this post was submitted on 28 Apr 2025
263 points (95.8% liked)

Selfhosted

46426 readers
727 users here now

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:

  1. Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.

  2. No spam posting.

  3. 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.

  4. Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.

  5. Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).

  6. No trolling.

Resources:

Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
263
What is Docker? (lemmy.world)
submitted 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) by Jofus@lemmy.world to c/selfhosted@lemmy.world
 

Hi! Im new to self hosting. Currently i am running a Jellyfin server on an old laptop. I am very curious to host other things in the future like immich or other services. I see a lot of mention of a program called docker.

search this on The internet I am still Not very clear what it does.

Could someone explain this to me like im stupid? What does it do and why would I need it?

Also what are other services that might be interesting to self host in The future?

Many thanks!

EDIT: Wow! thanks for all the detailed and super quick replies! I've been reading all the comments here and am concluding that (even though I am currently running only one service) it might be interesting to start using Docker to run all (future) services seperately on the server!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ianonavy@lemmy.world 3 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

A signature only tells you where something came from, not whether it’s safe. Saying APT is more secure than Docker just because it checks signatures is like saying a mysterious package from a stranger is safer because it includes a signed postcard and matches the delivery company’s database. You still have to trust both the sender and the delivery company. Sure, it’s important to reject signatures you don’t recognize—but the bigger question is: who do you trust?

APT trusts its keyring. Docker pulls over HTTPS with TLS, which already ensures you’re talking to the right registry. If you trust the registry and the image source, that’s often enough. If you don’t, tools like Cosign let you verify signatures. Pulling random images is just as risky as adding sketchy PPAs or running curl | bash—unless, again, you trust the source. I certainly trust Debian and Ubuntu more than Docker the company, but “no signature = insecure” misses the point.

Pointing out supply chain risks is good. But calling Docker “insecure” without nuance shuts down discussion and doesn’t help anyone think more critically about safer practices.

[–] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 1 points 11 minutes ago

Oof, TLS isnt a replacement for signatures. There's a reason most package managers use release sognstirse. x.509 is broken.

And, yes PGP has a WoT to solve its PKI. That's why we can trust apt sigs and not docker sigs.