docker-calibre-web VS flood

Special mentions: Watchtower, Portainer CE, PhotoPrism, Dokuwiki, Calibre-web.

Calibra-web

So I surveyed docker images in my personal use:

Postgres (Docker provided - https://hub.docker.com/_/postgres): Debian (with alternates for alpine or other debian versions)

Jellyfin (Developer provided - https://github.com/jellyfin/jellyfin/blob/master/Dockerfile): They use an alpine build step but the final distributed image is debian

Calibre-Web (Linuxserver provided - https://github.com/linuxserver/docker-calibre-web/blob/maste...): Ubuntu

Graylog (Developer provided - https://github.com/Graylog2/graylog-docker/blob/4.2/docker/o...): Debian

Vaultwarden (Developer provided - https://github.com/dani-garcia/vaultwarden/blob/main/docker/...): Debian (with alpine alternate available)

For professional use, our company mandates all images used are built off a common base image, which is Ubuntu based (my previous employer was similar, but used a Red Hat based image).

On the (e)book side, I'm running calibre (which runs the desktop app accessible by guacamole, for management, only accessible on my local network) in combination with an instance of calibre-web, in order to access the files remotely.

Jellyfins book support is kinda eh right now, it'll probably take another major version or two. I'm using calibre-web until JF feels ready. Clients shouldn't be a problem though, any web browser will do.

Also, here's an issue that has been opened: https://github.com/linuxserver/docker-calibre-web/issues/119

Why bake libtransmission into the app instead of just using the transmission daemon's RPC?

What you've done actually makes it harder to use, because in order to configure any of transmission's settings (ports, connection/torrent connection limits, bandwith limits, etc) the user needs to dig around to find the transmission config folder and then manually edit JSON with a text editor - because your client doesn't expose any of transmissions numerous settings [1] to the user except for choosing the download folder.

I'm not sure why anyone would want to use this instead of Flood [2] or even old Transmission Web Control [3]

1: https://github.com/transmission/transmission/blob/main/docs/...

1: https://github.com/jesec/flood

2: https://github.com/ronggang/transmission-web-control

Only one that I'm aware of is Flood: https://github.com/jesec/flood

If you haven't seen the https://flood.js.org project before. It has subjectively a nicer ui and works with qbittorent.

You can install alternate web UIs very easy. I’m a big fan of Flood, which is mobile friendly: https://flood.js.org/

One note: I lean heavily on an API to manage it so I'd love to continue using flood, I tested qbittorrent with it briefly and it didn't go well.

You mean a torrent client? I’m using rTorrent with Flood (the new jesec fork that’s actually active) and it works brilliantly on mobile

https://flood.js.org/ ?

If it's just the web ui you're worried about perhaps look into installing Flood & see if it helps? It's going to be a better web ui overall. (I've never needed to use it personally but it's been recommended in the pat)

qbitorrent-nox with flood-ui

Impressive. But I dont get why they would rebuild the web client when there are existing options like: https://github.com/jesec/flood