Should I learn Docker or Podman?

In case you haven't started yet. Learn docker, but use podman.

33

OP, listen to this person. Docker will earn you cash. Podman is nicer to work with for your own shit.

12
Docker and podman in general work the same, commands are the same, ...

Only biggest difference is that now that I'm trying to migrate from docker to podman is figting over volume binds permissions for databases and such.

Finished migration of 3 containers, 50+ left.

1

At the end of the day, you’re running containers and both will get the job done. Go with whatever you want to start, and be open to try the other when you inevitably end up with jobby job that uses the other one instead.

22

As a podman user myself, they're essentially the same. I look at the docker documentation when learning new things about podman. 99.9% of the time, it's exactly the same. For the features that aren't in podman, you can use the podman-docker package. This gets you a daemon so you can have some docker-specific features such as a container being able to start/stop other containers by mounting the socket as a volume, and it allows you to use docker-compose.

20

Docker is more ubiquitous, Podman has use cases that diverge from Docker.

Discover the use case and decide from there.

That said docker is a good starting point, their documentation is pretty great and once you know docker you’ll better appreciate why podman is different.

19

It's easier to start with docker first simply because of the sheer amount of learning resources available on the internet. If you're having issues, you can usually find a solution quickly with a search engine.

That's being said, there's not much differences on how to use them these days. You can even run docker compose on podman.

17

I've read somewhere on lemmy that the podman-compose is unmaintained and shouldn't be used. Can't find it now thought.

5
- Yes because it now uses docker-compose by default: https://docs.podman.io/en/latest/markdown/podman-compose.1.html
  
  11
- I can't comment on that, but actual Docker Compose (as distinct from Podman Compose) works great with Podman.
  
  1

You didn't say what's your goal. What do you want to achieve? For instance, if you work in IT you should probably learn Docker unless Podman is more relevant in your actual daily tasks.

15

My goal is selfhosting stuff mainly on my raspberry pi. I'm sure I'm not going to work in IT for 3 years and probably not for at least few years after that.

4
- Then just go for Docker. Otherwise you may make it unnecessarily difficult for yourself and get discouraged. In a few years you may revisit the question and see if you still have an interest in podman.
  
  5

Honestly, if you have never used containers before I would suggest starting with docker as it has more readily accessible beginner walk through and tutorials. From there, you will have a good idea as to switching to podman is the right move for you or not.

Personally, I started with docker and haven’t moved from there since I don’t see a need (yet). I have dozens of services running on docker. I don’t know how heavy of a lift it would be to learn podman but like I said, I don’t feel the need to do so.

Maybe try out both and see which one you like more?

9

Just to offer the other perspective. I started with podman years ago. I knew very little about containers and I would say it made the learbing curve a lot steeper. Most guides and README's use docker and when things didnt work I had to figure out if it was networking, selinux, rootless, not having the docker daemon, etc... without understanding fully what those things were because I didn't know docker. But when I started running stuff on kubernetes, it was really easy. Pods in podman are isomorphic to kubernetes pods. I think the pain was worth it, but it was definitely not easy at the time. Documentation, guides, and networking have improved since then, so it may not be as big of a deal now

11
- Well sh.t… now I got a weekend project hahah
  
  1

I tried out podman at first, but I found many docker instances simply provide a string of crap instead of explanations. It was easy to get a grasp of how docker worked, and now that I have an idea I feel like I could jump into podman better.

9

They're pretty much the same. Use docker documentation for learning, but actually use podman, because it's nicer to use (doesn't require root, easier to install on many Linux distributions).

9

Both. They're pretty damn similar.

7

Both. Start with docker as there's a buttload of tutorials. Once you're familiar with it jump to podman. Learn the differences, use both for a while and decide what suits you best.

7

Docker, there are more resources for it and once you know it Podman should be an easy migration if you want to. Also I'm not sure about your claim that Podman is more FOSS than docker, it's "better" because it doesn't run as root, but other than that I don't know of any advantages to it that are not a derivation of "it runs as a regular user".

6

Also I’m not sure about your claim that Podman is more FOSS than docker

The issue with Docker isn't the core product itself, is the ecosystem, it's the DockerHub, Kubernetes etc.

6
- So if someone made a non-foss frontend for Podman that would somehow make Podman less FOSS? Or of they started working with Podman? You don't need to use any of those other products, and it's not correct to say that docker is less FOSS because people have written proprietary software that uses it.
  
  2
On the same machine I have Docker running as root and not as root. I choose which version, root-ful/root-less depending on what the container needs to do.

I think the only advantage is that Podman runs as root-less out of the box, where with Docker you have to do a few extra steps once it's installed.

3
Podman is [...] “better” because it doesn’t run as root, but other than that I don’t know of any advantages to it that are not a derivation of “it runs as a regular user”.

