Yes make this an atomic post.
On 06/22/2015 10:52 AM, t...@redhat.com wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 09:28:53AM -0400, John Mark Walker wrote:
>> I agree that it's poor form to send a private URL to a public list. We can
>> probably replicate elsewhere - although not sure when.
>>
> No that's
On 06/22/2015 09:53 AM, t...@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 08:49:16AM -0400, Joe Brockmeier wrote:
I might just steal this idea... after Summit.
I'd like to help you steal it. :) Already, there are a few patches I'm working
on for Docker to help with this... ...possibly stupid b
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 08:55:09AM -0400, John Mark Walker wrote:
> Interesting! Now I'm curious how this would look packaged and distributed vi
> Atomic App:
>
> http://github.com/projectatomic/nulecule
> http://github.com/projectatomic/atomicapp
>
Right now I'm using bash scripts, but I've be
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 08:49:16AM -0400, Joe Brockmeier wrote:
> I might just steal this idea... after Summit.
>
I'd like to help you steal it. :) Already, there are a few patches I'm working
on for Docker to help with this... ...possibly stupid but still interesting use
case.
_Trevor
--
Sen
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 09:30:01AM -0400, Joe Brockmeier wrote:
> Trevor, can we work this up as a post for Project Atomic? Anything here
> that's non-suitable? (I don't think so...)
>
That would be awesome. I don't think there should be anything that wouldn't be
suitable (though it is a bit lon
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 09:19:56AM -0400, Matt Micene wrote:
> Is there a link that works for those of us outside the RHT firewall? I've
> been slowly poking at some of Jessie Frazelle's containerized desktop work
> on a Fedora workstation and would like to see more examples.
>
The link only wor
On 06/22/2015 09:19 AM, Matt Micene wrote:
> Is there a link that works for those of us outside the RHT firewall?
> I've been slowly poking at some of Jessie Frazelle's containerized
> desktop work on a Fedora workstation and would like to see more examples.
Ah, nuts. Didn't notice that.
Trevor,
My bad - I thought that was viewable outside of the firewall.
I agree that it's poor form to send a private URL to a public list. We can
probably replicate elsewhere - although not sure when.
-JM
- Original Message -
> Is there a link that works for those of us outside the RHT firew
Is there a link that works for those of us outside the RHT firewall? I've
been slowly poking at some of Jessie Frazelle's containerized desktop work
on a Fedora workstation and would like to see more examples.
- Matt M
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 8:49 AM, Joe Brockmeier wrote:
> On 06/19/2015 10:2
Adding container-tools - this is the sort of thing that can get people excited
about packaging container-based applications.
-JM
- Original Message -
> Resurrecting this long dead thread as my opinion has changed. Now I'm using
> Atomic full time as my only operating system at the offi
Interesting! Now I'm curious how this would look packaged and distributed vi
Atomic App:
http://github.com/projectatomic/nulecule
http://github.com/projectatomic/atomicapp
-JM
- Original Message -
> Resurrecting this long dead thread as my opinion has changed. Now I'm using
> Atomic
On 06/19/2015 10:29 PM, t...@redhat.com wrote:
> Resurrecting this long dead thread as my opinion has changed. Now I'm using
> Atomic full time as my only operating system at the office:
>
> http://file.bne.redhat.com/~tjay/serve/markdown/The_Atomic_Desktop/
>
> My feeling now is that Atomic
Truly awesome! When I get done with my current project I think I'll
try this as a virtual machine on Windows 8.1 Client Hyper-V. I don't
actually need GNOME for what I want to do - just Firefox and the
minimal Fedora desktop (openbox WM by default, but I'll probably try
LXDE, Enlightenment or Windo
On 04/22/2015 05:36 PM, Daniel J Walsh wrote:
>
>
> On 04/22/2015 05:22 PM, sma...@gmail.com wrote:
>> 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 l
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 06:31:07PM -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
> [...] while you *can* run `screen` or `tmux` from inside a Docker container,
> it has many flaws, among them that a major point of the tool is to be able
> to run commands on the host - so you need to purely escape. Second, the
> life
On 04/22/2015 05:22 PM, sma...@gmail.com wrote:
> 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 g
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
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
4/21/2015 7:16 PM
To: "Colin Walters"
Cc: "atomic-devel@projectatomic.io"
Subject: Re: [atomic-devel] Screen in Atomic
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 06:31:07PM -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
> [...]
