[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Follow up on OKD 4

On 7/25/19 6:51 AM, Clayton Coleman wrote:
> 1. Openshift 4 isn’t flexible in the ways people want (Ie you want to
> add an rpm to the OS to get a kernel module, or you want to ship a
> complex set of config and managing things with mcd looks too hard)
> 2. You want to build and maintain these things yourself, so the “just
> works” mindset doesn’t appeal.

FWIW, 2.5 years ago when we were exploring having a specific
Atomic+Openshift distro for Kubernetes, we did a straw poll of Fedora
Cloud users.  We found that 2/3 of respondees wanted a complete package
(that is, OKD+Atomic) that installed and "just worked" out of the box,
and far fewer folks wanted to hack their own.  We never had such a
release due to insufficient engineering resources (and getting stuck
behind the complete rewrite of the Fedora build pipelines), but that was
the original goal.

Things may have changed in the interim, but I think that a broad user
survey would still find a strong audience for a "just works" distro in

Josh Berkus
Kubernetes Community
Red Hat OSAS

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]