Multi-cloud seems like an obvious path for most organizations, but what isn’t obvious is how to implement it, especially with a DevOps centric approach. For Cycle users, multi-cloud is just something they do. It’s a native part of the platform and a standardized experience that has led to 70+% of our users consuming infrastructure from more than 1 provider.

We recently covered some of the complex decisions and architecture behind Cycle’s brand new interface. In this final installment, we’ll peer into our crystal ball and glimpse into the future of the Cycle portal. Cycle already is a production-ready DevOps platform capable of running even the most demanding websites and applications. But, that doesn’t mean we can’t make the platform even more functional, and make DevOps even simpler to manage.

The report is so absurd and naive that it makes no sense to critique it in detail. - Kent Beck responding to the McKinsey Report. Luckily this was a hollow threat, because a few days later he and fellow blogger Gergely Orosz released a two part blog series critiquing not exactly Mckinsey's report but... any report that tried to put “effort based” metrics at the top of the list for things to track.

RabbitMQ is a messaging broker that helps different parts of a software application communicate with each other. Think of it as a middleman that takes care of sending and receiving messages so that everything runs smoothly. Since its release in 2007, it's gained a lot of traction for being reliable and easy to scale. It's a solid choice if you're dealing with complex systems and want to make sure data gets where it needs to go.

In our last installment, we covered the myriad of new UI changes added to Cycle’s portal. In this part, we walk through five of the tough engineering choices made when developing the new interface, discussing the alternatives that were considered, and shining a light on some of the technology our engineering team utilizes today.