On 07/10/2015 05:01 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: > 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. :) We don't? I mean, I do - that doesn't mean we're invested in that, specifically, but that'd be cool. I'd certainly buy a Fedora phone. :-) >> 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. It is. There are a number of scenarios where I can't imagine someone adopting Atomic right now. Remember, we don't even know how many people may be consuming the cloud image quietly... >> 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. So, I guess I'm unclear on the ask here? What is the desired outcome you're looking for? Separate workgroups? A new product specifically around Atomic, or...? -- 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
