Selfhosted
A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.
Rules:
-
Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.
-
No spam posting.
-
Posts have to be centered around self-hosting. There are other communities for discussing hardware or home computing. If it's not obvious why your post topic revolves around selfhosting, please include details to make it clear.
-
Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.
-
Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).
-
No trolling.
Resources:
- awesome-selfhosted software
- awesome-sysadmin resources
- Self-Hosted Podcast from Jupiter Broadcasting
Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.
Questions? DM the mods!
view the rest of the comments
Because it's easier to tell someone "use this docker image" than it is to tell them "go through all of these thousands of steps to get this service working".
The main reason I use containers for my personal things is easy to setup and to migrate, those are huge points, and the added complexity is not that much, in fact I would argue it's less complicated to figure out why a docker image is not running than figure out why a service stopped responding.
Agreed, sure scaling is one factor, but I don't think this person has ever really dived into why containers are slick. Why you aren't tracking down what dependency hell caused your app to crash. Conflicting cuda versions. Two apps using the same port. Trying to decipher a language you've never used before
Whenever I hear "containers are too complex" or "I don't like containers" I read it as "I don't understand containers". There are some real flaws to them, but no self respecting ops engineer would ever say "containers have no value beyond scaling"
This is a false dichotomy. Just because containers make it easy to ship software, doesn't mean other means can't be equally easy.
NixOS achieves a greater ease of deployment than docker-compose and the like without any containers involved for instance.
NixOS packages only work with NixOS system. They're harder to setup than just copying a docker-compose file over and they do use container technology. If the idea is to remove complexity from the setup, NixOS goes in the opposite direction.
Also without containers you don't solve the biggest problems such as incompatible database versions between multiple services.
I stand by what I said, I can give a 2 step tutorial on setting up any docker system (copy this compose file, run up on it), anything simpler than that wouldn't be as robust in terms of configurations.
It's interesting how none of that is true.
Nixpkgs work on practically any Linux kernel.
Whether NixOS modules are easier to set up and maintain than unsustainably copying docker-compose files is subjective.
Neither Nixpkgs nor NixOS use container technology for their core functionality.
NixOS has the
nixos-containerframework to optionally run NixOS inside of containerised environments (systemd-nspawn) but that's rather niche actually. Nixpkgs does make use of bubblewrap for a small set of stubborn packages but it's also not at all core to how it works.Totally beside the point though; even if you don't think NixOS is simpler, that still doesn't mean containers are the only possible mean by which you could possibly achieve "easy" deployments.
Ah, so you have indeed not even done the bare minimum of research into what Nix/NixOS are before you dismissed it. Nice going there.
Docker compose is about the opposite of a robust configuration system.