The hidden cost of config-as-code: simplicity, tribal knowledge, and what stays in Git

Config-as-code has become the standard approach for device management, allowing platforms like Jamf, Zentral, Workspace ONE, and Fleet to describe endpoints in a repository and manage changes through version control. The key debate now centers on the costs associated with this approach, including the time commitment, required skill level, and potential reliance on individual expertise. Platforms like Fleet use a simpler, built-in config-as-code method that allows teams to gradually adopt GitOps, reducing the barrier to entry and allowing more team members to participate without deep technical expertise. In contrast, using tools like Terraform offers robust capabilities but also demands handling complex infrastructure concerns such as provider management, state files, and lifecycle operations, which may be challenging for teams without dedicated platform engineering resources. The effectiveness of config-as-code is ultimately measured by its ability to retain institutional knowledge in documented schemas and readable repositories, ensuring continuity and resilience even when team members depart. The choice between different config-as-code approaches should consider factors like team participation, ongoing maintenance costs, phased adoption capabilities, and the potential impact of personnel changes to ensure the workflow remains operable by the entire team.

Use this post, company, and trend context to find content marketing opportunities, perform competitive analysis, or address product feature gaps via the Plushcap MCP server or the Plushcap API.