Squid

I believe that the general rule around here is that if its your idea you have to do it...[emoji45]

Lol. For what i initially thought was a simple question is turning out to be not so simple

I actually do prefer one single server category and one single media application category. Trying to hit the middle ground for everyone. Separating them all into their own category i think at this point is a bit too many categories for the user to handle. Hence why i had the other server category.

Filezilla since its FTP I would throw it in with downloaders / file sharing / whatever to call that category Guacamole: Best we came up with it previously was tools / utilities Handbrake: Media Application (or Video Application if we narrow it down that far) Calibre, Ubooquity (I run ubooquity) I consider to be the "Other Media Server" and "Other Media Application". Since they both serve and manage book collections. The "Other" media applications / servers was going to be for books / comic books / photos, etc. At least thats what I was thinking when I posted it.

As an aside, if you hit help the help text would also have a description of the category

No offense taken. That's why this thread exists and why i haven't released the plugin. You make some good points. Personally i do prefer less categories rather than more.

This kind of brings subcategories back into the game, should Video Server, Music Server and Other Media Server roll up to Media Server? Same with Media Applications? Maybe that is just my wired "deformation professionelle" driving for hierarchy and structure.... Yes, you are correct that those could be termed "sub-categories". However, with the focus on unRaid as being a media server, I felt that those were justified. I'm just future proofing the system on those categories, since the implementation of true subcategories would be you would click the "media server" button, and it would bring up the video server/music server/other server categories. On another note, I forsee having the categories nailed down within a week, and then a release of a tool to assist the maintainers / authors to modify their xml templates, followed by the actual release of the new plugin.

ok, these are the categories I'm thinking about now: Backup Beta Cloud File Sharing Home Automation Internet / Web / LAN Video Applications Music Applications Other Media Applications Video Servers Music Servers Other Media Servers Other Productivity Tools / Utilities I *believe* that just about everything out there can fit into something like this. I'm debating whether to add another one (something like Science / Education) to toss Boinc and Folding@Home into.

To help with implementation of the categories i plan on having a basic plug-in/script to assist everyone and minimize errors

This concept is my preferred way also, keep the categories fairly high level and generic, last thing you want is to frustrate the user because they can't find something because it didn't quite fit into a specific category. I echo this sentiment I think this is a good way forward - I'm assuming that extra categories could be created later, what about sub-categories? I can see that the need for categorisation is growing with the explosion of dockers that I don't think any of us could have predicted. Categories can always be added later. Subcategories are also an option. Right now i don't believe that they are necessary with the containers that are currently available. However, until i decide on category lists and then the maintainers actually implement them we really won't know for sure. Later tonight i will be posting another list of categories for everyone's review

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quis_custodiet_ipsos_custodes%3F

With the debate so far, I agree with the above. RDP as a category doesn't make much sense (at least for things like Krusader, Dolphin, etc). I've never run it, but would Guacamole still qualify as RDP (ie: should the category still exist?) Guacamole allows you to connect to other desktops on your network. I think it was probably the inspiration if not a component in the rdp dockers. RDP is what Guacamole does. Since it seems to be rather unique at the moment, maybe the best solution would be to have it a member of something like Tools / Utilities instead of having it the only member of RDP. If the situation changes in the future new categories can always be added.

With the debate so far, I agree with the above. RDP as a category doesn't make much sense (at least for things like Krusader, Dolphin, etc). I've never run it, but would Guacamole still qualify as RDP (ie: should the category still exist?)

The plugin is currently case agnostic as far as categories. EG: if we decide on a category called MEDIA, if the maintainer enters media or Media or MeDiA, it will all find it the same. Tags if implemented in the future would also be similar, but once again TV is different than Television.

Isn't that how it is now? lol

Already built. I don't want to try and impose my opinions on the maintainers, have them modify the xml's to suit, and then keep having the debate and possibly forcing them to conform to a different system. If it happened to me, I'd be annoyed. Maybe we could do large very generalized categories. Selecting them could take you to a sub-category display. IE: Category like Media Server, which then takes you to sub categories TV, Movies, Books, etc. The list doesn't have to be finalized. There's always room to add more. But it at least has to be somewhat close.

Until you get maintainer calling tagging his containers as "X". Maintainer B tags his containers as "Y". Maintainer C tags his containers as "Z". Now the system would show you three different tags for three very similar containers, and the net result is that the user is not going to be able to find what ever they want. And, if you wind up with hundreds of different tags, I would think that you're in an even worse situation in trying to actually find something. A generalized category / group is how I believe every other app store out there works. Anything else could be handled through searches. My opinion at least.

This is my test repo I forked off of sparklyballs: https://github.com/Squidly271/TestRepo/ If you look at it, you'll see that for simplicity and ease of implementation on the maintainer's part, there is only a single new element to the schema <Category> Within that are the actual categories that the container belongs to. Those entries can be of the form of "Category 1/Category 2", "Category 1, Category 2", "Category 1 Category 2". Categories (groups) are handled as just a specialized search. Capitalization is not important. Delimiters between categories are not important. Spelling however would be. I'm tossing around the idea of a quick and dirty script once we get the categories / groups set to assist everyone in modifying their xml's.

