On 04/01/2016 08:17 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Fri, 2016-04-01 at 17:12 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2016-04-01 at 13:07 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
>> (For the innocent bystanders, we've decided to use fedora-desktop list
>> for development communication around https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Cha
>> nges/WorkstationOstree , so you'll see some more or less mundane stuff
>> go by here - if you're not interested, just ignore it. Better than
>> chasing things via private mail or yet-another-list, I believe).
>> Here's a first status update of sorts for the atomic workstation effort
>> (I'm afraid this name will stick if we don't come up with something
>> else soon, I'm already used to it).
> Can you please call it something like "rpm-ostree workstation"?
> quite a significant distinction between the rpm-ostree mechanism for
> constructing an OS, and the "Atomic host" concept. AIUI, *one* of the
> essential properties of an "Atomic host" is that it be built by rpm-
> ostree, but *another* essential propert of an "Atomic host" is that it
> consist of (or at least contain) a specific set of components, which a
> Workstation-on-rpm-ostree most likely would not. Quote:
> "The core of Project Atomic is the Project Atomic Host. This is a
> lightweight operating system that has been assembled out of upstream
> RPM content. It is designed to run applications in Docker containers."
> basically it seems to me that the definition of an Atomic Host is at
> least "an OS built with rpm-ostree that includes systemd, Docker and
> Kubernetes", but 'lightweight' can be read as implying that it
> shouldn't include very much at all *beyond* that (which would mean a
> Workstation would not qualify).
> Unless this new Workstation effort is specifically intended to always
> meet the definition of an "Atomic Host", *as well as* being a Fedora
> Workstation, I don't think it should be called Atomic Workstation.
To argue with myself a bit, I suppose you could make the argument that
an "Atomic Workstation" could be another type of "atomic thing" - so
would have "Atomic Hosts" and "Atomic Workstations". But man, that
sounds like it might get confusing...at least I think whoever gets to
decide what the hell "Atomic" means exactly (i.e. Project Atomic)
should probably weigh in on it, before anything else gets "Atomic" in
First we should change the definition of atomic hosts, to specify
containers, not just docker containers. In an upcoming release
we will be supporting runc containers, and I see no reason not
to support RKT containers.
In a grand view of the future, we have talked about "PET" containers
and a PET container could be a SPC container that you could dnf install
Should this be part of the Atomic Workstation, and could this be a
Potentially we could keep the concept of atomic host and then just add a
really big container that runs the desktop. Does not even need to be a
container, or need to use a COW file system, but could use an OSTREE
This Super Container, then could even run other containers for desktop apps.
Just throwing out crazy ideas...