Hudson vs Magnum CI

Overview

Magnum CI

Stacks9

Followers21

Votes17

Hudson

Stacks12

Followers18

Votes0

Hudson vs Magnum CI: What are the differences?

Introduction: In the world of continuous integration and deployment tools, Hudson and Magnum CI are two popular choices. However, they have distinct differences that set them apart.

Configuration Flexibility: Hudson offers a high level of configurability through its user-friendly web interface, allowing users to customize builds and workflows easily. On the other hand, Magnum CI follows a more opinionated approach, providing predefined pipelines and configurations, which can be limiting for advanced users looking for more flexibility.
Hosted vs Self-hosted: Hudson is typically self-hosted, requiring users to set up and maintain their own server infrastructure. In contrast, Magnum CI is a hosted solution, taking care of the server management and maintenance, allowing users to focus more on their development tasks.
Support for Containerization: Magnum CI is designed with a primary focus on containerization, making it easier for users to integrate Docker and other container technologies into their build and deployment processes. Hudson, while supporting containerization to some extent, may require plugins or additional configurations for full containerization support.
Community and Support: Hudson has been around for a longer time, boasting a larger community and a wealth of resources for troubleshooting and support. Magnum CI, being a newer entrant in the CI landscape, may have a smaller community and fewer resources available for users seeking help.
Scalability and Performance: Hudson is known for its scalability and performance, capable of handling large and complex build pipelines efficiently. Magnum CI, being a more streamlined and opinionated tool, may lack the same level of scalability and performance in handling complex build processes.

In Summary, Hudson and Magnum CI differ in terms of configuration flexibility, hosting options, support for containerization, community size, and scalability/performance capabilities.

Share your Stack

Help developers discover the tools you use. Get visibility for your team's tech choices and contribute to the community's knowledge.

View Docs

CLI (Node.js)

Manual

Detailed Comparison

Magnum CI	Hudson
Magnum CI is a hosted continuous integration service for private projects. It supports multiple languages and tools to run test suite. Service supports all major version control software and integrates with most popular code hosting platforms. There are no restrictions or limitations on where you store your source code, so even your own self-hosted repository will work right away.	It monitors the execution of repeated jobs, such as building a software project or jobs run by cron. Among those things, currently it focuses on the two jobs
Easy Integration;Flexible Builds;Code Metrics; Build Notifications	Easy installation; Easy configuration; Change set support; Permanent links; RSS/E-mail/IM Integration; After-the-fact tagging; JUnit/TestNG test reporting; Distributed builds; File fingerprinting; Plugin Support
Statistics
Stacks 9	Stacks 12
Followers 21	Followers 18
Votes 17	Votes 0
Pros & Cons
Pros 6 Free 4 Easy setup 3 Github integration 2 Gitlab integration 1 Slack integration	No community feedback yet
Integrations
Slack Flowdock HipChat Campfire GitHub Bitbucket Beanstalk	JavaScript Java HTML5

What are some alternatives to Magnum CI, Hudson?

Jenkins

In a nutshell Jenkins CI is the leading open-source continuous integration server. Built with Java, it provides over 300 plugins to support building and testing virtually any project.

Travis CI

Free for open source projects, our CI environment provides multiple runtimes (e.g. Node.js or PHP versions), data stores and so on. Because of this, hosting your project on travis-ci.com means you can effortlessly test your library or applications against multiple runtimes and data stores without even having all of them installed locally.

Codeship

Codeship runs your automated tests and configured deployment when you push to your repository. It takes care of managing and scaling the infrastructure so that you are able to test and release more frequently and get faster feedback for building the product your users need.

CircleCI

Continuous integration and delivery platform helps software teams rapidly release code with confidence by automating the build, test, and deploy process. Offers a modern software development platform that lets teams ramp.

TeamCity

TeamCity is a user-friendly continuous integration (CI) server for professional developers, build engineers, and DevOps. It is trivial to setup and absolutely free for small teams and open source projects.

Drone.io

Drone is a hosted continuous integration service. It enables you to conveniently set up projects to automatically build, test, and deploy as you make changes to your code. Drone integrates seamlessly with Github, Bitbucket and Google Code as well as third party services such as Heroku, Dotcloud, Google AppEngine and more.

wercker

Wercker is a CI/CD developer automation platform designed for Microservices & Container Architecture.

GoCD

GoCD is an open source continuous delivery server created by ThoughtWorks. GoCD offers business a first-class build and deployment engine for complete control and visibility.

Shippable

Shippable is a SaaS platform that lets you easily add Continuous Integration/Deployment to your Github and BitBucket repositories. It is lightweight, super simple to setup, and runs your builds and tests faster than any other service.

Buildkite

CI and build automation tool that combines the power of your own build infrastructure with the convenience of a managed, centralized web UI. Used by Shopify, Basecamp, Digital Ocean, Venmo, Cochlear, Bugsnag and more.

Related Comparisons

Bitbucket vs GitHub vs GitLab

AWS CodeCommit vs Bitbucket vs GitHub

Docker Swarm vs Kubernetes vs Rancher

Grunt vs Webpack vs gulp

Grafana vs Graphite vs Kibana

Hudson vs Magnum CI: What are the differences?

Introduction: In the world of continuous integration and deployment tools, Hudson and Magnum CI are two popular choices. However, they have distinct differences that set them apart.

Configuration Flexibility: Hudson offers a high level of configurability through its user-friendly web interface, allowing users to customize builds and workflows easily. On the other hand, Magnum CI follows a more opinionated approach, providing predefined pipelines and configurations, which can be limiting for advanced users looking for more flexibility.
Hosted vs Self-hosted: Hudson is typically self-hosted, requiring users to set up and maintain their own server infrastructure. In contrast, Magnum CI is a hosted solution, taking care of the server management and maintenance, allowing users to focus more on their development tasks.
Support for Containerization: Magnum CI is designed with a primary focus on containerization, making it easier for users to integrate Docker and other container technologies into their build and deployment processes. Hudson, while supporting containerization to some extent, may require plugins or additional configurations for full containerization support.
Community and Support: Hudson has been around for a longer time, boasting a larger community and a wealth of resources for troubleshooting and support. Magnum CI, being a newer entrant in the CI landscape, may have a smaller community and fewer resources available for users seeking help.
Scalability and Performance: Hudson is known for its scalability and performance, capable of handling large and complex build pipelines efficiently. Magnum CI, being a more streamlined and opinionated tool, may lack the same level of scalability and performance in handling complex build processes.

In Summary, Hudson and Magnum CI differ in terms of configuration flexibility, hosting options, support for containerization, community size, and scalability/performance capabilities.