How does it compare to Telepresence?
replies(1):
I’m the founder of Kloudlite, and I’ve spent years working through slow, frustrating development loops.
Developers are often stuck with long build times and manual deployments, and most tools don’t effectively solve this problem without adding complexity.
That’s why we built Kloudlite: - No need to build or deploy to test your app – everything runs directly from your workspace - Seamlessly connects your local workspace to remote environments via a secure VPN - Full production parity, so what works locally will work in production
Some key use cases: - Faster development with zero build/deploy steps - Instantly switch between environments without reconfiguring - Collaborate with your team in real time
I use Kloudlite daily, and it's free to try. Give it a go!
Kloudlite, on the other hand, orchestrates environments and managed services, connecting them to workspaces without exposing Kubernetes APIs to the end user.
From a networking perspective, Kloudlite offers technical advantages. It operates at OSI Layers 3 and 4 using a WireGuard network, while Telepresence functions primarily at Layer 7 and partly at Layer 4 using application proxies. Because Kloudlite works at Layer 3, it provides a higher level of abstraction for connecting services and devices.
You can link multiple clusters—including your local machine—within your team. All environments and services managed by Kloudlite become part of the same WireGuard network.
For example, you can create a shared database in a remote cloud cluster, clone environments and apps to a local cluster, and start development. Another developer on a different machine can easily switch to your environment and access the same services, enabling seamless collaboration. Since Kloudlite uses a WireGuard network, any device with a WireGuard client can connect to access these services.