposed to other solutions. I am not knocking other solutions, but Red Hat wins in the long run.

We evaluated Cloud Foundry but decided upon a Docker container based platform like OpenShift.

IBM SoftLayer.