On Wed, Aug 24, 2016, at 06:06 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 08:57:52PM +0530, Kushal Das wrote:
> * If we rename how to make sure that the users know that we are not
> abandoning the cloud?
I've got a three-part answer to this part.
First, this absolutely *is* a refocus on container tech for scale-out
computing. That pretty much generally means "cloud taken for granted".
Second, Fedora Cloud Base never really caught on. I know that there are
some dedicated and serious users, but most people I'm aware of are
using it as an easy way to spin up a minimal Fedora VM (and it's the
_only_ way we provide an official vagrant image). That's very useful,
but it wasn't the goal. There *are* people I'm aware of using it for
actual cloud computing, but it's not taking the world by storm.
I think the Server group was talking about adopting this. I wouldn't
drop it for sure.
I'm unclear if Atomic Workstation will actually be actually based
on
Project Atomic, be ostree and some similar technologies, but not really
connected. In the latter case, I think that would be "one more thing
named Atomic" in a confusing way, and it'd be better for that to have
another name.
This is going to be an interesting topic...one thing I will say is that
at least for *workstation* style things (as opposed to a Chromebook-like
system), is that I find using "pet Docker containers" to be really
critical; I try to avoid installing things on the host still. So that makes it
more like Atomic Host, particularly without Kubernetes (which is very
much a server cluster thing and not related to desktops, and not much
for embedded servers either).
One thing that has certainly been on my
mind is whether "Project Atomic" should dissolve more directly
into the distributions, a bit like how the "Modularity" effort is more
directly part of Fedora. I'm not sure though, because we still need
to maintain CentOS builds too. Anyways this is a huge topic =)