We performed a comparison between GNU Make and Tekton based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about GitLab, Jenkins, Google and others in Build Automation."Setup is extremely straightforward."
"Full-featured syntax allows building strategies as simple or as complex as one wishes, and declarative approach fits the task really well. Wide adoption also means that everybody knows what GNU Make is and how to use it."
"GNU Make is such an essential tool that it is almost impossible to imagine working without it. Not having it, developers would probably have to resort to doing everything manually or via shell scripts."
"I have not encountered any scalability issues with GNU Make. It is as scalable as the project's structure is, and then some."
"Makefiles are extremely easy to work with using any preferred editor. GNU Make can be run directly from the terminal, not requiring any time wasted on clicking."
"Tekton is serverless and runs on OpenShift, and we leverage Tekton to take full advantage of the Kubernetes features such as running and scaling the solution in PaaS."
"Tekton is an orchestrator. It provides seamless integration for our pipelines. It offers robust support for executing tasks within the pipeline, allowing us to set up and run pipelines quickly."
"Its seamless integration with Kubernetes, being built on top of it and utilizing Custom Resource Definitions, ensures a smooth experience within Kubernetes environments exclusively."
"Vanilla GNU Make does not support any kind of colored output. A wrapper named colormake exists to work around this, but native (opt-in) support would be welcome."
"GNU Make requires using the Tab symbol as the first symbol of command line for execution. In some text editors this can be problematic, as they automatically insert spaces instead of tabs."
"There might be occasional issues with storage or cluster-level logging, which can affect production."
"Configuring Tekton requires a deep understanding of Kubernetes, which can be difficult for developers."
"It tends to occupy a significant amount of disk space on the node, which could potentially pose challenges."
Earn 20 points
GNU Make is ranked 26th in Build Automation while Tekton is ranked 3rd in Build Automation with 3 reviews. GNU Make is rated 8.2, while Tekton is rated 6.4. The top reviewer of GNU Make writes "Full-featured syntax allows building strategies as simple or as complex as needed". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Tekton writes "Provides seamless integration for pipelines, allowing easy setup and execution of tasks but working with YAML files in Tekton can be challenging to modify ". GNU Make is most compared with Jenkins and Bazel, whereas Tekton is most compared with GitLab, GitHub Actions, Harness, Travis CI and Jenkins.
See our list of best Build Automation vendors.
We monitor all Build Automation reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
