Somewhere between Linux woes, gaming, open source, 3D printing, recreational coding, and occasional ranting.
🇬🇧 / 🇩🇪
docker ps or Portainer as a nice web-UI wrapper around the Docker commands are the two main use cases with Docker I have have on a regular basis.
No, thank you. I am not going to maintain fifty containers and fifty + X volumes for just a handful of applications and will alway prefer self-contained applications over applications that spread over multiple containers for no real reason.
See it in a broader scope. If I’d only host Lemmy with is multiple mandatory things, I couldn’t care less, but I already have some other applications that I run via Docker. Fortunately I was able to keep the footprint small, no multiple containers or volumes for one application, but as said: those exist. And they would clutter the setup and make it harder to maintain an manage.
I also stand by my point that it is counter-intuitive to have multiple containers and volumes for just one single application.
To me, the point of Docker is having one container for one specific application. And I see the database as part of the application. As well as all other things needed to run that application.
Since we’re here, lets take Lemmy for example. It wants 6 different containers with a total of 7 different volumes (and I need to manually download and edit multiple files before even touching anything Docker-related).
In the end I have lemmy, lemmy-ui, pictrs, postgres, postfix-relay, and an additional reverse proxy for one single application (Lemmy). I do not want or need or use any of the containers for anything else except Lemmy.
There are a lot of other applications that want me to install a database container, a reverse proxy, and the actual application container, where I will never ever need, or want, or use any of the additional containers for anything else except this one application.
So in the end I have a dozen of containers and the same amount of volumes just to run 2-3 applications, causing a metric shit-ton of maintenance effort and update time.
To me the number one thing is, that it is easy to setup via Docker. One container, one network (ideally no network but just using the default one), one storage volume, no additional manual configuration when composing the container.
No, I don’t want a second container for a database. No I don’t want to set up multiple networks. Yes, I already have a reverse proxy doing the routing and certificates. No, I don’t need 3 volumes for just one application.
Please just don’t clutter my environment.
The ONLY connection I want my mail client to make, is the one to my configured mail server.
EVERY other connection it makes is to be seen as malicious.
Now that K-9 was killed by a for-profit corporation: What good mail clients are out there?
I think the reason is stupid and it is contrary to what I expect from dockerized applications.