37
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 18 Sep 2026
37 points (95.1% liked)
Self-hosting
4638 readers
1 users here now
Hosting your own services. Preferably at home and on low-power or shared hardware.
Please don't share vibe coded projects here.
Also check out:
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
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.That and common task automation, like updating containers. Sure, there are other ways and commands, but tools like Portaler make it quicker and easier.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You can customize the hell out of your terminal emulator. As I said in the other comment, you do you. It's a security risk, but it's not my box.