On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 10:40 AM Michael Gugino <mgug...@redhat.com> wrote:

> I tried FCoS prior to the release by using the assembler on github.
> Too much secret sauce in how to actually construct an image.  I
> thought atomic was much more polished, not really sure what the
> value-add of ignition is in this usecase.  Just give me a way to build
> simple image pipelines and I don't need ignition.  To that end, there
> should be an okd 'spin' of FCoS IMO.  Atomic was dead simple to build
> ostree repos for.  I'd prefer to have ignition be opt-in.  Since we're
> supporting the mcd-once-from to parse ignition on RHEL, we don't need
> ignition to actually install okd.  To me, it seems FCoS was created
> just to have a more open version of RHEL CoreOS, and I'm not sure FCoS
> actually solves anyone's needs relative to atomic.  It feels like we
> jumped the shark on this one.

That’s feedback that’s probably something you should share in the fcos
forums as well.  I will say that I find the OCP + RHEL experience
unsatisfying and doesn't truly live up to what RHCOS+OCP can do (since it
lacks the key features like ignition and immutable hosts).  Are you saying
you'd prefer to have more of a "DIY kube bistro" than the "highly
opinionated, totally integrated OKD" proposal?  I think that's a good
question the community should get a chance to weigh in on (in my original
email that was the implicit question - do you want something that looks
like OCP4, or something that is completely different).

> I'd like to see OKD be distro-independent.  Obviously Fedora should be
> our primary target (I'd argue Fedora over FCoS), but I think it should
> be true upstream software in the sense that apache2 http server is
> upstream and not distro specific.  To this end, perhaps it makes sense
> to consume k/k instead of openshift/origin for okd.  OKD should be
> free to do wild and crazy things independently of the enterprise
> product.  Perhaps there's a usecase for treating k/k vs
> openshift/origin as a swappable base layer.

That’s even more dramatic a change from OKD even as it was in 3.x.  I’d be
happy to see people excited about reusing cvo / mcd and be able to mix and
match, but most of the things here would be a huge investment to build.  In
my original email I might call this the “I want to build my own distro" -
if that's what people want to build, I think we can do things to enable
it.  But it would probably not be "openshift" in the same way.

> It would be nice to have a more native kubernetes place to develop our
> components against so we can upstream them, or otherwise just build a
> solid community around how we think kubernetes should be deployed and
> consumed.  Similar to how Fedora has a package repository, we should
> have a Kubernetes component repository (I realize operatorhub fulfulls
> some of this, but I'm talking about a place for OLM and things like
> MCD to live).

MCD is really tied to the OS.  The idea of a generic MCD seems like it
loses the value of MCD being specific to an OS.

I do think there are two types of components we have - things designed to
work well with kube, and things designed to work well with "openshift the
distro".  The former can be developed against Kube (like operator hub /
olm) but the latter doesn't really make sense to develop against unless it
matches what is being built.  In that vein, OKD4 looking not like OCP4
wouldn't benefit you or the components.

> I think we could integrate with existing package managers via a
> 'repo-in-a-container' type strategy for those not using ostree.

A big part of openshift 4 is "we're tired of managing machines".  It sounds
like you are arguing for "let people do whatever", which is definitely
valid (but doesn't sound like openshift 4).

> As far as slack vs IRC, I vote IRC or any free software solution (but
> my preference is IRC because it's simple and I like it).
dev mailing list

Reply via email to