Oh god Docker.......

[tekguru]

I've been looking to expand my NAS usage as well as improve my Apple Homekit system. What do I find that both HOOBS and Homebridge can run on the NAS. Great!

However both run under Docker so it looks like I will get dragged into using it in the end..... Sigh.....

So I'm sorry to say guys but watch out for newbie questions in the near future!

 

[Misophoniq]

I feel your pain. ;-) I regularly come across nice solutions that are supposed to run on my Synology, but as soon as I see the word "Docker" in the install instructions I quit. It's a crap solution comparable to writing software in Java. It looks like shit, it performs like shit, it is messy to install.

 

[one-eyed-king]

@Misophoniq: Just out of curriousity, what are your refering to with "It looks like shit, it performs like shit, it is messy to install"? Can you elaborate a little bit more on that?

 

[Misophoniq]

Can you elaborate a little bit more on that?

If I install something like Audio Station, I just click install (in the Package Center) and it will give me a nice icon inside DSM, fits right in with DSM and doesn't use any unneeded resources on my NAS. For me it's like running something like iTunes on my Mac.

So far, all the Docker packages I installed came with complicated instructions, need me to connect to it using weird port numbers, completely outside of my regular DSM desktop and look-and-feel and use tons of resources because there's often some sort of Linux wrapper around it. To me it feels like running WinAmp inside a Windows 95 installation inside VMWare on my iMac.

[Edit] It's an experience I also often have when installing something that happened to be developed in Java, hence the comparison. ;-)

 

[one-eyed-king]

So its an UX issue for you, because it doesn't embbed in the Synology ui. True, I can see where you come from.

So far, all the Docker packages I installed came with complicated instructions, need me to connect to it using weird port numbers, completely outside of my regular DSM desktop and look-and-feel and use tons of resources because there's often some sort of Linux wrapper around it.

So if no package is available and you would need to install and configure an application (take any php webapp) you still want to run on your Syno is less messy and easier to accomplish then setting up a docker container? Can't agree on that. On the contrary: someone put in the effort to automate the installation and configuration and provides variables to configure the relevant configuration aspects. While on a self installation and configuration you are by your own with every single aspect.

To me it feels like running WinAmp inside a Windows 95 installation inside VMWare on my iMac.

The comparision with WinAmp is kind of funny, though is a complete different caliber. A docker container is a ressource saving way to run a process on the host that "thinks" that its on it's own machine. The overhead is close to nothing. Docker is not intended for GUI applications - every container wrapping a GUI application is always ugly. Docker is more suited for apps/services that preset a web-ui or a service to connect to.

Docker is simply a way to bypass limitations of the appliance stlye DSM OS, without messing arround with the base os itself. At the end it's a matter of taste.

Update: fixed some typos

 

[tekguru]

The one's I'm looking at do not look so bad actually:

How to Install HOOBS on Your Synology NAS

Trustworthy expert guide to your Synology NAS.

mariushosting.com

How to Install Homebridge on Your Synology NAS

Trustworthy expert guide to your Synology NAS.

mariushosting.com

 

[Rusty]

The one's I'm looking at do not look so bad actually:

How to Install HOOBS on Your Synology NAS

Trustworthy expert guide to your Synology NAS.

mariushosting.com

How to Install Homebridge on Your Synology NAS

Trustworthy expert guide to your Synology NAS.

mariushosting.com

well ofc not! We got your back!

 

[Rusty]

So its an UX issue for you, because it doesn't embbed in the Synology ui. True, I can see where you come from.


So if no package is available and you would need to install and configure an application (take any php webapp) you still want to run on your Syno is less messy and easier to accomplish then setting up a docker container? Can't agree on that. On the contrary: someone put in the effort to automate the installation and configuration and provides variables to configure the relevant configuration aspects. While on a self installation and configuration you are by your own with every single aspect.


The comparision with WinAmp is kind of funny, though is a complete different caliber. A docker container is a ressource saving way to run a process on the host that "thinks" that its on it's own machine. The overhead is close to nothing. Docker is not intended for GUI applications - every container wrapping a GUI application is always ugly. Docker is more suited for apps/services that preset a web-ui or a service to connect to.

Docker is simply a way to bypass limitations of the appliance stlye DSM OS, without messing arround with the base os itself. At the end it's a matter of taste.

Update: fixed some typos

Glad you wrote it in that tone, was about to say all this but even close to polite as you did .

 

[jeyare]

@Misophoniq
understand your concern. Containers need different skillset for the user or person who will prepare the container for operation, e.g. NAS.
There isn’t simple “installation“ process, because it’s not an APP or package as you know from “single” click world.
Just compare it with a car.
When you prefer a car for normal asphalt roads you can purchase any car, then you can use it. You need know how to start it and where is a fuel lock.
When you like pure off-road nature experiences, you need purchase car and many times also tune the car for specific environments and conditions. Frequently you need higher skillset than for the asphalt roads. E.g. how to handle dirty, muddy “roads” with R/D lock ....

Then, don’t complain. Because Docker world has added value for some, in same way as the off-road vehicle.

 

[one-eyed-king]

Actualy for a community like ours it would be realy great if Synology would adopt the template mechanism that Portainer provides. It would allow us to maintain a community driven template repo that could bring down the complexity of container setups (even docker-compose based container sets) to next->next-done style installations. The whole Synology ecosystem could benefit from this... and support for containers created by our templates could be streamlined. I wish one day this idea will be more than a position in my christmas wish list..

As an alternativ Portainer templating could be used to at least provide the same for single container setups. When Synology eventualy fixes their customized docker-api, we could even do the same with docker-compose based deployments.