On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 12:07 PM, Matthew Miller
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 04:51:15PM +0100, Joe Brockmeier wrote:
> > 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?
> 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?
So, another option here is to twist an early decision we made by 90°.
Switch from Cloud, Server, Workstation to Atomic, Server, and
Workstation (sorry, branding/design team!). Atomic can run on bare
metal, and we could start making Fedora Server cloud image and push
those to Amazon, etc., and this could serve as the generic
building-block cloud image people want. It'd probably be bigger, but
that's okay because we'd know _why_. (And I hope with the improvements
we're making on size in general, it wouldn't be too much bigger.)
It sounds like "atomic" is more of a flavor than a product. There's a
proposal on desktop@ for Atomic Workstation. Is the Server WG
interested in an atomic variant as well?