For the vast majority of docker images, the documentation only mention a super long and hard to understand “docker run” one liner.

Why nobody is placing an example docker-compose.yml in their documentation? It’s so tidy and easy to understand, also much easier to run in the future, just set and forget.

If every image had an yml to just copy, I could get it running in a few seconds, instead I have to decode the line to become an yml

I want to know if it’s just me that I’m out of touch and should use “docker run” or it’s just that an “one liner” looks much tidier in the docs. Like to say “hey just copy and paste this line to run the container. You don’t understand what it does? Who cares”

The worst are the ones that are piping directly from curl to “sudo bash”…

  • lonlazarus@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m curious to hear from the runners. I use compose and I feel the same, it’s more readable and editable and it allows me to backup the command by backing up the docker-compose.yml

    • alteredEnvoy@feddit.ch
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      When orchestration or provisioning tools are used (Ansible, kurbernetes, etc…), creating networks and containers are equally readable in code. The way docker compose is designed makes it hard to integrate with these tools.

      • lonlazarus@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        This is the response I was hoping to hear. I’m primarily a home-automation/self-hosted enthusiast, not necessarily a infrastructure enthusiast. As of yet, I haven’t felt the need for using more involved orchestration tools/infra.