5 ms·

I don't understand the marketing behind "single file" projects like this anymore. Sure, it was a very neat and useful thing to have back when everyone was deplo

I don't understand the marketing behind "single file" projects like this anymore. Sure, it was a very neat and useful thing to have back when everyone was deploying their sites by uploading in Filezilla. But today we have everything in a single container which seems far more useful and maintainable.

mjau-mjau 5y ago
What do you mean "have everything in a single container"? Many users want to view or manage some files in a folder, and then delete the app shortly after. It doesn't get easier than dropping a single file, and then deleting it afterwards.
- rovr138 5y ago
  When I’m working on something and need to poke around in a MySQL database, one of the things I rely on is adminer. One wget and I can log in graphically and see the database. Afterwards, I just delete and that’s it.
JD557 5y ago
I think it makes sense in this particular case. I was actually looking for something like this for a while. I just want a glorified `autoindex on`. I don't want to manage an extra container just for that. (I'm speaking in regards to the file viewer option, looks like there's also a file manager option on the pro version and I have a bit more mixed feeling regarding that)
axegon_ 5y ago
I think there's problem but it's elsewhere. Sure it's a single file, yes. However in order to run it you need a php interpreter, which I for example, do not have installed and an internet connection. But that would go for just about every scripting language in one form or another. Sure, just about every linux distribution has python for instance and same goes for macos afaik. This isn't the case for windows however(again afaik). Package it into a single binary file and I'd be all up for it: I do love AppImages.
- dspillett 5y ago
  > that would go for just about every scripting language in one form or another You could use bash and be supported on almost every unix-a-like OS¹, or plain-'ol sh for even wider compatibility. You'd need to configure CGI/FCGI as well as dropping the script(s) in, but you have to do similar work for PHP/python/other if you don't already have them installed and configured for the site/directory in question. [1] and others: it'll work with IIS if the server has a bash/sh interpreter² available [2] plus any externals that the script relies upon, of course
rovr138 5y ago
> back when everyone was deploying their sites by uploading in Filezilla There are a lot of people still doing this. Some of us have gotten away from it, but I support some people on the side that have multiple projects that still manage it this way and it works for them. I would not want to be the one to explain to them what docker is, how it works and how to use it.

mjau-mjau 5y ago

What do you mean "have everything in a single container"? Many users want to view or manage some files in a folder, and then delete the app shortly after. It doesn't get easier than dropping a single file, and then deleting it afterwards.

rovr138 5y ago
When I’m working on something and need to poke around in a MySQL database, one of the things I rely on is adminer. One wget and I can log in graphically and see the database. Afterwards, I just delete and that’s it.

JD557 5y ago

I think it makes sense in this particular case. I was actually looking for something like this for a while. I just want a glorified `autoindex on`. I don't want to manage an extra container just for that. (I'm speaking in regards to the file viewer option, looks like there's also a file manager option on the pro version and I have a bit more mixed feeling regarding that)

axegon_ 5y ago

I think there's problem but it's elsewhere. Sure it's a single file, yes. However in order to run it you need a php interpreter, which I for example, do not have installed and an internet connection. But that would go for just about every scripting language in one form or another. Sure, just about every linux distribution has python for instance and same goes for macos afaik. This isn't the case for windows however(again afaik). Package it into a single binary file and I'd be all up for it: I do love AppImages.

dspillett 5y ago
> that would go for just about every scripting language in one form or another You could use bash and be supported on almost every unix-a-like OS¹, or plain-'ol sh for even wider compatibility. You'd need to configure CGI/FCGI as well as dropping the script(s) in, but you have to do similar work for PHP/python/other if you don't already have them installed and configured for the site/directory in question. [1] and others: it'll work with IIS if the server has a bash/sh interpreter² available [2] plus any externals that the script relies upon, of course

rovr138 5y ago

> back when everyone was deploying their sites by uploading in Filezilla There are a lot of people still doing this. Some of us have gotten away from it, but I support some people on the side that have multiple projects that still manage it this way and it works for them. I would not want to be the one to explain to them what docker is, how it works and how to use it.