Atomic Workstation (Was: Re: Call for agenda for Workstation WG meeting 2015-Sept-02)

[Chris Murphy]

On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 12:35 PM, Paul W. Frields <stickster at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 04, 2015 at 02:33:31PM -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 02:17:49PM +0200, Sébastien Wilmet wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 12:36:15PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
>> > > On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 6:10 PM, Michael Catanzaro <mcatanzaro at gnome.org> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > - What are the next steps for Atomic Workstation?
>> > >
>> > > A decoder ring and a flow chart.
>> >
>> > Some links that may help:
>> >
>> > http://paul.frields.org/2015/04/02/fedora-under-construction/
>> >
>> > Planning for an "Atomic Workstation":
>> > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/desktop/2015-July/012567.html
>> >
>> > http://videos.guadec.org/2015/Playing%20with%20apps%20in%20the%20sandbox/
>> >
>> > There are also videos from the DevConf and Flock.
>> >
>> > Some documentation:
>> >
>> > Introduction to Linux Containers:
>> > https://access.redhat.com/articles/1353593
>> >
>> > https://access.redhat.com/articles/rhel-atomic-getting-started
>> >
>> > I agree that it's not easy to grasp all of that directly, maybe you can
>> > try Docker or xdg-app (see how a container is built) to see how it works
>> > in practice. Once you're convinced about the benefits of containers, the
>> > Atomic Host is the next step.
>>
>> Also, to keep from causing more confusion, I've been calling this
>> "rpm-ostree based Workstation."  Atomic Host is kind of its own thing
>> and probably a different release cycle than we're interested in.  The
>> underlying tech is what we care about as far as Workstation is
>> concerned, but not something we necessarily want to push onto
>> end-users.
>
> Sorry, I meant *awareness of/concerns with that tech* isn't something
> we necessarily want to push onto end-users.

I'm not sure I understand the last part. Users kinda need to know how
the system works, is assembled, how it boots (completely different
boot configuration files and scripting syntax breaking dual-boot with
other Linux OS's), and they will also have something to say about the
much more limited disk partitioning layouts available. I personally
like that such things are more constrained, and well defined, it makes
the system more reliable and easier to test. Users seem to get between
agitated and apoplectic when custom partitioning won't make them a
gingerbread house. So I think the details are going to matter.


-- 
Chris Murphy