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
Do you selfhost stuff on bare metal? I feel like most projects provide containers as their officially supported packages.
They’re being useless, but what I do is use Proxmox and just install my stuff each in their own LXC
Same, proxmox + lxc is a gift.
Yes, and this is even better.
You’re using LXC… so you may want to learn about Incus/LXD that was made by the same people who made LXC, can work as a full replacement for Proxmox in most scenarios. Here a few reasons:
Why not try it? :)
I use distro packages. In the rare case something isn’t packaged yet, I package it myself. And for the isolation, systemd services can do most of the things docker can if you need (check systemd-analyze security).
For just hosting services that can be done instead with normal system services, docker makes your setup a lot more complex (especially on the networking side), for little if any gain. Unless I need to spin up something multiple times temporarily on demand or something has a hard dependency on it, I’m not going to bother with it anymore.
No, I use an operating system.
Not sure why all the down votes without any explanation.
I too don’t use docker for my services. I run Plex on my Arch install via the provided AUR package. 🤷♂️ Nobody told me I needed to do otherwise, with docker or anything else. Not sure why that would be better in any way. It could hardly be more performant? And it’s as simple as enabling the service and forgetting about it.
Maybe they’re having issues with his answer of “using an OS” which implies other people are not? IDK.
But as to you if you’re running just one or two services from a machine you also use for other stuff using packages and systems services is perfectly fine. If you have dedicated hardware for it (or plan on having it), it starts to make sense to look at ways of making things easier for yourself in the long run. Docker solves lots of issues no one’s talking about (because no one is facing them anymore), e.g.:
There’s probably many more reasons to use docker. Plus once you’ve learned it it’s very easy for small self-hosted stuff so there’s really no reason not to use it. Every time I see someone saying they don’t use docker and don’t understand why people use it I’m a bit baffled, it’s like someone claiming he doesn’t understand why people use knifes to cut bread when the two-handed axe he uses for chopping wood works (like, yes, it does work, but it’s obviously not the best tool for the job)
Are you aware that all those isolation, networking, firewall etc. issues can be solved by simply learning how to write proper systemd units for your services. Start by reading this: https://www.redhat.com/sysadmin/mastering-systemd
Yes I’m aware of that, having written several systemd units for my own services in the past. But you’re not likely to get any of that by default when you just install from the package manager as it’s the discussion here, and most people will just use the default systemd unit provided, and in the vast majority of cases they don’t provide the same level of isolation the default docker compose file does.
We’re talking about ease of setting things up, anything you can do in docker you can do without, it’s just a matter of how easy it is to get good standards. A similar argument to what you made would be that you can also install multiple versions of databases directly on your OS.
For example I’m 99% sure the person I replied to has this file for service:
[Unit] Description=Plex Media Server After=network.target network-online.target [Service] # In this file, set LANG and LC_ALL to en_US.UTF-8 on non-English systems to avoid mystery crashes. EnvironmentFile=/etc/conf.d/plexmediaserver ExecStart=/usr/lib/plexmediaserver/Plex\x20Media\x20Server SyslogIdentifier=plexmediaserver Type=simple User=plex Group=plex Restart=on-failure RestartSec=5 StartLimitInterval=60s StartLimitBurst=3 [Install] WantedBy=multi-user.targetSome good user isolation, but almost nothing else, and I doubt that someone who argued that installing from the package manager is easier will run
systemctl editon what he just installed to add extra security features.Can confirm, have this file. Can confirm, will not learn unit files because I don’t know enough to know the provided one is not sufficient, because the wiki has no such mention. You are spot on.
Btw I don’t mean any of that as an insult or anything of the sort, I do the same with the services I install from the package manager even though I’m aware of those security flags, what they do and how to add them.
None taken.
This is changing… Fedora is planning to enable the various systemd services hardening flags by default and so is Debian.
Yes, but at what cost? At the cost of being overly dependent on some cloud service / proprietary solution like DockerHub / Kubernetes? Remember that the alternative is packages from your Linux repository that can be easily mirrored, archived offline and whatnot.
You’re not forced to use dockerhub or kubernetes, in fact I use neither. Also if a team chooses to host their images on dockerhub that’s their choice, it’s like saying git is bad because Microsoft owns GitHub, or that installing software X from the repos is better than compiling because you need to use GitHub to get the code.
Also docker images can also be easily mirrored, archived offline etc, and they will keep working after the packages you archived stop because the base version of some library got updated.
Yet people chose to use those proprietary solutions and platforms because its easier. This is just like chrome, there are other browser, yet people go for chrome.
It’s significantly hard to archive and have funcional offline setups with Docker than it is with an APT repository. It’s like an hack not something it was designed for.
Pretty good points. I especially like the no-root and isolation aspects, as well as the reproducibility aspect.
But I don’t have enough services to warrant learning docker at a deeper level yet, and they aren’t exposed on the internet yet either. Just local services so far. But all of those points are good to consider. Thanks for replying, friend! 🤝
^ https://lemmy.world/comment/8723816
People love to hate on people who don’t care for containers.
Also, I’m guessing that nobody here actually knows what it means to run code on bare metal.
What you’re doing is fine. No need to make life harder for yourself.
Maybe so. 😕
I’m guessing it means something slightly different than what most people think, namely to just run it in the OS. Would you explain to me what it really means?
Bare metal would mean without an OS to manage peripherals, resources, even other tasks - like you might find on a resource-constrained embedded system.
Makes sense, yeah. Thanks!
The OS is in between the service and the bare metal. Something like OPNsense can be said to be running on bare metal because the OS and the firewall service are so intertwined. However, something like firewalld isn’t running on the bare metal because it’s just a service of the operating system.
That’s how I understand it anyway, I’m not a pro