this post was submitted on 22 Mar 2024
61 points (91.8% liked)

Selfhosted

40152 readers
435 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:

  1. Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.

  2. No spam posting.

  3. 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.

  4. Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.

  5. Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).

  6. No trolling.

Resources:

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

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Hi, I've been thinking for a few days whether I should learn Docker or Podman. I know that Podman is more FOSS and I like it more in theory, but maybe it's better to start with docker, for which there is a lot more tutorials. On the other hand, maybe it's better to straight up learn podman when I don't know any of the two and not having to change habits later. What do you think? For context, I know how containers works in theory, I know some linux I think well, but I never actually used docker nor podman. In another words: If I want to eventually end up with Podman, is it easier to start with docker and then learn Podman, or start with Podman right away? Thanks in advance

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TCB13@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago (2 children)

First of all they make the user dumber. Instead of learning something new, you blindly “compose pull & up” your way. Easy, but it’s dumbifier and that’s not a good thing

I don't like this Docker trend because, besides what you've said, it 1) leads you towards a dependence on property repositories and 2) robs you from the experience of learning Linux (more later on) but I it does lower the bar to newcomers and let's you setup something really fast. In my opinion you should be very skeptical about everything that is "sold to the masses", just go with a simple Debian system (command line only) SSH into it and install what you really need, take your time to learn Linux and whatnot.

there is a dangerous trend where projects only release containers, and that’s bad for freedom of choice (bare metal install, as complex as it might be, need to always be possible) and while I am aware that you can download an image and extract the files inside, that’s more an hack than a solution

And the second danger there is that when developers don't have to consider the setup of a their solution the code tends to be worse. Why bother with having single binaries, stuff that is easy to understand and properly document things when you can just pull 100 dependencies and compose files? :) This is the unfortunate reality of modern software.

Third, with containers you are forced to use whatever deployment the devs have chosen for you. Maybe I don’t want 10 postgres instances one for each service, or maybe I already have my nginx reverse proxy or so

See? Poorly written software. Not designed to be sane and reasonable and integrate with existing stuff.

But be aware that containers are not the solution to selfhosting-made-easy and, specifically, containers havebeen created to solve different issues than self-hosting!

Your article said it all and is very well written. Let me expand a bit into the "different issues":

The thing with Docker is that people don’t want to learn how to use Linux and are buying into an overhyped solution that makes their life easier without understanding the long term consequences. Most of the pro-Docker arguments go around security, reproducibility and that’s mostly BS because 1) systemd can provide as much isolation a docker containers and 2) there are other container solutions and nobody cares about them.

Companies such as Microsoft and GitHub are all about re-creating and re-configuring the way people develop software so everyone will be hostage of their platforms - that's why nowadays everything and everyone is pushing for Docker/DockerHub/Kubernetes, GitHub actions and whatnot. We now have a generation that doesn’t understand the basic of their tech stack, about networking, about DNS, about how to deploy a simple thing into a server that doesn’t use some Docker BS or isn’t a 3rd party cloud xyz deploy-from-github service.

Before anyone comments that Docker isn’t totally proprietary and there’s Podman consider the following: It doesn’t really matter if there are truly open-source and open ecosystems of containerization technologies. In the end people/companies will pick the proprietary / closed option just because “it’s easier to use” or some other specific thing that will be good on the short term and very bad on the long term.

Docker may make development and deployment very easy and lowered the bar for newcomers have the dark side of being designed to reconfigure and envelope the way development gets done so someone can profit from it. That is sad and above all set dangerous precedents and creates generations of engineers and developers that don’t have truly open tools like we did. There’s LOT of money into transitioning everyone to the “deploy-from-github-to-cloud-x-with-hooks” model so those companies will keep pushing for it.

At the end of the day technologies like Docker are about commoditizing development and about creating a negative feedback loop around it that never ends. Yes, I say commoditizing development because if you look at it those techs only make it easier for the entry level developer and companies instead of hiring developers for their knowledge and ability to develop they’re just hiring “cheap monkeys” that are able to configure those technologies and cloud platforms to deliver something.

Successful cloud companies are not longer about selling infrastructure, we're past that - the profit is now in transforming developer knowledge into products/services that can be bought with a click.

[–] Shimitar@feddit.it 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

There is a lot of truth in your words.

Unfortunately, things will not change.

At least let's use podman and I will keep fighting for containers being at least optional.

[–] TCB13@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

At least let’s use podman and I will keep fighting for containers being at least optional.

Well, systemd can also provide as much isolation and security. It's another option... :) as well as LXC.

[–] richmondez@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

You can host your own container repository and write your own docker files to control all your own deployments though, it's not like your have to be at the behest of any company to use containerization to make your own life easier with the benefits of reproducibility.

Do you write all the programs you use too or do you rely on the work of others and are drawing an arbitrary line in the sand when it comes to containerising those apps?

[–] TCB13@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Yes, I can, but this not about what I or you can do. This is about what the actually do, the direction technology is taking and the lack of freedoms that follows. Distribution is important.

[–] richmondez@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Do you object to software repositories that install dependencies precompiled?

Your "lines in the sand" seem idiosyncratic and arbitrary. You are happy presumably to use precompiled software or at the very least rely on software written by others which is already ceding some freedom but then claim that using systems that package all the dependencies into a single runnable unit is too much and cedes too much freedom?

I agree that containers are allowing software projects to push release engineering and testing down stream and cut corners a bit but that was ever the case with precomplied releases that were only tested on a single version of a single distro.

[–] TCB13@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

Look this isn't even about "drawing lines in the sand", I do understand why use containers and I use them in certain circumstances, usually not Docker but that's more due to the requirements in said circumstances and not about personal decision.

Do you object to software repositories that install dependencies precompiled? (...) but then claim that using systems that package all the dependencies into a single runnable unit is too much and cedes too much freedom?

No and I never claimed that. I'm perfectly happy to use a single-binary statically linked applications, in fact I use quite a few such as FileBrowser and Syncthing and they're very good and reasonable software. Docker however isn't one of those cases or, at least, not just that.

I agree that containers are allowing software projects to push release engineering and testing down stream and cut corners a bit

Docker is being used and abused for cutting corners and now we've developers that are just unable to deploy any piece of software without it. They've zero understanding of infrastructure and anything related to it and this has a big negative impact on the way they develop software. I'm not just talking about FOSS projects, we see this in the enterprise and bootcamps as well.

Docker is a powerful thing, so powerful it opens the door for poorly put together software to exist and succeed as it abstracts people from having to understand architectures, manually install and configure dependencies and things that anyone sane would be able to do in a lifetime. This is why we sometimes see "solutions" that run 10 instances of some database or some other abnormality.

Besides all that, it adds the half-open repository situation on top. While we can host repositories and use open ones the most common thing is to see everything on Docker Hub and that might turn into a CentOS style situation anytime.