Cloudron makes it easy to run web apps like WordPress, Nextcloud, GitLab on your server. Find out more or install now.


  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • Bookmarks
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse

Cloudron Forum

Apps | Demo | Docs | Install

Why Cloudron's Docker only? How about VM containers with generic Docker Compose scripts?s?

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Discuss
48 Posts 12 Posters 1.5k Views
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • micmcM Offline
    micmcM Offline
    micmc
    replied to d19dotca on last edited by
    #25

    @d19dotca said in Why Cloudron's Docker only? How about VM containers with generic Docker Compose scripts?s?:

    So I'd like to propose one aspect of a possible solution... eventually divert some resources into coming up with a neat playground / well documented area for how to package apps and even a few example walkthroughs

    I know it'd help me at least and presumably others. I know some of the steps are documented and there's some template apps to work off of, but I think it could still be made easier by having some detailed walkthrough guides with popular examples.:-)

    That way more people could contribute easier to the app packaging process to fit Docker-ized apps inside of Cloudron's ecosystem.

    I agree, from there I'd certainly contribute to package apps myself too. It's the same thing for me, the lack of time to dig deeper to figure this out with little information. I've been administrating and managing web server for 2 decades, and started to master docker and cloud technologies on top of that about 5 years back, and I'm always on the fence of getting onto try to package apps for Cloudron, however for the same reasons mentioned, when I try to get onto it then too much question pop and I've to postpone the try because of lack of time to play to figure it all.


    https://marketingtechnology.agency
    For cutting edge web technologies

    timconsidineT 1 Reply Last reply
    2
  • micmcM Offline
    micmcM Offline
    micmc
    replied to luckow on last edited by
    #26

    @luckow said in Why Cloudron's Docker only? How about VM containers with generic Docker Compose scripts?s?:

    Oh nerds. A lot of technical thoughts 🙂

    Maybe we should create a new forum category "cool new kids" where we can showcase new apps we've heard about. From there, we can invest some time (as a community) to find out if the app is worth investing time to package as a business critical app (aka Cloudron app) 😉

    That's a good idea and maybe that would help put aside not only the "cool new kid" to take a look at, but also that 10th RSS reader which the new Cloudron user who just comes in, wish to have on his Cloudron because it's the one he knows and prefer. Indeed, we don't need 5 packs of each good apps out there so then we should concentrate on getting at least one good app, preferably the best one available, for each of the category we'd consider an asset to put on Cloudron that would enhance the offer.


    https://marketingtechnology.agency
    For cutting edge web technologies

    marcusquinnM 1 Reply Last reply
    2
  • robiR Offline
    robiR Offline
    robi
    replied to girish on last edited by
    #27

    @girish said in Why Cloudron's Docker only? How about VM containers with generic Docker Compose scripts?s?:

    I think this is what sysbox solves, but I don't have much experience with that.

    Yes, it takes 10m or so to try it out.

    We can circle back with @Rodny-Molina if needed.

    Life of sky tech

    E timconsidineT 2 Replies Last reply
    0
  • E Offline
    E Offline
    eddowding
    replied to robi on last edited by
    #28

    One solution might be to have a marketplace / bounty space.

    1] Packages have a crowdfunded bounty behind them. Want it built? Chip in £50.

    But this has a disincentive to speed, since why build for £5 when you can wait a few months for frustration to mount, and build for £500?

    2] Have a month "pay per app" fee for apps which is Pay What You Want with a minimum of £1/m until a reasonable fee has been reached.

    Some blend of that (see also opencollective.com) seems like it might make a viable solution.

    marcusquinnM 1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • marcusquinnM Offline
    marcusquinnM Offline
    marcusquinn
    replied to girish on last edited by
    #29

    @girish It's a lot about speed of research before development.

    As an example, we just got OpenDroneMap running the same day on a separate VPS with the Docker Compose scripts.

    Doing the same thing with Cloudron would be impossible due to the multiple Docker Containers it relies upon.

    With some cooperation we could package it for Cloudron - but we just don't have the week of head-banging time to add to developments, even if we can convince you to make allowances for all of this app's needs, we need to have something working and move on to the next thing.

    With what I'm suggesting, we can have a VM (LXD or equivalent) container app up and running the same day, just as with any separate VPS, and we can share that.

    I can't see a downside, and it's just using features that Ubuntu already offers.

    We'll also help with any port-conflicts feedback or anything else that might cause issues in using the same VPS.

    You have allies here, we just don't have all we need available from Cloudron, and any time we lose in battling things that won't work quickly, is time away from the additional app packaging we could be helping with for the overall cause.

    We're not here for a long time - but we are here for a good time :)
    Jersey/UK
    Work & Ecommerce Advice: https://brandlight.org
    Personal & Software Tips: https://marcusquinn.com

    1 Reply Last reply
    2
  • marcusquinnM Offline
    marcusquinnM Offline
    marcusquinn
    replied to d19dotca on last edited by
    #30

    @d19dotca This only helps for apps that will work with Cloudron as-is. Our main issue is apps that require changes to Cloudron itself, they are literally impossible to package with current restrictions. I understand the restrictions, and their reasons, but they are real blockers, so we know before we have started that we will fail, so all effort then goes into separate VPSs, which is of no benefit to this ecosystem, and those VPSs can't benefit from any of this ecosystem either.

