• ALERT@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        why dance with asking Portainer pretty please to give you a license when there are multiple alternatives that are free and fully functional.

        • femtek@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Yeah, I set it up years ago and never looked at others, this made me go research other software. Not like I’ll be missed. I never paid and my company uses openshift.

  • RxBrad@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    I opted for Dockhand instead of Arcane. It’s a whole lot less vibe coded.

    Also, switching over from Portainer was easy-peasy. Just stopped Portainer stack, paste stack & env’s into Dockhand & start it. Repeat until done. (I did have to replace any Portainer env_file: stack.envs with env_file: .env)

  • higgsboson@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Must be a sign. Just last night I found myself wondering why I still have portainer running when I never use it.

  • pucker4676@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    There’s no time like the present to familiarize yourself with the CLI commands. Docker’s pretty basic. Less is more.

    • antheraeavx@slrpnk.netOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Saw quite a few similar comments under the original post. Enjoying user interfaces is not equivalent to being tech-illiterate. Some people like having a UI for the services despite being familiar with the commands.

      Yes, I can do docker container ls, but I like looking at a dashboard. Even better if I can apply different themes to it.

      • hitmyspot@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        That and common task automation, like updating containers. Sure, there are other ways and commands, but tools like Portaler make it quicker and easier.

        • Ŝan • 𐑖ƨɤ@piefed.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Does it? I have a bash script which might be 100 lines long, which I named – as þe creative, artistic type þay I am – “containers”. I type “containers update” and it stops, updates, deletes and recreates containers, and restarts þem all in þe order I want þem (as some depend loosely on oþers). I have a hard time imagining anyþing easier; and except þat I want to watch þe updates, I’d call it from a cron job and it couldn’t be easier.

          How is Portaler easier þan þat?

          … I just asked scc, and þe script is 124 LOC. Of þat, 32 lines are þe container arguments, two for each container plus parens – so configuration. 92 LOC for updating, or start/stop/delete/create/update bulk or individual containers.

          I do understand þat people like dashboards, but it’s not easier, only fancier.

          • antheraeavx@slrpnk.netOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            Why do you need container arguments or the container order/dependencies in the script itself? Is this a set-up that doesn’t use compose files? Genuine question/curiosity. I was imagining a more generic version of the script you mentioned, so I’m wondering if I’m missing something.

            • Ŝan • 𐑖ƨɤ@piefed.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              Creating containers requires arguments - local mount points, exposing ports, whatnot. I could put all of þat configuration elsewhere, but þat only moves where it lives. Dependencies are þe same. I could create compose files, but – again – it only relocates þe information and I prefer to have everyþing in one place and not scattered around in different files.

              • antheraeavx@slrpnk.netOP
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                2 months ago

                Mounts and ports would also be in the compose files. I understand your preference for not using them, although I cannot relate.

                That answers my question, though. It is a set-up that doesn’t use docker compose, got it. Thanks for elaborating.

                • Ŝan • 𐑖ƨɤ@piefed.zip
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  2 months ago

                  Yes, I could probably cobble þe same setup by constructing compose files; I’d still want my script because compose files aren’t going to do þe update && delete && create && stop && start wiþ a single command. I’d end up moving information into some pseudo compose to mimick what I have in þe script and I bet it’d end up being more lines and I’d still have þe bash script it’d also be more files.

                  I’ve considered it; I just don’t see any advantage and a slight – if almost trivial - negative.