<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2015-07-10 17:59 GMT+02:00 Matt Micene <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:nzwulfin@gmail.com" target="_blank">nzwulfin@gmail.com</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><span class=""><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex" class="gmail_quote">So what I'm really after is what sets Fedora Cloud apart from every<br>
other distro cloud image. What usecases is it better at than {Ubuntu,<br>
SuSE, <whatever>}. </blockquote><div><br></div></span><div>Given that logic, Fedora should stop everything but Atomic. The Cloud image should be Fedora optimized for the cloud instance experience, just like Workstation is Fedora optimized for the desktop user experience. It shouldn't be massively different for Cloud than Server, b/c the use case between Server and Cloud isn't that large. <br><br>Fedora should have a "typical" answer for what use cases are better
than XYZ distro, that isn't dependent on a (frankly) edge use case like a
container specific platform. Atomic is a new and interesting thing, with a very small and specific purpose and design. That's a good thing and shouldn't be used as an argument against the Cloud image. Or even as a comparison. <br><br></div><span class=""><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex" class="gmail_quote"><div><span><div><br></div></span><div>> Depends: for end-users, it could mean a smaller bill each month on storage.</div> </div></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div>I'm not a fan of this argument for minimizing the Cloud experience as the real cost of "magnetic" storage in most cloud providers is small. If pulling Python saves 1GB of on disk installed OS space, then users in a AWS environment save $0.24 a month / server in the most expensive storage in the most expensive region (Sao Paolo if you're curious). And I'm sure we aren't shaving that much off the image. I have to think the level of engineering required to majorly redesign things around minimization efforts are likely mis-placed if end user cost is the main metric.<span class=""><br><br></span></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Multiply this by the number of instances, and it could amount to few thousands dollars per month.<br></div><div>More globally, our cloud image is still too fat compared to other distros by a large margin.<br></div><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div><span class=""><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex" class="gmail_quote"><div>That's where the Stack&Env WG work is important for us, as it could become<br></div>an asset against our other offers.<br></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div>This ^^^ I'm a firm believer that the SCL work that got dropped is a huge value when we want to talk about differentiating Fedora as a Cloud or Server platform. The ability to cleanly separate system requirements from end-user platforms is huge. I think the Cloud SIG should be jumping up and down on getting SCLs back on track.<br><br></div><div>- Matt M<br></div></div></div><br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Well, SCL is another topic (to remain polite), and I'm more than happy to let Stack&Env WG<br></div><div>dealing with that matter.<br><br></div><div>Regards,<br></div><div>H.<br></div></div><br></div></div>