There are a lot of certain points where I feel that having the functionality of having debugging and ensuring that if I like, I can have the dependence of things where things I felt were lacking. Overall, the tool itself is kind of a great start for my evaluation. Because we are currently evaluating, we will have much more of an understanding of this tool again in the near future. If you talk about the concurrent processing, there is some bit of mismanagement happening in Chainguard Containers, which I do not like about it and which is kind of a deal breaker for me. On terms of scalability, because it is hosted on Kubernetes, there is no issue with the scaling and handling the infrastructure. However, when it comes to processing, there is a kind of a bit of a delay which happens. For most customers, this will not be relevant because what we deal with is the concurrency, and for us, every microsecond counts. So for our use case, perhaps that is a limitation, but for the overall market, I do not think that will be a great limitation for them. I'll say that having debugging possibilities can actually help to improvise Chainguard Containers more because as a product, I see a lack of visibility on that. Perhaps I might be wrong. I do not know exactly the way to do it. I am still in the evaluation process. That is one thing. The second thing is that there were no quick fixes available. That is problematic because if you are not able to configure it yourself, you should be able to get those quick fixes right away so that you can continue with your work. You need a detailed discipline if you want to debug those things because it is kind of a mess when you start debugging these containers when they fall. That is why I am still evaluating tools where I can get the balance of both.
