It's an interesting difference in backgrounds, maybe? I tried to build this on OpenBSD where we don't have docker and we use 'make' instead of random shell scripts.

For what it's worth, this is from the build log:

    error code 1
    error path /home/holsta/3rdparty/fusion/frontend/node_modules/@sveltejs/kit
    error command failed
    error command sh -c node postinstall.js
    error /home/holsta/3rdparty/fusion/frontend/node_modules/rollup/dist/native.js:84
    error       throw new Error(
    error             ^
    error
    error Error: Your current platform "openbsd" and architecture "x64" combination is not yet supported by the native Rollup build. Please use the WASM build "@rollup/wasm-node" instead.

It seems like the compiler used in project's front-end framework doesn't support OpenBSD.

There is nothing we can do about it at the moment. Maybe in the future we will change the tech stack to reduce the complexity of the front-end.

Looks good! I am curious on why you recommend to deploy using docker, being a single binary with no external dependencies I find the deployment simple enough.

I write all my personal projects using Go and one of the things I most like is that it compiles to a binary without external dependencies.

That's mostly for Windows users.

The SQLite driver uses cgo, so we use both Ubuntu and Windows Server in CI to avoid cross-compiling. However, we still can't confirm that it's 100% ok on Windows. If any weird bugs occur on Windows, we don't have much experience or energy to deal with them.

The Docker image is based on Debian, we are more familary with it.

For the SQLite driver, check out the one by modernc for pure Go

That makes a lot of sense, thanks for taking the time to explain it.

Why recommend Docker if it's a single binary?

And what's good about a single binary if you're going to recommend Docker?

Here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40525683

it's still easier to manage docker containers if they're 50 MB instead of 300MB and if the rest of the fleet is being managed via docker-(whichever) then there's something to be said about consistency. managing everything through one interface is easier than remembering all the special cases. but to each their own.

The image is 200 MB... There's 100 packages in there, including bash, perl, ext filesystem utilities, and the APT package manager.

Compared to all that, the current PHP app I use for RSS looks lighter. Especially since my VPS already runs PHP and PostgreSQL.

You can use the standalone binary (18 MB) to run it. Docker is just one deployment method.

But then why...

Hold on, I'm back to my earlier comment.

I don't even like docker, but it still doesn't sound that terrible to me. It's an option. Use docker or use the single binary, but presumably if you like docker and have it set up for other things, you'll just use that rather than rolling your own startup scripts etc.

I do something a bit similar for my own project - it's a single binary REST server, but I still package it up with dpkg-deb and deploy that to a private apt repo so I can update it easily on the servers with "apt-get update && apt-get install blah" and that fits nicely with my existing processes and I can just add the repo and dependency to my cloud-init setup. If I used docker, I'm sure I'd find his docker image the easiest path to getting it installed and updated.

The emphasis in my questions above was on recommend.

Consistency is key. it's easier if you're using docker to run all the things, then docker ps shows all the things running, instead of having to check docker, and then also check this other thing over here that's different