So if you do the Docker setup, obeying the instructions and substituting everything that needs to get substituted, but don’t proofread the files in detail and so miss that line 40 of docker-compose.yml doesn’t have the variable {{domain}} like in every other location you need to write your domain, but instead just says LEMMY_UI_LEMMY_EXTERNAL_HOST=lemmy.ml and so you fail to change it away from lemmy.ml… then, everything will work, until you type in your admin password for the first time, at which point your browser will send a request to lemmy.ml which includes your admin username, your email address, and the admin password you’re trying to set. And, also, of course your IP address wherever you are sitting and setting up the server.

I have no reason at all to think the Lemmy devs have set their server up to log this information when it comes in. nginx will throw it away by default, of course, but it would be easy for them to have it save it instead, if they wanted to. And my guess is most people won’t use a different admin password once they figure out why creating their admin user isn’t working and fix it.

@[email protected] @[email protected] I think you should fix the docker-compose.yml file not to do this.

Edit: Just to increase the information-to-rudeness ratio of my post. The docs are at:

https://join-lemmy.org/docs/administration/install_docker.html

And they recommend using wget to download:

https://raw.githubusercontent.com/LemmyNet/lemmy-docs/main/assets/docker-compose.yml

Which is pulled from:

https://github.com/LemmyNet/lemmy-docs/tree/main/assets

Which is what has the wrong line 40 in it.

Edit: They fixed it. Good stuff.

  • theherk@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    24 hours ago

    Nix and Docker / container runtimes are completely different animals. Each is good at what they do, but those are vastly different things, with some overlap. If you want to share a kernel but use fewer resources than a VM, containers can do that. If you want to go further and completely isolate, you can use microvm’s like firecracker.

    I don’t follow what is wrong with that. Maybe you mean it’s use where people use it specifically as a package manager. I agree with that, but even then it has its handy place.

    • PhilipTheBucket@ponder.catOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      23 hours ago

      Maybe you mean it’s use where people use it specifically as a package manager

      Precisely. Containerization is great and Docker does it well. Sending someone a reproducible script that can set up your software package for them is great. Marrying the two concepts unnecessarily and using one specific tool which is designed primarily to do the first, to instead do the second, is the only real issue I’m taking with it.