On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 11:51 AM, Joe Brockmeier <jzb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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?
Not always. We don't want people to have Fedora on their phones. :)
> 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?
The perception I've seen already indicates we're going that way. If
all the hype is around containers these days, even the Fedora cloud
download page plays Atomic up. It positions Atomic as the solution
for containers and makes no mention of the fact that the base image
would work too. It just says it's flexible.
>> 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.
Massively? Probably nothing.
> I think we'd be sending the wrong message by abandoning the generic
> cloud image, though.
Sure, maybe. So instead maybe try sending just as strong of a message
for the Cloud image as is done for the Atomic image. This is really
primarily a marketing issue. The more I try and figure this all out,
the more I think Cloud is being overshadowed by Atomic and keeping
them together is detrimental in the long run.
My perspective is going to be much different from someone that lives
and breaths cloud on a daily basis. But if I'm confused, there are
other people out there wondering the same thing and clearing it up
will help more than just me.
josh
_______________________________________________
cloud mailing list
cloud@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