Podman can run in rootless mode (with some caveats), but it is still able to run as root — it doesn't only have the capability to run as a "regular user".

1

Doesn't really matter for basic stuff as it will be the same.

Once you get into container orchestration the differences start and then you basically need to decide what you want to get out of it.

6

Still haven't looked into podman properly, but docker is much easier to learn because as you said there's a lot more material available online. I'd say start with Docker, and if in the future you will find out podman better fits your needs you can always switch (they should not be that different)

6

They're very similar so you pretty much can't go wrong. Podman, I believe, is more secure by default (or aims to be) so might run into more roadblocks with its use.

6

so might run into more roadblocks with its use.

This has been my experience with Podman. That's not to say that these roablocks aren't without reason, nor merit, but there is always a trade off of convenience when optimizing for security.

1

Yes

5

Docker and docker-compose. Then learn podman after you have some experience, if you want to...

Or jump into kubernetes (or minikube) instead of podman if you want to do highly useful things.

But first, get comfortable building images with a Dockerfile, and then running them in a meaningful way, and networking them, and locking them down.

5

Docker, definitely docker

5

Definitely not. :P

1
- Over podman? Podman has lots of querks.
  
  1

Podman only if you really care about using FOSS, having first-class rootless mode, and don't mind the hassle of scarce learning resource and tutorials on all Podman features that are different from docker.

Otherwise docker.

4

Here goes my experience.

When I started the self hosted trip, I was against containers and tried to avoid them at all costs. Then I learned about containers, and now I still am against containers but less vividly so. I have used them and still use them.

Containers are good for the self hoster because they deliver fast deploy and easy testing of lots of services quickly. They are good for developers because they can provide one common installation approach that reduces greatly user issues and support requests.

But containers also have downsides as well. First of all they make the user dumber. Instead of learning something new, you blindly "compose pull & up" your way. Easy, but it's dumbifier and that's not a good thing. Second, there is a dangerous trend where projects only release containers, and that's bad for freedom of choice (bare metal install, as complex as it might be, need to always be possible) and while I am aware that you can download an image and extract the files inside, that's more an hack than a solution. Third, with containers you are forced to use whatever deployment the devs have chosen for you. Maybe I don't want 10 postgres instances one for each service, or maybe I already have my nginx reverse proxy or so. I have seen projects release different composer files for different scenarios, but at that point I would prefer to deploy on bare metal.

Said so, containers are not avoidable today, so study and embrace them, you will not be disappointed as its a cool piece of tech. But please stay clear of docker and go podman instead. Podman doesn't rely on a potentially insecure socket and does not require an always running daemon. Podman also by default doesn't force you to run services as root which you should never do. Also, networking feels clearer on podman and podman feels more .modern by using nft instead of iptables. Yes most of this can be fixed on docker, but since podman is a drop in replacement, why bother? Also, podman is truly open source while docker, shockingly, its not.

Here is my wiki page on the subject: https://wiki.gardiol.org/doku.php?id=gentoo:containers feel free to read it.

One last thought: updating containers should not be taken lightly. Its so easy and fast that you might be tempted to setup cron jobs or install watchtower, but you will end sooner or later with a broken service and lost data. So backup, always backup, and keep updating with rationale.

Tldr: containers are unavoidable today and are a cool piece of tech worth investigating. Don't blindly use them as there are security issues involved, and I hope the trend of making containers the only way doesn't take hold, because containers also make self hosters dumber and that's not good.

3

First of all they make the user dumber. Instead of learning something new, you blindly “compose pull & up” your way. Easy, but it’s dumbifier and that’s not a good thing

I don't like this Docker trend because, besides what you've said, it 1) leads you towards a dependence on property repositories and 2) robs you from the experience of learning Linux (more later on) but I it does lower the bar to newcomers and let's you setup something really fast. In my opinion you should be very skeptical about everything that is "sold to the masses", just go with a simple Debian system (command line only) SSH into it and install what you really need, take your time to learn Linux and whatnot.

there is a dangerous trend where projects only release containers, and that’s bad for freedom of choice (bare metal install, as complex as it might be, need to always be possible) and while I am aware that you can download an image and extract the files inside, that’s more an hack than a solution

And the second danger there is that when developers don't have to consider the setup of a their solution the code tends to be worse. Why bother with having single binaries, stuff that is easy to understand and properly document things when you can just pull 100 dependencies and compose files? :) This is the unfortunate reality of modern software.

Third, with containers you are forced to use whatever deployment the devs have chosen for you. Maybe I don’t want 10 postgres instances one for each service, or maybe I already have my nginx reverse proxy or so

See? Poorly written software. Not designed to be sane and reasonable and integrate with existing stuff.

But be aware that containers are not the solution to selfhosting-made-easy and, specifically, containers havebeen created to solve different issues than self-hosting!

Your article said it all and is very well written. Let me expand a bit into the "different issues":

The thing with Docker is that people don’t want to learn how to use Linux and are buying into an overhyped solution that makes their life easier without understanding the long term consequences. Most of the pro-Docker arguments go around security, reproducibility and that’s mostly BS because 1) systemd can provide as much isolation a docker containers and 2) there are other container solutions and nobody cares about them.

Companies such as Microsoft and GitHub are all about re-creating and re-configuring the way people develop software so everyone will be hostage of their platforms - that's why nowadays everything and everyone is pushing for Docker/DockerHub/Kubernetes, GitHub actions and whatnot. We now have a generation that doesn’t understand the basic of their tech stack, about networking, about DNS, about how to deploy a simple thing into a server that doesn’t use some Docker BS or isn’t a 3rd party cloud xyz deploy-from-github service.

Before anyone comments that Docker isn’t totally proprietary and there’s Podman consider the following: It doesn’t really matter if there are truly open-source and open ecosystems of containerization technologies. In the end people/companies will pick the proprietary / closed option just because “it’s easier to use” or some other specific thing that will be good on the short term and very bad on the long term.

Docker may make development and deployment very easy and lowered the bar for newcomers have the dark side of being designed to reconfigure and envelope the way development gets done so someone can profit from it. That is sad and above all set dangerous precedents and creates generations of engineers and developers that don’t have truly open tools like we did. There’s LOT of money into transitioning everyone to the “deploy-from-github-to-cloud-x-with-hooks” model so those companies will keep pushing for it.

At the end of the day technologies like Docker are about commoditizing development and about creating a negative feedback loop around it that never ends. Yes, I say commoditizing development because if you look at it those techs only make it easier for the entry level developer and companies instead of hiring developers for their knowledge and ability to develop they’re just hiring “cheap monkeys” that are able to configure those technologies and cloud platforms to deliver something.

Successful cloud companies are not longer about selling infrastructure, we're past that - the profit is now in transforming developer knowledge into products/services that can be bought with a click.

3
- There is a lot of truth in your words.
  
  Unfortunately, things will not change.
  
  At least let's use podman and I will keep fighting for containers being at least optional.
  
  3
- You can host your own container repository and write your own docker files to control all your own deployments though, it's not like your have to be at the behest of any company to use containerization to make your own life easier with the benefits of reproducibility.
  
  Do you write all the programs you use too or do you rely on the work of others and are drawing an arbitrary line in the sand when it comes to containerising those apps?
  
  1
I don't agree with the premise of your comment about containers. I think most of the downsides you listed are misplaced.

First of all they make the user dumber. Instead of learning something new, you blindly "compose pull & up" your way. Easy, but it's dumbifier and that's not a good thing.

I'd argue, that actually using containers properly requires very solid Linux skills. If someone indeed blindly "compose pull & up" their stuff, this is no different than blind curl | sudo bash which is still very common. People are going to muddle through the installation copy pasting stuff no matter what. I don't see why containers and compose files would be any different than pipe to bash or random reddit comment with "step by step instructions". Look at any forum where end users aren't technically strong and you'll see the same (emulation forums, raspberry pi based stuff, home automation,..) - random shell scripts, rm -rf this ; chmod 777 that

Containers are just another piece of software that someone can and will run blindly. But I don't see why you'd single them out here.

Second, there is a dangerous trend where projects only release containers, and that's bad for freedom of choice

As a developer I can't agree here. The docker images (not "containers" to be precise) are not there replacing deb packages. They are there because it's easy to provide image. It's much harder to release a set of debs, rpms and whatnot for distribution the developer isn't even using. The other options wouldn't even be there in the first place, because there's only so many hours in a day and my open source work is not paying my bills most of the time. (patches and continued maintenance is of course welcome) So the alternative would be just the source code, which you still get. No one is limiting your options there. If anything the Dockerfile at least shows exactly how you can build the software yourself even without using docker. It's just bash script with extra isolation.

I am aware that you can download an image and extract the files inside, that's more an hack than a solution.

Yeah please don't do that. It's probably not a good idea. Just build the binary or whatever you're trying to use yourself. The binaries in image often depend on libraries inside said image which can be different from your system.

Third, with containers you are forced to use whatever deployment the devs have chosen for you. Maybe I don't want 10 postgres instances one for each service, or maybe I already have my nginx reverse proxy or so.

It might be easier (effort-wise) but you're certainly not forced. At the very least you can clone the repo and just edit the Dockerfile to your liking. With compose file it's the same story, just edit the thing. Or don't use it at all. I frequently use compose file just for reference/documentation and run software as a set of systemd units in Nix. You do you. You don't have to follow a path that someone paved if you don't like the destination. Remember that it's often someone's free time that paid for this path, they are not obliged to provide perfect solution for you. They are not taking anything away from you by providing solution that someone else can use.