    We're not here for a long time - but we are here for a good time :)
    Jersey/UK
    Work & Ecommerce Advice: https://brandlight.org
    Personal & Software Tips: https://marcusquinn.com

    1 Reply Last reply
    1
  • marcusquinnM Offline
    marcusquinnM Offline
    marcusquinn
    replied to luckow on last edited by
    #31

    @luckow No - the point is the apps we are needing cannot be packaged for Cloudron at-all as it is. The main ones are multi-container apps. There's many apps where discussion has acknowledged they need add-on apps within apps, and then they cannot progress until that is a feature.

    In the meantime, we could have been packaging way more apps, just without all the integration features, but in a way that they would at least be working and demonstrate-able for then showing exactly what they can do and what they would need from extending CLoudron's full-integration app packaging framework to allow for.

    We're not here for a long time - but we are here for a good time :)
    Jersey/UK
    Work & Ecommerce Advice: https://brandlight.org
    Personal & Software Tips: https://marcusquinn.com

    1 Reply Last reply
    1
  • marcusquinnM Offline
    marcusquinnM Offline
    marcusquinn
    replied to micmc on last edited by
    #32

    @micmc Nothing to do with having every app under the sun - this is about having apps that are otherwise impossible to package for Cloudron - so likely there is not a single instance of what they offer. We'll package a lot more Cloudron apps - but we don't have time to negotiate all the things Cloudron needs to be allowed or extended to do, we just need to have an environment that lets us get on and focus on the packaging. This does that, that's why I'm suggesting it.

    We're not here for a long time - but we are here for a good time :)
    Jersey/UK
    Work & Ecommerce Advice: https://brandlight.org
    Personal & Software Tips: https://marcusquinn.com

    1 Reply Last reply
    2
  • marcusquinnM Offline
    marcusquinnM Offline
    marcusquinn
    replied to eddowding on last edited by
    #33

    @eddowding That's an option for motivating packaging, but it ads admin overhead IMHO. The issue we have is that we literally can't package so many apps due to Cloudron restrictions that having VM Container Apps would solve, and then speed up demonstration of the needs to extend Cloudron's native app packaging framework.

    We're not here for a long time - but we are here for a good time :)
    Jersey/UK
    Work & Ecommerce Advice: https://brandlight.org
    Personal & Software Tips: https://marcusquinn.com

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • timconsidineT Offline
    timconsidineT Offline
    timconsidine App Dev
    replied to robi on last edited by
    #34

    @robi total newbie to sysbox here.
    Is it a case of run sysbox on Ubuntu, then run Cloudron in one sysbox container and <a.n.other.docker.app> in another sysbox container ?

    timconsidineT robiR 2 Replies Last reply
    0
  • timconsidineT Offline
    timconsidineT Offline
    timconsidine App Dev
    replied to micmc on last edited by
    #35

    @micmc I agree, as I've commented somewhere above.

    The packaging documentation is good, but doesn't particularly help new packagers on their journey.

    We need more examples, walkthroughs, even boilerplates.

    I understand that's quite a burden for busy staff.
    I'm going to knock up a wiki, but welcome contributions.
    Especially with the right answers !

    To kick it off :
    https://forum.cloudron.io/topic/7087/packaging-own-apps-what-guidance-do-you-want

    1 Reply Last reply
    3
  • timconsidineT Offline
    timconsidineT Offline
    timconsidine App Dev
    replied to timconsidine on last edited by
    #36

    @robi I just noticed this while exploring

    https://www.docker.com/blog/docker-advances-container-isolation-and-workloads-with-acquisition-of-nestybox/

    Any thoughts on impact / future ?

    robiR girishG 2 Replies Last reply
    4
  • robiR Offline
    robiR Offline
    robi
    replied to timconsidine on last edited by
    #37

    @timconsidine said in Why Cloudron's Docker only? How about VM containers with generic Docker Compose scripts?s?:

    @robi total newbie to sysbox here.
    Is it a case of run sysbox on Ubuntu, then run Cloudron in one sysbox container and <a.n.other.docker.app> in another sysbox container ?

    No, much simpler and more elegant. (that is also possible though)

    Run Cloudron, install sysbox, configure docker to use sysbox instead of runc (default runtime), done.

    Now all new containers benefit from the advancements of sysbox along side any others already running.

    Of course this can be added to Cloudron as a selective option upon app install from the App store as well as support running non-packaged apps from Git* hubs or Docker container hubs.

    This keeps the server/VM looking like bare metal as much as possible. From there you can play other VM encapsulation schemes as you normally would.

    Check the previous threads on Sysbox where docker-in-docker and Cloudron-in-Cloudron are discussed.

