Qballjos

Well, I have to say that this is actually a very reassuring answer. This is exactly the kind of clarification I was hoping for. The explicit statement that Community Applications will remain a free add-on to the OS and will not be restricted behind a paywall removes probably my biggest concern. I also really appreciate the distinction you made regarding backups. I'm completely fine with Unraid potentially offering paid cloud storage as an optional service, as long as the backup functionality itself remains available and users are free to choose their own backup targets. That's a very different proposition from putting the backup functionality behind a subscription. More importantly, I appreciate that this time the answer was very specific. My concern was never that Unraid should never offer paid services. It's perfectly reasonable for a company to charge for services it actually provides. My concern was whether core functionality that has traditionally been part of the Unraid experience could gradually become dependent on an account or subscription. Based on your answer, at least regarding Community Applications and backups, that concern is now much clearer. I still think it's important for long-time and legacy license holders to keep asking these questions as Unraid 8 develops, simply because the platform is going through some pretty significant changes. But I also think it's important to acknowledge when Unraid addresses those concerns properly, and I think this is a good example of that. So thank you for taking the time to answer this directly. This is exactly the kind of communication that helps build confidence in the direction Unraid is taking.

Hi @elibosley !, Thank you very much for the detailed and thoughtful response. I really appreciate you taking the time to address my concerns so explicitly. This is exactly the kind of clarification I was hoping for, especially regarding local operation, the optional nature of an Unraid account, the lack of mandatory telemetry, and keeping control of our own workloads and data. Those points are very important to me, and it’s reassuring to hear that they are considered fundamental requirements for Unraid 8 rather than simply nice-to-have features. I also appreciate the clarification around backups and application management. I completely understand the desire to make these things easier and more integrated while still allowing users to remain fully self-hosted. There is just one point I’d like to clarify further, because it is still a little unclear to me from the wording of the response. When you refer to “application management and backups”, is it the intention that services such as the Community Applications store/catalog and its core functionality could become part of a paid service or subscription in the future? I’m specifically thinking about the ability to browse, install and manage community applications locally — not optional cloud, remote-management or other online functionality. In other words, will the core Community Applications experience remain available to existing legacy Pro/Lifetime users without requiring an Unraid account or an additional subscription, or is this one of the areas where Unraid is considering introducing a paid service in the future? I’m not assuming that this is the plan; I’m asking because the distinction is important to me and the previous answer didn’t quite make that part clear. Again, thank you for taking the concern seriously and for providing such a detailed response. The commitment to keeping local, independent operation at the heart of Unraid is exactly what I wanted to hear.

I've been using Unraid for many years and I'm still running a legacy Pro license. I chose Unraid very deliberately because it was a self-hosted operating system: I buy the software, install it on my own hardware, and decide myself what I run on that hardware. I'm following the development of Unraid 8 with a lot of interest. There are several things I genuinely like about the direction, especially native Docker Compose and the move towards a more modern underlying platform. However, there is one aspect of the Unraid 8 direction that increasingly concerns me: the gradual integration of the Unraid account, Community Apps, backup functionality and other services into the core user experience. I understand why Unraid wants to make these things easier and more consistent. But I would really like some clarity about where the boundary is between Unraid OS itself and Unraid's online services/ecosystem. For me, an Unraid server should ideally be able to operate completely locally. I don't need Unraid Cloud. I don't need remote management through Unraid's infrastructure. I don't need my server to depend on an Unraid account for day-to-day operation. If I want remote access, backups, monitoring or other services, I already have the ability to build and host those myself. That's actually one of the reasons I run an Unraid server in the first place. What concerns me is the possibility of a gradual shift from: "Unraid is a self-hosted OS." towards: "Unraid is a self-hosted OS, but increasingly useful functionality is tied to an Unraid account or online services." The distinction is important, especially for users with legacy lifetime Pro licenses. I understand that existing Basic/Plus/Pro licenses are grandfathered and retain lifetime OS updates. That's great, and I appreciate that commitment. But "lifetime OS updates" and "lifetime access to all future functionality" are not necessarily the same thing. For example, if a future version of Unraid introduces a significantly improved Backup system, Community Apps integration, application management, or other functionality, will those features remain part of the locally installed Unraid OS and therefore be available to existing lifetime Pro users? Or could functionality increasingly be split into: Unraid OS itself — covered by the lifetime license Unraid account features — potentially separate cloud/remote services — potentially subscription-based premium functionality built around Community Apps — potentially separate I'm not saying that Unraid is definitely going down this road. I haven't seen an official statement saying that Community Apps or Backup will become paid services. But looking at the direction over the last few years, I think it's a reasonable question to ask now rather than after the ecosystem has already changed. I'd also really like to see a strong commitment that: Local server management will remain possible without an Unraid account. The core OS will remain fully functional without an internet connection after licensing/activation. Community Apps will remain usable without an Unraid cloud dependency. Docker/Compose workloads will remain standard Docker/Compose workloads that users can manage independently. Backup functionality will not require users to use an Unraid-controlled cloud service. An Unraid account remains optional for people who don't want Connect/cloud/remote-management features. Native Docker Compose is actually a very positive development from my perspective, because it potentially makes Unraid less dependent on Unraid-specific templates and plugins. I would love to see that philosophy extended further: use open standards wherever possible and let Unraid be the excellent infrastructure layer underneath them. I don't want Unraid to become another platform where I technically own the hardware and run the software locally, but increasingly need an online account to access the features that make the platform useful. I genuinely like Unraid and have used it for years. That's exactly why I'm raising this concern. I'd much rather hear a clear statement from Lime Technology now that the Unraid account and online services will remain optional, rather than find out several years from now that the platform has gradually moved in the opposite direction. For me, the greatest strength of Unraid has always been: My server. My hardware. My data. My services. My choice. I hope Unraid 8 continues to build on that philosophy rather than slowly moving away from it.

