Investing in the new “hottest technology in the market” is always a tricky proposition for any organization trying to make money. Even if such technology is “open source,” there will be associated costs in any change management. Retraining, loss of productivity, and workflow disruption are flaws and bad outcomes most managers despise.
However, not having the tools for the entire organization to compete in its market niche is something even more ominous. It can result in cash flow disruptions that will create a myriad of problems that are exponentially harder than any technological adoption.
Adapting container platforms is the same proposition. It’s a choice between a slight disruption and losing the competitive edge. It’s a choice between two evils, and the lesser evil is obvious.
Container Platforms are open source
It’s free. But nothing in this world is truly free. It will take time for internal developers to adapt to a new architecture. Formal training is the quickest way to get your team up to speed. There are companies, such as Red Hat, that offer professional training and certifications for Container Platforms.
Corporate=sponsored training is costly. Investing in skills for your own team is no different from onboarding. It improves employee-employer relationships and increases retention. According to the Center for Nonprofit Management, the average cost of replacing an employee ranges from 20 to 200 percent of their annual salaries. Retaining your team is a cost-saving exercise that will pay off in the long run.
Formal training for open source platforms also gives your team access to its community. Container Platforms are based on Linux container projects. It has a huge following and plenty of available resources. Being a part of such a community can help your development team do their job.
Container Platforms are flexible and future-proof.
Nothing is truly future proof. Container Platforms come close. Their ability to deploy and execute on any platform gives program agility and flexibility to a whole new level. Containers’ inherent ability to execute regardless of the technical specifications of their host allows them to be moved freely with minimal disruption.
Container’s agility and flexibility have done away the age-old problem of compatibility. There was a time in the IT industry when every new change will require a compatibility check with existing systems. It is a tedious and labor-intensive exercise. If the desired program change is not compatible with existing systems, several costly and time-consuming actions will need to be taken before the desired outcome can be implemented. Containers are said to be 99% compatible. It is advertised as fully compatible, but there should be legacy systems, proprietary systems, and obscure architectures that may present some problems.
Container Platform Microservices are easier to deploy, maintain, and debug
Containers are self-contained -hence the name. Each container is a fully functional microservice that can run independently. If one of those independent microservices are not functioning properly, it can be taken down and repaired while the rest of the suite remains online.
Being an independent microservice, it doesn’t contain thousands of lines of code. It will be easier for the development team to find the problem and fix it. The specific microservice is already isolated, that means it’s easy to find the problem within its structure as opposed to traditional monolithic systems.
Its simplicity shines during development and implementation. Parts and parcel of it can be made within a short span of time and deployed to benefit the organization quickly.
Business is war and war is business. Adapting container platforms is like fielding armored tanks because your enemy has them. There are costs involved but are more productive. But most importantly, those that have them will have an advantage in the field.