Cloud image use cases
jwboyer at fedoraproject.org
Fri Jul 10 16:27:34 UTC 2015
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 12:08 PM, Joe Brockmeier <jzb at redhat.com> wrote:
> On 07/10/2015 05:01 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 11:51 AM, Joe Brockmeier <jzb at redhat.com> wrote:
>>> On 07/10/2015 04:42 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 11:26 AM, Joe Brockmeier <jzb at redhat.com> 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. :-)
You would be disappointed.
>>> 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...
Awesome. Highlight some of those scenarios? Right now, the download
page looks like this:
Cloud: We make this.
Atomic: USE THIS FOR CONTAINERS
Atomic has a clear, highlighted usecase, to the degree that it is
positioned as _the_ solution to that problem even though the base
Cloud image would work just fine as well.
>>> 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...?
Short term, better marketing, so that the Cloud image isn't just "we
make this. It's flexible and junk and stuff." Some description of
use cases would be good. I mean, that is the question I asked at the
start of the thread. The Cloud WG _knows_ all of this and I get the
distinct impression that the expectation is everyone else in the world
knows it too. Help the people like me that are perhaps just getting
their feet wet know that Cloud is something worth trying.
Longer term, a new product around Atomic would make a lot of sense to
me, yes. Particularly as the technology grows outside the scope of
cloud anyway (see the desktop list yesterday for a discussion around
atomic based desktop).
More information about the cloud