In general, I'm pretty happy about this. The more I used Atomic Host, the more I liked it. While it was a pretty dramatic departure from Fedora's dnf/rpm world,

In general, I'm pretty happy about this. The more I used Atomic Host, the more I liked it. While it was a pretty dramatic departure from Fedora's dnf/rpm world, I really like how rpm-ostree handled the Atomic update/rollback stuff. I thought it was a nice middle ground between a traditional Linux distro and Container Linux's "just slap a new image down to disk for upgrades". I think there's a time and place for both and Atomic Host had a nice merging. Container Linux with the rpm-ostree tooling should be really nice for orgs that want to customize their distributions. I'm only a novice Ignition user though, so I'd appreciate it if anyone could tell me what benefit it has over kickstart for provisioning nodes and clusters that makes Red Hat want to keep using it. Kickstart clearly has way more configurability for deciding how you want the host to be provisioned (at the expense of added complexity), so the only place I see Ignition adding value is that it's a really easy way to group nodes and assign roles by hostname, like a lightweight Cobbler install or something. Am I missing something else?