> One thing I should emphasize though is that while you *can* run `screen`
&
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 10:16 PM, Trevor Jay wrote:
> However, let's be real. If we were to prioritize feature addition by
> likelihood of security issues... Atomic wouldn't have Docker. :)
Sorry, but I had to reply to "lol+1" this comment. I enjoyed this, cheers!
As an aside, I'm kind of a fan
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 06:31:07PM -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
> [...]
> One thing I should emphasize though is that while you *can* run `screen`
> or `tmux` from inside a Docker container, it has many flaws, among them
> that a major point of the tool is to be able to run commands on the host
> -
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015, at 01:10 PM, Stephen Major wrote:
>
> The please add feature x will never stop and it is a slippery slope
> that has already been asked many times
This is true, however...progress has been made on using more privileged
containers for some of the things that would traditionall
0/GNU-Screen.html
http://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list/vendor_id-11380/product_id-20683/Nicholas-Marriott-Tmux.html
-Original Message-
From: "Trevor Jay"
Sent: 4/20/2015 9:37 AM
To: "Joe Brockmeier"
Cc: "atomic-devel@projectatomic.io"
Subject: Re:
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 12:54 PM, Trevor Jay wrote:
> Given that space constraints suggest that only one multiplexer be included
> (if at all), I'd say it makes sense to go with the more flexible/feature-rich
> of the two, which is certainly tmux.
I disagree that the more flexible/feature-rich
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 12:48 PM, Joe Brockmeier wrote:
>
> 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
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 12:40:58PM -0400, James wrote:
> This argument doesn't make sense. It's the same as saying:
>
> "Nano and NeoVim are more modern than Emacs. All emacs and vim users
> should switch." :P
>
Of course I'm not arguing for novelty or modernity's sake. I'm typing this in
mutt (
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 othe
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 12:37 PM, Trevor Jay wrote:
> Not at all. Others have mentioned that some debugging tools haven't made the
> switch yet. Ignoring that, I'd agree that tmux--being more modern---makes
> more sense.
This argument doesn't make sense. It's the same as saying:
"Nano and NeoV
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 11:06:53AM -0400, Joe Brockmeier wrote:
> Other than personal preference, is there a reason Screen is needed
> rather than tmux?
>
Not at all. Others have mentioned that some debugging tools haven't made the
switch yet. Ignoring that, I'd agree that tmux--being more moder
On 04/19/2015 09:54 AM, Trevor Jay wrote:
> I've switched to using atomic-fed as my go-to development distro and
> have taken to just SSHing in multiple times. Real screen would be much
> more sane.
Other than personal preference, is there a reason Screen is needed
rather than tmux?
Note - we are
I can understand being afraid of a "slippery slope" of package inclusion but
screen/tmux are unique in that, as terminal managment technologies, running
them within a container isn't really functionally equivalent to having them
actually on the host.
I've switched to using atomic-fed as my go-t
On 17 April 2015 at 16:25, Jeremy Eder wrote:
> From: "James"
>> I actually prefer screen, and there are a number of tools that don't
>> work with tmux yet. vscreen (vagrant screen) is one example, and
>> there's no tmux version yet! Also screen is my personal preference.
>> Let's not be dogmatic
- Original Message -
> From: "James"
> To: atomic-devel@projectatomic.io
> Cc: go...@redhat.com
> Sent: Friday, April 17, 2015 4:18:18 PM
> Subject: [atomic-devel] Screen in Atomic
>
> RE:
> https://lists.projectatomic.io/projectatomic-archives/ato
RE:
https://lists.projectatomic.io/projectatomic-archives/atomic-devel/2015-April/msg00036.html
There are two goals:
1) Having Atomic get used and have people get comfortable with it
2) Having it be extremely minimal
While I think #2 is a great goal, I think #1 is more important *now*,
as witho
34 matches
Mail list logo
