Curious to know what the experiences are for those who are sticking to bare metal. Would like to better understand what keeps such admins from migrating to containers, Docker, Podman, Virtual Machines, etc. What keeps you on bare metal in 2025?
Containers run on “bare metal” in exactly the same way other processes on your system do. You can even see them in your process list FFS. They’re just running in different cgroup’s that limit access to resources.
Yes, I’ll die on this hill.
But, but, docker, kubernetes, hyper-scale convergence and other buzzwords from the 2010’s! These fancy words can’t just mean resource and namespace isolation!
In all seriousness, the isolation provided by containers is significant enough that administration of containers is different from running everything in the same OS. That’s different in a good way though, I don’t miss the bad old days of everything on a single server in the same space. Anyone else remember the joys of Windows Small Business Server? Let’s run Active Directory, Exchange and MSSQL on the same box. No way that will lead to prob… oh shit, the RAM is on fire.
…oh shit, the RAM is on fire.
The RAM. The RAM. The 🐏 is on fire. We don’t need no water let the mothefuxker burn.
Burn mothercucker, burn.
(Thanks phone for the spelling mistakes that I’m leaving).
My NAS will stay on bare metal forever. Any complications there is something I really don’t want. Passthrough of drives/PCIe-devices works fine for most things, but I won’t use it for ZFS.
As for services, I really hate using Docker images with a burning passion. I’m not trusting anyone else to make sure the container images are secure - I want the security updates directly from my distribution’s repositories, and I want them fully automated, and I want that inside any containers. Having Nixos build and launch containers with systemd-nspawn solves some of it. The actual docker daemon isn’t getting anywhere near my systems, but I do have one or two OCI images running. Will probably migrate to small VMs per-service once I get new hardware up and running.
Additionally, I never found a source of container images I feel like I can trust long term. When I grab a package from Debian or RHEL, I know that package will keep working without any major changes to functionality or config until I upgrade to the next major. A container? How long will it get updates? How frequently? Will the config format or environment variables or mount points change? Will a threat actor assume control of the image? (Oh look, all the distros actually enforce GPG signatures in their repos!)
So, what keeps me on bare metal? Keeping my ZFS pools safe. And then just keeping away from the OCI ecosystem in general, the grass is far greener inside the normal package repositories.
Why would I want add overheard and complexity to my system when I don’t need to? I can totally see legitimate use cases for docker, and work for purposes I use VMs constantly. I just don’t see a benefit to doing so at home.
Main benefit of Docker for home is Docker compose IMO. Makes it so easy to reuse your configuration
“What is stopping you from” <- this is a loaded question.
We’ve been hosting stuff long before docker existed. Docker isn’t necessary. It is helpful sometimes, and even useful in some cases, but it is not a requirement.
I had no problems with dependencies, config, etc because I am familiar with just running stuff on servers across multiple OSs. I am used to the workflow. I am also used to docker and k8s, mind you - I’ve even worked at a company that made k8s controllers + operators, etc. I believe in the right tool for the right job, where “right” varies on a case-by-case basis.
tl;dr docker is not an absolute necessity and your phrasing makes it seem like it’s the only way of self‐hosting you are comfy with. People are and have been comfy with a ton of other things for a long time.
Question is totally on purpose, so that you’ll fill in what it means to you. The intention is to get responses from people who are not using containers, that is all. Thank you for responding!