On 04/20/2015 12:37 PM, Trevor Jay wrote: > Yes and no. Sure Atomic's main use will be as cloud host, but why not > develop your containers on the host you'll ultimately be using? Plus > Atomic is a very good *as an OS* full stop. I actually prefer > virtualizing and working with Atomic to the other minimal OS's or even > real Fedora. I don't think I'll be alone in this, especially when you > consider the "I use OSX and virtualize Linux" crowd. Once you embrace > the "everything in a container" model of Atomic, it's a really good > experience in and of itself. The main reason is size - if you're deploying quite a lot of the images, size does start to matter. We should have an Atomic host that's as small as possible. That doesn't rule out a separate build for developers or whatever that uses Atomic/rpm-ostree, but I strongly feel we should have an Atomic Host image that's as small as possible with the idea that users are never directly SSH'ing into the image.* (* Barring troubleshooting.) -- Joe Brockmeier | Principal Cloud & Storage Analyst jzb redhat com | http://community.redhat.com/ Twitter: @jzb | http://dissociatedpress.net/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature