keycloak-containers VS docker

Yup, that's precisely what I meant. Yes, there are incredibly complex images with lots of tooling Like keycloak, but even then, the docker file is pretty straigthforward and simple to understand.

Replicate the cache amongst N cluster members by providing `CACHE_OWNERS_COUNT` environment variable. You can find how this is used here: https://github.com/keycloak/keycloak-containers/blob/master/server/tools/cli/infinispan/cache-owners.cli N members must go down to lose your sessions

Am I better off using this container: https://hub.docker.com/_/nextcloud/

It looks like I'm not the only person who has faced this. apache-based images require buster, for instance, and some docker images that rely on Ruby face issues too (for example, I decided to try setting up Postal but it looks like it's facing the same issues).

If you look at the info on https://hub.docker.com/_/nextcloud, you'll see that you aught to be specifying at least one volume, so that you have the data you want to not disappear on restart, and can access config files.

Yes, and this is what L passed through as the env variables in the docker compose file, as the docs state: https://hub.docker.com/_/nextcloud

You can't map binaries from host to container like this. What you need is a custom Dockerfile that installs ffmpeg. https://github.com/nextcloud/docker/blob/master/.examples/dockerfiles/full/fpm/Dockerfile

A good example to start with is at https://github.com/nextcloud/docker/tree/master/.examples/docker-compose/insecure/postgres/apache

Nextcloud is free and open source. The easiest way to install it is via docker containers. nextcloud docker