    Life of sky tech

    1 Reply Last reply
    2
  • robiR Offline
    robiR Offline
    robi
    replied to timconsidine on last edited by
    #38

    @timconsidine said in Why Cloudron's Docker only? How about VM containers with generic Docker Compose scripts?s?:

    @robi I just noticed this while exploring

    https://www.docker.com/blog/docker-advances-container-isolation-and-workloads-with-acquisition-of-nestybox/

    Any thoughts on impact / future ?

    OH MY GOODNESS!

    This is great news, thanks for finding it!
    Congrats to @Rodny-Molina and Ceasar.

    This further solidifies the sysbox ideas, implementation and product as a key part of Dockers mission.

    Good on the Docker team to see this and bring them in-house. Sysbox is here to stay.

    Long live Sysbox.

    Life of sky tech

    micmcM 1 Reply Last reply
    4
  • girishG Offline
    girishG Offline
    girish Staff
    replied to timconsidine on last edited by
    #39

    @timconsidine said in Why Cloudron's Docker only? How about VM containers with generic Docker Compose scripts?s?:

    https://www.docker.com/blog/docker-advances-container-isolation-and-workloads-with-acquisition-of-nestybox/

    Oh, didn't know! Wonder if we will see a 1.0 soon then.

    1 Reply Last reply
    2
  • marcusquinnM Offline
    marcusquinnM Offline
    marcusquinn
    wrote on last edited by marcusquinn
    #40

    OK, so it seems we have both interest in this - and an understanding that it's a capability that significantly lowers the barrier to entry for having apps created — albeit without all the Cloudron integration features — although I think Location could still work, Email is usually easy to configure manually, and it gets apps to being at least self-hosting testable a lot faster for proof-of-concept research & development.

    @girish I honestly think this Nestybox as an App feature will save you a LOT of time from app packaging, because we'll all be able to get a lot more done faster this way, and submit them for commissioning as full citizens when time, appetite and functionality of the Docker alone way of packaging is more desirable.

    We're not here for a long time - but we are here for a good time :)
    Jersey/UK
    Work & Ecommerce Advice: https://brandlight.org
    Personal & Software Tips: https://marcusquinn.com

    1 Reply Last reply
    1
  • micmcM Offline
    micmcM Offline
    micmc
    replied to robi on last edited by
    #41

    @robi said in Why Cloudron's Docker only? How about VM containers with generic Docker Compose scripts?s?:

    @timconsidine said in Why Cloudron's Docker only? How about VM containers with generic Docker Compose scripts?s?:

    @robi I just noticed this while exploring

    https://www.docker.com/blog/docker-advances-container-isolation-and-workloads-with-acquisition-of-nestybox/

    Any thoughts on impact / future ?

    This further solidifies the sysbox ideas, implementation and product as a key part of Dockers mission.

    I was going to point it out and let you know, and boom. Yes, and this system sounds much more as a solution and clarifies what was intended and proposed by Marcus @marcusquinn to address the actual concern to being able to run certain apps that potentially could 'never' run under Cloudron because of its own infrastructure.

    The sysbox reminds me of the Qubes OS which is also recommended (E. Snowden) as the most secure desktop OS today because it runs every app in its own container.


    https://marketingtechnology.agency
    For cutting edge web technologies

    marcusquinnM 2 Replies Last reply
    1
  • marcusquinnM Offline
    marcusquinnM Offline
    marcusquinn
    replied to micmc on last edited by
    #42

    @micmc Nice! I've not seen that one before, might fire up an instance to explore. Also reminds me of Firefox Containers with the multi-coloured window frames.

    We're not here for a long time - but we are here for a good time :)
    Jersey/UK
    Work & Ecommerce Advice: https://brandlight.org
    Personal & Software Tips: https://marcusquinn.com

    micmcM 1 Reply Last reply
    1
  • micmcM Offline
    micmcM Offline
    micmc
    replied to marcusquinn on last edited by
    #43

    @marcusquinn said in Why Cloudron's Docker only? How about VM containers with generic Docker Compose scripts?s?:

    @micmc Nice! I've not seen that one before, might fire up an instance to explore. Also reminds me of Firefox Containers with the multi-coloured window frames.

    Cool, Let us know more. I was about to try it on a local machine.


    https://marketingtechnology.agency
    For cutting edge web technologies

    1 Reply Last reply
    1
  • marcusquinnM Offline
    marcusquinnM Offline
    marcusquinn
    replied to micmc on last edited by
    #44

    @micmc Also just spotted https://www.whonix.org - be interesting to try that once it (Virtualbox) works on ARM / Mac M1 chips.

    We're not here for a long time - but we are here for a good time :)
    Jersey/UK
    Work & Ecommerce Advice: https://brandlight.org
    Personal & Software Tips: https://marcusquinn.com

    1 Reply Last reply
    1

  • Login

  • Don't have an account? Register

  • Login or register to search.
  • First post
    Last post
0
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • Bookmarks
  • Login

  • Don't have an account? Register

  • Login or register to search.