Cloud image use cases

Joe Brockmeier jzb at
Fri Jul 10 16:08:23 UTC 2015

On 07/10/2015 05:01 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 11:51 AM, Joe Brockmeier <jzb at> wrote:
>> On 07/10/2015 04:42 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 11:26 AM, Joe Brockmeier <jzb at> 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 at |
Twitter: @jzb  |

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 473 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <>

More information about the cloud mailing list