On 07/10/2015 04:42 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 11:26 AM, Joe Brockmeier <jzb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 07/10/2015 12:59 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
>>>
>>> The atomic image is squarely targeted at being small, and for running
>>> containers. It is somewhat positioned as a CoreOS solution. With
>>> that being the case, I'm curious how the cloud image is different and
>>> not a repetitive image simply not using the atomic mechanisms.
>>
>> That's sort of a key difference -- atomic == I can't just dnf install
>> things. cloud == I can add on what I want the way I'm used to doing.
>> (e.g., not containerized)
>
> Yes, absolutely. However, if that is the only difference then I'm not
> sure how compelling it is when you compare it to all the other images
> provided elsewhere that let you do that already. Conversely, atomic
> is compelling _because_ of the Atomic platform. Atomic has novelty
> (for now), decent technical advantages, and a lot more marketing
> behind it.
Well, I mean... it's compelling for us because we want people to have
Fedora available $all_the_places, right?
So having only Atomic means we'd basically be saying if you want to do
things in the cloud, either do them the "Atomic way" or use another
project, right?
> So what I'm really after is what sets Fedora Cloud apart from every
> other distro cloud image. What use cases is it better at than {Ubuntu,
> SuSE, <whatever>}. How should it be positioned so the people want to
> use it over those, etc. Fedora, in the Cloud space, is still behind
> in market share compared to the rest of the Linux world. I'm really
> curious if that can be overcome, or if instead the focus should be on
> Atomic entirely because it has a better chance.
I don't think the use case for a generic, modifiable image is going away
anytime soon. As far as features go - I'm not sure there's tons of
daylight between what Ubuntu and Fedora "do" -- just (as you mention
below) there's more in common between two Linux distros on the desktop
than not.
Open to suggestions as to what we could do to make Fedora massively more
compelling.
I think we'd be sending the wrong message by abandoning the generic
cloud image, though.
> (To be fair, Workstation and Server also have the same questions to
> answer in comparison to their peers. However, they have both history
> and familiarity on their side. Fedora has traditionally been a
> "desktop" OS and Server can feed off of RHEL which dominates the
> enterprise space. Cloud doesn't share that luxury.)
--
Joe Brockmeier | Community Team, OSAS
jzb@xxxxxxxxxx | http://community.redhat.com/
Twitter: @jzb | http://dissociatedpress.net/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ cloud mailing list cloud@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
