Love Seq but no Linux server without Docker

[pkfox]

I love your product guys , but no Linux server without Docker just beggars belief

Kind regards

Pete Kane

long time Seq advocate

[nblumhardt]

Hi Peter,

What kind of environment are you working in/deploying to (domain and tech stack)?

The majority of customers deploying to Linux seem to have coalesced around Docker-based deployments and we haven't received a lot of requests for standalone binaries, but we're always open to the idea we're missing something.

Thanks!

[pkfox]

Hi Peter,

What kind of environment are you working in/deploying to (domain and tech stack)?

The majority of customers deploying to Linux seem to have coalesced around Docker-based deployments and we haven't received a lot of requests for standalone binaries, but we're always open to the idea we're missing something.

Thanks!

Hi @nblumhardt , I have a couple of REST .NET APIS, and various web apps which I host on a Linux Debian box under systemd
and if I can avoid Docker I do, I use it for prototyping then tear it down I'm not keen on using it long term

Kind regard
Pete

[mloskot]

if I can avoid Docker I do

AFAIK, you can avoid Docker already as Seq container images should be usable with any container runtime like containerd or podman or others, even with Colima, I'd expect.

[pkfox]

if I can avoid Docker I do

AFAIK, you can avoid Docker already as Seq container images should be usable with any container runtime like containerd or podman or others, even with Colima, I'd expect.

Hi @mloskot I avoid any sort of containers including virtual machines I can see their uses but they're not for me

Kind regards
Pete

[mloskot]

I avoid any sort of containers

@pkfox it wasn't clear as the issue description says Docker, so I thought it may be worth to clarify.

A container ~= process, performance-wise too. A container artifact ~= a (modern) package. Consuming software from container is not any more complex than consuming it from deb or rpm packages, but packaging software into container artifact is much easier from maintainers point.

Anyhow, I'm just a curious Seq user, not Seq maintainer, so ignore me.

[KodrAus]

I can certainly appreciate wanting to avoid Docker and containers. We started with just a Docker container on Linux as a convenient distribution mechanism, and because we were following the same Windows to Linux journey as a lot of our early customers, who were mostly interested in container-optimized distributions for running their apps on. The Docker container itself has some entrypoint scripts in it, but is also just a wrapper over the binaries in /seqsvr.

At some point I would be keen to ship raw .tar.gz and let you handle deployment yourself, but I think we're still a bit of a way off with respect to our packaging maturity and reliance on external dependencies before we can do that.

[pkfox]

I avoid any sort of containers

@pkfox it wasn't clear as the issue description says Docker, so I thought it may be worth to clarify.

A container ~= process, performance-wise too. A container artifact ~= a (modern) package. Consuming software from container is not any more complex than consuming it from deb or rpm packages, but packaging software into container artifact is much easier from maintainers point.

Anyhow, I'm just a curious Seq user, not Seq maintainer, so ignore me.

@mloskot thanks for your input