Just out of curiosity - to IX. Why did you not re-use an existing open source docker management program. Dockge for example (and its just an example, I don’t personally use dockge).
There seem to be a number of docker management applications around - and please lets not get into a rabbit hole of which one would be better. We all have our favorites.
I was just curious as to why IX didn’t use an existing application and just slot it into the GUI instead of rolling their own.
Was it some quirk of licensing that I haven’t considered or another reason
The question could, I think, be reasonably expanded to include other features. VM management to be sure, perhaps LXC management, certainly management of file shares–all of these have existing F/OSS projects that handle them. Docker management might be unique for the number of options available, but I don’t know that the concept is very different.
And I’d expect that at least part of the answer is that they want TrueNAS to be a more integrated product, and stitching together several unrelated products to make TrueNAS wouldn’t have that look. But I’ll be interested in hearing a more in-depth answer.
It is always nice to have a Web GUI with the same look and feel throughout the interface.
Back when I did embedded programming, I wrote a clock setting application with just a few buttons and a 2 line, 16 character LCD. As we released new products, the code was simply copied over.
Later when I had to add product specific settings beyond simple time and date settings, I wrote more complex and complete sub-routines to allow easier use. Except I was not paying attention, and programmed a pair of buttons backwards. Both the new code and old worked perfectly, yet the user interface sucked until I fixed that irregularity.
The moral of the story:
Sometimes better or newer interfaces introduces problems that the users have to work through.
