A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.
Rules:
Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.
No spam posting.
Posts have to be centered around self-hosting. There are other communities for discussing hardware or home computing. If it's not obvious why your post topic revolves around selfhosting, please include details to make it clear.
Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.
Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).
No trolling.
Resources:
Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.
Questions? DM the mods!
I also saw a post about a portainer alternative, anyone know others?
Monitor (docs.monitor.mogh.tech) (from the other site)
DockGe from the other post
Looks like it's popular, from the other post
Features are more limited, no environment variables yet I don't think
I rolled out Dockge the other week, and it's solid. It can handle environment variables, but lacks other portainer features like controlling networks, volumes, building images, etc.
One big plus is that Dockge works really well with the dockcheck.sh script for updates, where as Portainer breaks that script.
There's also Yacht.
Used it for a bit but I didn't like how you have to deploy things from templates which are basically compose files that don't look like compose files.
They're 1-1 compose files.
The app just saves them as compose files and then runs docker compose in the backend.
it is EXTREMELY barebones
I put the sample template (https://yacht.sh/docs/Templates/Templates/) into a file named docker-compose.yml and Docker said the syntax was invalid. Are you saying I can give Yacht a compose file and it's cool with it?
Ah, no not the template files for the individual containers, but the project descriptors are just compose files.
I started with Yacht and moved to Portainer. Yacht's ui was just too heavy and unresponsive for me. I got logged out of sessions without it actually telling me almost every time I used Yacht. I would have to log out and in again just to use it (a process that often freezed up as well for reasons I cannot comprehend). I finally had enough and switched to Portainer; not a single complaint since.
Yacht is pretty much unmaintained.
The thing about dockge is that it’s easy to go to and from using it. It can scan existing folders for compose files, and because it uses compose files itself, you could just as easily start containers made by dockge without dockge even running.
Of course, this means it lacks some of the fancier features of something like portainer, but I personally enjoy the simplicity
I've heard of dockge as a lightweight alternative to portainer.
There are some things that are easier to see and check in Portainer, but for pure compose handling (up, down, logs) dockge works really well.
I’ve been using dokemon https://github.com/productiveops/dokemon
It works well enough.
Another risk with Monitor, which may get better with time. Is that FOSS rust projects have a tendency to slow down or even stall due to the time cost of writing features, and the very small dev community available to pick up slack when original creators/maintainers drop off, burn out, or get too busy with life.
To be clear: I have nothing against rust. It's a fantastic language filling in a crucial gap that's existed for decades. However, it's I'll suited for app development, that's just not it's strength.
I have never wanted or needed portainer and I see no reason to change
I could see using it in an environment with lots of docker hosts and a team to maintain it all. Just having compose files would get unwieldy when you've got 100 servers and a team of devops and devs all poking around in things.
That's what Kubernetes is for