I had an issue with the plugin: updating non existing containers (cached), Fixed the issue with Cursor, here is the gist of it hope it will help. Issue Summary The CA Update Applications plugin continues to track and report updates for Docker containers/images that no longer exist in Docker. Root CauseThe issue is in the Dynamix Docker Manager plugin's cache system, which the CA Update Applications plugin relies on. Cache File Locationtext /usr/local/emhttp/state/plugins/dynamix.docker.manager/docker.json ProblemWhen containers are removed from Docker, the cache file (docker.json) is not automatically cleaned The DockerTemplates->getAllInfo() function reads from this cached JSON file CA Update Applications plugin calls getAllInfo() and displays all entries, including orphaned ones This causes the plugin to show update notifications for containers that don't exist Code FlowCA Update Applications plugin calls: DockerTemplates->getAllInfo() getAllInfo() function (in /usr/local/emhttp/plugins/dynamix.docker.manager/include/DockerClient.php) reads from the cached JSON file The cache file is populated by DockerClient->getDockerContainers() but never validated against actual Docker containers When containers are removed, the cache entries remain Affected Containers (Example)In this case, 10 GitLab Runner containers were affected: runner-ray-8hamr-project-1-concurrent-0-75caaa08324d5ae3-build runner-ray-8hamr-project-1-concurrent-0-75caaa08324d5ae3-docker-0 runner-ray-8hamr-project-1-concurrent-0-75caaa08324d5ae3-predefined vibrant_chatterjee runner-ray-8hamr-project-1-concurrent-0-ba175883e44aa7ce-postgres-0 bold_goodall runner-ray-8hamr-project-1-concurrent-0-18cf7434f7c65279-build runner-ray-8hamr-project-1-concurrent-0-18cf7434f7c65279-docker-0 runner-ray-8hamr-project-1-concurrent-0-18cf7434f7c65279-predefined sharp_galileo Suggested FixThe getAllInfo() function should: Validate cached entries - Check that each cached container entry still exists in Docker before returning it Auto-cleanup - Remove entries from cache when containers no longer exist Cache invalidation - Implement a mechanism to detect when containers are removed and invalidate/update the cache accordingly Implementation SuggestionIn DockerClient.php, the getAllInfo() function should: After loading from cache, cross-reference with getDockerContainers() Remove any cached entries that don't exist in the current Docker container list Save the cleaned cache back to disk WorkaroundManually remove orphaned entries from the cache file: bash # Backup first cp /usr/local/emhttp/state/plugins/dynamix.docker.manager/docker.json /usr/local/emhttp/state/plugins/dynamix.docker.manager/docker.json.backup # Remove orphaned entries (using PHP) php -r "\$data = json_decode(file_get_contents('/usr/local/emhttp/state/plugins/dynamix.docker.manager/docker.json'), true); \$current = []; exec('docker ps -a --format \"{{.Names}}\"', \$current); \$current = array_map('trim', \$current); foreach(\$data as \$key => \$value) { if(!in_array(\$key, \$current)) { unset(\$data[\$key]); } } file_put_contents('/usr/local/emhttp/state/plugins/dynamix.docker.manager/docker.json', json_encode(\$data, JSON_PRETTY_PRINT | JSON_UNESCAPED_SLASHES));" Plugin VersionsCA Update Applications: 2024.03.17 (based on file timestamp) Dynamix Docker Manager: (part of Unraid core) Unraid VersionLinux 6.12.54-Unraid