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.

epgui

> 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

This depends on whether the Dockerfile is available somewhere right?

koili_

Not necessarily. It is certainly easier to read a dockerfile, but there are tools like https://github.com/wagoodman/dive (im sure there are others) that allow you to inspect images themselves in a very detailed manner.