As I mentioned in the OP, the system does allow for a container belonging to multiple categories (maybe groups would be a better term). Narrowing it all down to TV, and movies is a little more detail than I was thinking of, but that's what we're here for. To try and come up with a workable system. The problem is that until we get close to coming up with workable groups that cover most if not all of what is at least out there right now we can't implement the system.

Not until we come up with a bunch of categories (metatags) which we can all work with. Otherwise there will wind up being far too many and we will wind up back into the same boat (worse actually)

Phase 3 of the Community Repositories plugin is now more or less complete. (For those interested, phase 1 was my initial proof of concept written in Bash of all things, phase 2 was the rewrite into PHP - many thanks to gfjardim and bonienl for their assistance with this). Phase 3 is moving the plugin towards more of an appstore application. When push comes to shove, the focus of dockerMan, and the current CR plugin is around that of repositories instead of where it belongs - the containers. After all, all the end-user cares about is finding the container which suits their needs. Phase 3 should put that focus back onto the containers themselves. However, in order to accomplish this there is one thing missing. Categorizing the containers. What kind of app is it. Is it a Backup application? Is it a Media Server? etc. And for this, I need everyone's help -> most importantly, I need the repository maintainer's help - They after all are the ones who are going to have to modify their XML templates to support this feature. Below is a picture from my latest build of this, so that you can get an idea of how easy it will (should) be for users to find and use their containers. My initial thoughts on categories are: Backup - Things like Crashplan Cloud - Dropbox Downloaders - Sabnzbd, CouchPotato, etc Internet / Web - Apache, duckDNS, etc Media Applications - Handbrake, Koma, etc Media Servers - Logitech Media Server, Plex, etc Productivity - Libre-Office, taskboard, etc RDP - Any of those containers utilizing Hurricane's X Image Tools / Utilities - Dolphin, DUC, etc Other - One of a kind stuff - not easily classified, etc Beta - Beta containers - stuff that does not work quite right, etc. (This is also a special category, since I classify any container that's contained within a Beta Repository (smdion, Sparklyballs, Zuhkov) or that's explicitly categorized as being beta) Should we for example further differentiate Media Applications and/or Servers to specify music / video? Note that the new plugin already has the ability to support a container belonging to one or more categories. We as a group need to come up with a categorization system that all of the repo maintainers can live with that is also easily understood by all - users and maintainers / authors. This is not to say that we have to come up with a system right now that is set in stone until the end of days. The application is expandable for future categories. For example, currently there are no "games" containers published. But, I'm sure that eventually someone somewhere will create one. The system can be expanded to support that. What I'm interested in right now is categorization for containers that already exist, or will exist in the near future. After we as a group can decide upon a system that everyone can live with then we can begin to really make the docker system even easier to use. After all, everyone out there knows how to install an app from their phone. Note to repo maintainers: Beyond a one line addition to XML template, nothing else changes from your point of view. Users can still search and see which repository the containers are from so that they can choose to use BinHex's versions instead of Gfjardim's version. The only fundamental difference is that the plugin no longer supports ADDING a repository to dockerMan. There's no real need for it anymore. I believe that we are on the cusp of an explosion in containers being created for unRaid, and that a system such as this is needed sooner rather than later, and will only increase utilization of the Docker system. PS. If anyone wants to try out the new plugin to see how its going to work, drop me a PM. I have created a categorized repository (thank you sparkly) for demonstration purposes of the new features. Thanks, Squid

cAdvisor is an official Google docker, I just made an easy way to install it on docker. Not sure even how to start looking into that I think its an unraid/ docker manager thing, since the docker works, but it just isn't displaying the icon which has nothing to do with the docker itself. The weird thing to me is that it seems to ignore the template values for the icon. Im not sure where to ask though for that? I just tried it (with and without community repositories installed) and the icon does not work with dockerMan. The link is good, but dockerMan doesn't like it for some reason.

Not quite sure. I guess what I would do would be to stop the array. restart it. See if it starts a parity check. If it does, I would stop it, restart the array in SAFE mode, and then stop / restart in safe mode again and see if it starts one up.

Do you let windows "fix it"? Its either some sort of corruption which both Windows and unRaid are catching (difference is that unRaid unlike windows marks the drive as read-only to prevent any further corruption) or the drive is bad. My personal feeling (could be wrong however) is that the majority of flashdrives you can buy out there are cheaply made. Always go with a good brand name drive. I *think* that I saw somewhere in one of the threads that unRaid now does report the read-only status of the drive. Probably somewhere in the flash drive section. But, since mine works properly I can't confirm.

This is in your syslog May 9 21:54:28 HunterNAS-6 emhttp: unclean shutdown detected Either you are not performing a proper restart / shutdown (ie: just pressing the reset button), or your flash drive is marked as read-only. Take you flash drive to your desktop and run chkdsk on it.