|
I agree as stated in my first post being able to develop on atomic is something I have wanted myself. Screen itself okay, but how many more packages are needed to truly develop on atomic like the post I responded to indicated, so in turn I gave up what would have been a +1 from me. “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. _Trevor ” Sent from Surface Pro From: Trevor Jay Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 8:45 AM To: Stephen Major Cc: atomic-devel projectatomic io On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 09:08:37PM -0700, Stephen Major wrote: > I wasn't saying that adding screen by itself was a huge security decision as you have pointed out in comparison; docker itself has a history. > > What I was pointing out was my concerns of more and more packages being added to atomic increasing the attack footprint. > > Today the discussion is about screen tomorrow it is about another and everyone uses the same lame comparison to the security of docker. > You're absolutely right about attack surface size. Mostly I was making a depressing joke about the existential horror at the heart of containers ATM. Your point about "always needing another package" is well taken. At issue is that screen can be considered somewhat different than most "other package" candidates (being a meta-tool) and is---currently---fairly hard to utilize from a container (again as apposed to other nice-to-haves). _Trevor -- Sent from my Amiga 500. (Trevor Jay) Red Hat Product Security gpg-key: https://ssl.montrose.is/chat/gpg-key |