Might be related to this other post: https://lemmy.ca/post/24478184
crosspost content below:
Firstly, this post is not to celebrate somebody losing their job, nor to poke fun at a company struggling in today’s market.
However, it might go some way to explaining why Portainer are tightening up the free Business plan from 5 to 3 nodes
https://x.com/theseanodell/status/1809328238097056035
Sean O’Dell
My time at Portainer came to an end in May due to restructuring/layoffs. I am proud of the work the team and I put in. Being the Head of Marketing is challenging but I am thankful for the personal growth and all that we accomplished. Monday starts the search for my next role!
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.
Yacht is pretty much unmaintained.
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.
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
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.