QNAP designation of MinimServer as EOL

[simoncn]

QNAP has designated MinimServer as EOL (end of life), stating that "the MinimServer package's system requirements and technical architecture no longer meet current technology and security standards. As of 30 September 2026, it no longer receives new releases, security updates, or technical support."

QNAP did not notify me that they were intending to do this and have not responded to my request for information about why they decided to remove MinimServer from QNAP App Center.

MinimServer continues to be fully supported and maintained on all QNAP models running QTS or QuTS hero with downloads available from the MinimServer Downloads page and updates released in the usual way. For more information, see the Installing MinimServer on a QNAP NAS page.

[Stake]

This is kind of worrying. Who knows when it wont’t be possible to run Minim on a QTS QNAP natively any longer.
I have no intention of messing around with docker containers, so I did a bit of testing with my Samsung Galaxy laptop running Windows 11.
I installed Java and MinimServer on it and modified the energy saving setting such that it will never fall asleep and only turn off the screen when closing the lid.

There are surely various reasons for people to run NAS devices. Mine is purely to have a central storage and running media server(s).
For this purpose I never really considered my laptop to be an option as I thought it would draw too much power. This is not so. In idle state with Minim running it consumes 4 -5 watts.

So if/when my NAS dies or I won’t be able to run the software of my choice on it I will ditch it and replace it with a cheap/second-hand laptop and use a WD Red SSD drive in an external case for storage.No more messing around with a proprietary OS in future.

Just a heads-up for those with similar requirements.

[simoncn]

I see nothing in the EOL statement that says or suggests that MinimServer will be prevented from running on QNAP.

There are a large number of third-party apps on myqnap.com that are not endorsed or supported by QNAP, so it seems very unlikely that QNAP would block all third-party apps from running.

[Stake]

All the better.
I just thought it’d be a good idea to have a plan B.

[simoncn]

Yes, a plan B is always a good idea

[Klaus57]

First of all, the "good" news:
I have the 6.1 beta version of QNAP running and MS worked as a native app without any problems. Nevertheless, I switched to Doker, if only because I run several instances of MS. Then I set both MS and JRE to the "stopped" status, of course without negative consequences for the Docker application. By the way, setting up a Docker container is very easy, there are instructions from Simon.
My very personal(!) opinion on the topic:
I understand Simon's displeasure about QNAP's communication with the developers, there still seems to be "room for improvement".
I also understand, if something works well, there seems to be no reason to change it.
But it is also the case that we expect the supplier of an operating system to deliver it stably, quickly, securely (very important in times like these) and fit for the future and to work on it continuously – for example, through regular updates that not only close security gaps, but also include real technological development.
I can't judge whether QNAP wants to stop supporting MS (and other apps) as native apps for these reasons, but I strongly hope so.
My idea of a "Plan B" is that we will receive MS as a pure Docker application in the future. This requires effort on the part of Simon, that is clear to me.
But then we are future-proof: Both against changes on the part of the operating system and even if Docker is replaced as a runtime environment in the background, the Docker images created remain universally applicable (OCI).
In the medium term, it may be that QNAP withdraws operating system resources from defined native apps and then these apps can actually no longer be installed or started and have not only disappeared from the App Store.

[simoncn]

How is a "pure Docker application" different from the MinimServer Docker image that is currently available?

On QNAP at present, a single MinimServer license activation is shared between the native installation and all Docker instances. This feature would not be available without a native installation.

Many older QNAP models can't run Docker. MinimServer has always supported older QNAP models and I would like to continue providing this support for future versions.

[Klaus57]

"How is a "pure Docker application" different from the MinimServer Docker image that is currently available?"

By that, I meant that new installations can be performed entirely without the presence of a native version of MS.
The activation or verification of the license would then have to be handled exclusively through the Docker app.

[simoncn]

This approach to licensing would require giving the Docker container read/write access to a location on the host file system so that it can write license information there for access by other MinimServer Docker instances. At present, each Docker instance only has read access to the host file system. Changing this to read/write access would compromise the security benefit of running MinimServer in a container.

[Klaus57]

As mentioned, the final decision rests with QNAP, in line with their strategy to move away from native applications. Also the discontinuation of JRE support—as I understand it—is part of this approach.
The rationale is that each Docker image includes its own, perfectly tailored Java Runtime Environment. This eliminates the need for a system-wide JRE installed via the App Center, which could otherwise lead to version conflicts.
In QNAP’s own words: “To ensure system security and optimize performance, QNAP will discontinue support for JRE in the App Center. Users are encouraged to migrate Java-based applications to Container Station.”
I don’t believe this is just "empty talk," which is why I suggest that a "Plan B" should involve Docker. The issue you raised regarding read/write permissions is certainly solvable; there are already applications on QNAP systems that are provided exclusively as Docker containers—for example, SongKong for QNAP NAS. That application also requires the entry of a license key.
Lastly, the final say on MS rests with you; I have simply shared my own personal opinion.