Discussion of Fedora Server use-cases

Simo Sorce simo at redhat.com
Mon Oct 28 14:18:39 UTC 2013

On Mon, 2013-10-28 at 14:11 +0000, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> On 10/28/2013 01:48 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > On Mon, 2013-10-28 at 13:32 +0000, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> >> On 10/28/2013 12:55 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> >>> == My initial thoughts ==
> >>> I am open to counter-arguments, naturally.
> >> I'm just going straight to the overlapping issues we have between the
> >> WG's as in we need to establish the fundamental approach of which
> >> applications belong to our group.
> >>
> >> Basically where I stand any application that runs daemon/service as in
> >> it's an application (or set of applications) that runs in the background
> >> waiting to be used, or carrying out essential tasks on an pyshical/vm or
> >> in container or in other words basically it's an systemd/upstart/sysv
> >> unit/service or an container that can be started and enable with the
> >> systemd and service commands and is not part of the desktop/graphical
> >> target ( such as gdm.service which thus makes it part of the workstation
> >> group ), as well is not part of the base/coreOS ( like device mapper etc
> >> ) it belongs within the server WG.
> > I tentatively agree, although I guess there may be desktop-oriented
> > daemons we may not care about. Say a desktop-oriented backup daemon,
> > that is sort of single user or anyway ill-suited for a multi-user
> > server.
> You never deploy a desktop on a server so I would say we would limit 
> this to a base/coreOS a set of administrative tools + a single 
> application and or a application stack and the way we would deliver the 
> products would be something that we would limit to netinstall + ks or 
> something that integrades well with provisioning tools

Sorry I am not sure what you mean here.
If you mean the Server image will never have a graphical UI I don't
think we are all on the same boat.

Not that I want to install such UI by default, but not all people are
comfortable managing headless servers, so the option almost certainly
needs to be there.

I think the cloud Product should probably be headless as it is a more
specialized thing.


Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York

More information about the server mailing list