Selfhosted

39435 readers

6 users here now

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:

Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Selfhosted photo manager kind of like Jellyfin (sopuli.xyz)

submitted 8 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

43 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Ideally, there'd be a simple RPM installer compatible with Alma 9 that I can point to a samba share that holds all the photos, kind of like what I do with Jellyfin. Also nice if it uses an otherwise unused port or I can easily set what port it uses.

My googling is finding a bunch of docker stuff, which always seems needlessly complicated to me vs an RPM... I'm also using a low powered x86 tiny computer to front JellyFin and would like to host this on the same computer vs needing another server.

Any ideas?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago

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.

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-container framework 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.

Also without containers you don’t solve the biggest problems such as incompatible database versions between multiple services.

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.

as robust in terms of configurations

Docker compose is about the opposite of a robust configuration system.