On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 7:03 AM, Josh Boyer <jwboyer(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 9:46 AM, Matthias Clasen
> A topic I would like to start discussing is Workstation vs Atomic. It
> may be too early to put on the agenda yet. I haven't talked to Colin
> about it and don't have a very concrete proposal, but I think we
> should have it on our long-term roadmap that we'll end up with a 3
> layer architecture of host (ideally an atomically updated image),
> runtime and applications (see alex' work on concrete thoughts about
> the runtime+app layers).
(I think you meant Workstation + Atomic, not vs. ;) )
I can see that being an option as well, but we really need to figure
out the "user wants to locally modify the image" problem. Having to
rebuild an entire new Atomic image for Workstation just to install
e.g. vim-enhanced system-wide seems excessive. It would also then
deviate from the official Workstation Atomic image.
People are used to yum/dnf install working. I think it needs to
continue to work in some fashion before we can really look at adopting
Atomic. It is an intriguing idea though, and I can see how it would
help both QA and the "too many updates" problem.
desktop mailing list
As a Workstation remixer who is building on Docker and testing Atomic
I welcome this discussion. ;-) But a huge part of my targeted user
base is on Windows and without a solid partnership for Atomic with
Microsoft and Hyper-V, they're going to use Boot2Docker / VirtualBox.
My next release on Fedora 22 may not even be a remix. I'm leaning
towards "install Fedora Workstation and run these scripts" rather than
creating an ISO and an OVA.
It's not Fedora that's the problem - it's the upstream components that
aren't packaged for Fedora / supported on Fedora by the upstream. I
may just push that stuff off into Docker images which most likely
won't be built on Fedora's Docker image base.
OSJourno: Robust Power Tools for Digital Journalists
Remember, if you're traveling to Bactria, Hump Day is Tuesday and Thursday.