for discussion: Fedora OpenShift as an objective

[Matthew Miller]

On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 03:06:48PM +0000, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
> >But now, there's a shiny new OpenShift v3, rewritten in Go. I'd like to
> >talk about (and eventually if enough people think this is a good idea,
> >officially propose) a 12-month (e.g, Fedora 24 and 25 cycle) initative
> >to better our relationship with OpenShift, in order to put Fedora in a
> >position of leadership in this important area of computing — and,
> >thinking bigger, to advance the state of open source in this area by
> >doing that.
> Interesting perspective.
> How exactly do you come to the conclusion that Fedora shipping Red
> Hat product somehow automatically becomes being in position of
> leadership in the relevant computing area?

That's neither my conclusion _nor_ what I'm suggesting. So, I'm not
sure how to answer that.

> I'm being serious so explain me in detail how it achieves that
> compared to other distribution shipping the exact same set of
> applications or why users of said products will be deploying it on
> Fedora as opposed to RHEL/CentOS in their IT environment for
> example?

This is basically asking if Fedora has value at all to end users in IT
environments. I think, very strongly, that it does. It's not for every
case by any means, but as I noted in my original message in this
thread, it's a good match for innovators and early adopters.

But it's not _just_ the leading edge and test labs. Fedora is also
useful in any case where the deployment need is a good match for the
Fedora values — chiefly Features and First, but definitely Friends as
well. (And on OpenShift in specific, it's pure open source, and unlike
CloudFoundry isn't built around an "open core" — so, Freedom.)

Fedora as popular in these cases is seem borne out by our download
statistics for Fedora Server, as well as my anecdotal experience, both
personal as a former sysadmin and from the talking with people I do at
this job.

Additionally, Fedora as a project benefits when we have upstream
development close. We get the developer energy and access to
engineering for bugfixes, and we can offer the developers a
leading-edge platform to develop on and to test against. And having all
of this in Fedora benefits users, because Fedora provides an easy and
attractive integrated platform on which to try new stuff. That's why I
suggest user-developer communication channels in Fedora as a direct
part of the objective.


> Once you have explained that to the wider audience to how come this
> is not just being discussed in the relevant WG that might ship that
> application stack or for that matter those actually driving the
> initiative to misuse the community for early adoption of Red Hat
> products now in the name of open shift form a WG themselves if said
> application stack does not belong with any of the excising WG or for
> that matter the existing ones dont want it as a part of their
> portfolio.

I don't understand what you're saying at all in this paragraph.


-- 
Matthew Miller
<mattdm at fedoraproject.org>
Fedora Project Leader