2
- I fully agree with you that devs should not release debs&rpms&etc, that's distro responsibility to create and manage from the binaries that the devs should release. No Dev should have to create those distro-bases formats, it's evil and useless.
  
  Let me be more clear: devs are not required to release binaries at all. Bit they should, if they want their work to be widely used. And in this case, providing also a binary release alongside images solves all freedom of choice issues in my opinion. Here you show me my lack of preparedness as I didn't considered docker files as actual build instructions, I will do in the future.
  
  I also fully agree with you that curl+pipe+bash random stuff should be banned as awful practice and that is much worse than containers in general. But posting instructions on forums and websites is not per se dangerous or a bad practice. Following them blindly is, but there is still people not wearing seatbelts in cars or helmets on bikes, so..
  
  I was not single containers out, I was replying to a post about containers. If you read my wiki, every time a curl/pipe/bash approach is proposed, I decompose it and suggest against doing that.
  
  Chmod 777 should be banned in any case, but that steams from containers usage (due to wrongly built images) more than anything else, so I guess you are biting your own cookie here.
  
  Having docker files and composer file is perfectly acceptable. What is not acceptable is having only those and no binary releases. Usually sources are available (in FOSS apps at least) but that can be useless if there are no building instructions provided or the app uses some less common build stack.
  
  On Immich, which is a perfect example of an amazing piece of software fast growing and very polished, I did try to build from sources but I couldn't manage the ML part properly. This is indeed due to my lack of experience with the peculiar stack they are using, but some build instructions would have been appreciated greatly (now I realize I should have started from the docker files). I gave up and pulled the images. No harm done, but little extra fun for me, and while I do understand the devs position, they too keep talking about making a living out of it and that's a totally different point to discuss on a different thread. I would suggest them that public relations and user support is more important than actually releasing an amazing product for making a living out of it. But that's just my real world experience as product manager.
  
  In a world where containers are the only proposed solution, I believe something will be taken from us all. Somebody else explained that concept better then me in this thread. That's all.
  
  1

Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:

Fewer Letters	More Letters
DNS	Domain Name Service/System
Git	Popular version control system, primarily for code
HTTP	Hypertext Transfer Protocol, the Web
LXC	Linux Containers
Plex	Brand of media server package
SSH	Secure Shell for remote terminal access
nginx	Popular HTTP server

[Thread #623 for this sub, first seen 23rd Mar 2024, 07:55] [FAQ] [Full list] [Contact] [Source code]

3

not having to change habits later.

If everybody thought like this, we would still be banging rocks together.
I am not sure about your use case, but IMO learning Docker first would be a good default. It is more wide-spread than podman. If you want (or need) to, moving on to podman would probably not be too big a step.

2

What I meant by that was that it might be easier to start with podman, when my goal is to end up wuth podman anyways.

1
- No flame intended. Quick question though - out of curiosity: what is specifically your use case for podman?
  
  1

Learn Docker first, it will be faster and easier. It will both give you an intro to containers and you'll get some practical use for your self hosting needs.

If you're still curious later you can go deeper into Podman and other container technology.

2

This is a bit of a Pokemon starter question. Just pick one and see where it takes you! They do roughly the same job, especially now that docker has a rootless mode. At the end of the day you're learning a new technology and that's a positive thing.

2

I just downloaded Podman Desktop and am playing with this. Almost all videos and tutorials out there are for Docker but I'm going to watch those but actually use Podman instead to learn.

1

Both?

0

Are you writing your resume? Same answer.

-2

if you havent started: none

use nixOS.

-15

I'm huge fan of Nix, but for someone wondering if they should "learn docker" Nix is absolutely brutal.

Also IMO while there's some overlap, one is not a complete replacement for the other. I use both in combination frequently.

14
I had an interview the other day and was surprised to hear that The University of Miami is actually using Nix for about 16 of their machines. I haven't used Nix yet, but thanks to everyone talking about it I could tell them the benefits of using it haha

2

No

-32

Do you selfhost stuff on bare metal? I feel like most projects provide containers as their officially supported packages.

2
- They're being useless, but what I do is use Proxmox and just install my stuff each in their own LXC
  
  2
- I use distro packages. In the rare case something isn’t packaged yet, I package it myself. And for the isolation, systemd services can do most of the things docker can if you need (check systemd-analyze security).
  
  For just hosting services that can be done instead with normal system services, docker makes your setup a lot more complex (especially on the networking side), for little if any gain. Unless I need to spin up something multiple times temporarily on demand or something has a hard dependency on it, I’m not going to bother with it anymore.
  
  0
- No, I use an operating system.
  
  -20