4 ms·

I am really happy to see something like this. This is not a criticism of the project. Rather, I lament that more-and-more web-based projects document only a D

I am really happy to see something like this. This is not a criticism of the project. Rather, I lament that more-and-more web-based projects document only a Docker-centered install process for self-hosting as opposed to the process of installing from source. This goes strongly against the spirit of self-hosting where you know what you're running and you see the steps and all the integrations that are needed, including any reliance on third-party services that may come back to bite you. I feel like Docker-based installs are closer to binary, closed-source installs than they are to open-source, compile-or-build-from-source ones in how much they hide how the program works and limits where and how you can run the application. I'd love to hear points for against this, because I think this may also just be me yelling at a cloud like an old man now a days. Edited for clarity.

user61129028 3y ago
> This goes strongly against the spirit of self-hosting where you know what you're running and you see the steps and all the integrations that are needed, including any reliance on third-party services that may come back to bite you. No it doesn't. Just read the Dockerfile, it's self documenting and contains all the build steps.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- diordiderot 3y ago
  Or to put it nicely. If you don't want to run docker you can read the Dockerfile as it will contain all of the build step. Then you can enter everything yourself manually.
  - evilduck 3y ago
    Most of the time a Dockerfile is a very useful living installation reference documentation, but it's not guaranteed. It's entirely possible to encounter a Dockerfile that's just copying in binaries built outside of Docker or was a published image capture of hand installed stuff that is just being referenced in downstream images.
epgui 3y ago
> This goes strongly against the spirit of self-hosting where you know what you're running and you see the steps and all the integrations that are needed, including any reliance on third-party services that may come back to bite you. Dockerized apps are typically just as transparent, so that's a bit of a non-argument IMO. Their main advantages are portability, reproducibility, and security.
- theK 3y ago
  This depends on whether the Dockerfile is available somewhere right?
  - koili_ 3y ago
    Not necessarily. It is certainly easier to read a dockerfile, but there are tools like https://github.com/wagoodman/dive https://github.com/wagoodman/dive (im sure there are others) that allow you to inspect images themselves in a very detailed manner.
    - theK 3y ago
      I was certain there where ways to reconstruct the Dockerfile but wasn't aware that tools like this existed. Thanks for the link!
  - epgui 3y ago
    I don't think so, and (honest question) isn't a dockerfile always available somehow from somewhere?
    - evilduck 3y ago
      Yeah but it doesn't mean they're useful as non-Docker build steps for reproducing an image. For example: https://hub.docker.com/layers/library/mysql/latest/images/sha256-13e429971e970ebcb7bc611de52d71a3c444247dc67cf7475a02718f6a5ef559?context=explore https://hub.docker.com/layers/library/mysql/latest/images/sh... "ADD file:e15c235506d8dd134e69d458a7c0afefef1522e9d0cfb28e3538760ddf032785" isn't much help in installing MySQL on a bare metal server. It's also not something commonly done (I've never seen a project do it), but you can also just push around a very simple base image like a plain Debian image and then move around an image's runtime filesystem through `docker export` as .tar.gz which could have been crafted by someone who started an interactive shell session and just manually performed some install steps without recording what was being done. It's still technically a containerized system but it does obscure or omit a lot of the value proposition.
psnehanshu 3y ago
I disagree with your argument, but I won't reply to that as there are other replies I agree with. However, where did you find the steps to install this with Docker? I can't find it.
- vineyardmike 3y ago
  https://docs.bigcapital.ly/docs/deployment/docker https://docs.bigcapital.ly/docs/deployment/docker There is a docker-compose file at the root of the repository, which gets you most of the way there. But the above link will undoubtably be more helpful.
paulnpace 3y ago
I think it goes against the spirit of FOSS, as docker is all but a proprietary Linux format, and definitely not POSIX(-ish) compliant. As I prefer using OpenBSD for self-hosting (and I speculate that if more self-hosters learned OpenBSD, they likely would also prefer it), I am acutely aware of not only how Docker has gradually taken over nearly all new FOSS projects, but also how many people involved in FOSS projects generally assume GNU / Linux as a prerequisite to all FOSS projects.

user61129028 3y ago

> This goes strongly against the spirit of self-hosting where you know what you're running and you see the steps and all the integrations that are needed, including any reliance on third-party services that may come back to bite you. No it doesn't. Just read the Dockerfile, it's self documenting and contains all the build steps.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
diordiderot 3y ago
Or to put it nicely. If you don't want to run docker you can read the Dockerfile as it will contain all of the build step. Then you can enter everything yourself manually.
- evilduck 3y ago
  Most of the time a Dockerfile is a very useful living installation reference documentation, but it's not guaranteed. It's entirely possible to encounter a Dockerfile that's just copying in binaries built outside of Docker or was a published image capture of hand installed stuff that is just being referenced in downstream images.

epgui 3y ago

> This goes strongly against the spirit of self-hosting where you know what you're running and you see the steps and all the integrations that are needed, including any reliance on third-party services that may come back to bite you. Dockerized apps are typically just as transparent, so that's a bit of a non-argument IMO. Their main advantages are portability, reproducibility, and security.

theK 3y ago
This depends on whether the Dockerfile is available somewhere right?
- koili_ 3y ago
  Not necessarily. It is certainly easier to read a dockerfile, but there are tools like https://github.com/wagoodman/dive https://github.com/wagoodman/dive (im sure there are others) that allow you to inspect images themselves in a very detailed manner.
  - theK 3y ago
    I was certain there where ways to reconstruct the Dockerfile but wasn't aware that tools like this existed. Thanks for the link!
- epgui 3y ago
  I don't think so, and (honest question) isn't a dockerfile always available somehow from somewhere?
  - evilduck 3y ago
    Yeah but it doesn't mean they're useful as non-Docker build steps for reproducing an image. For example: https://hub.docker.com/layers/library/mysql/latest/images/sha256-13e429971e970ebcb7bc611de52d71a3c444247dc67cf7475a02718f6a5ef559?context=explore https://hub.docker.com/layers/library/mysql/latest/images/sh... "ADD file:e15c235506d8dd134e69d458a7c0afefef1522e9d0cfb28e3538760ddf032785" isn't much help in installing MySQL on a bare metal server. It's also not something commonly done (I've never seen a project do it), but you can also just push around a very simple base image like a plain Debian image and then move around an image's runtime filesystem through `docker export` as .tar.gz which could have been crafted by someone who started an interactive shell session and just manually performed some install steps without recording what was being done. It's still technically a containerized system but it does obscure or omit a lot of the value proposition.

psnehanshu 3y ago

I disagree with your argument, but I won't reply to that as there are other replies I agree with. However, where did you find the steps to install this with Docker? I can't find it.

vineyardmike 3y ago
https://docs.bigcapital.ly/docs/deployment/docker https://docs.bigcapital.ly/docs/deployment/docker There is a docker-compose file at the root of the repository, which gets you most of the way there. But the above link will undoubtably be more helpful.

paulnpace 3y ago

I think it goes against the spirit of FOSS, as docker is all but a proprietary Linux format, and definitely not POSIX(-ish) compliant. As I prefer using OpenBSD for self-hosting (and I speculate that if more self-hosters learned OpenBSD, they likely would also prefer it), I am acutely aware of not only how Docker has gradually taken over nearly all new FOSS projects, but also how many people involved in FOSS projects generally assume GNU / Linux as a prerequisite to all FOSS projects.