How did you install Home Assistant?

Good vote count so far.

Not nearly as high as I would have hoped or thought tho. There are 152 votes in the original thread poll so far. But we still have two more days to go so hopefully it will get more.

However, no matter which poll you use it gives at least some idea that at least the active forum members are using the Supervised install more than all of the others combined. And in the other poll it’s by a very wide margin.

regarding the comment above that RPI is only to try things out. This assumption is IMO wrong. It’s way faster/easier to try something in a VM :wink:
For me the HW decision is and always will be a RPI. I just love the device, it’s good docmentation and vibrant community and especially that I can utilize the GPIO pins for custom sensors etc. I even ran HA on a RPI2 for 2 years now and it was just fine, no performance issues, no SD card issues, nothing. I only recently upgraded to a RPI4 because I want to run more things on it, and then found myself in the dilemma of picking a suitable installation method that allows me to add more functionality. Due to recent time constraints I postponed it and went with HomeAssistant (hassio) again to quickly have a working env again. But I doubt I will stick to it on the long run because it is just not flexible enough and creating custom add-ons that do more than providing one single lib (like my knxd add-on) is way above my head, so I am rather looking for an OS with a wider collection of “apps” (like a DLNA/UPNP server, OwnCloud, and what not) and the ability to outsource data/folders to an attached USB HDD

1 Like

Install the Portainer Add-On and use it to install other docker containers.

It gives you a way of installing services that are not currently available as Add-Ons (but are available as standard docker containers).

tried that, didn’t work. Wanted to create a nextcloud container and while it said it’s deploying it, nothing happened in the end (no new container, nothing). Also, a local-persited volume driver is missing, which to my limited docker knowledge I would need in order to share a local USB-HDD as volume with multiple containers. Another option would be to mount /dev/sda1 to /mnt/data/supervisor/shared and use that instead, but AFAIK changes to the core OS (like autostart scripts) are subject to be reverted on updates (not entirely sure about that though). But this is going way to off topic now.

Have a look at the discussion in this thread. It might provide clues to resolving the issue you’ve encountered.

Start with this post:

Maybe you want to start with other addons apart from nextcloud. Especially nextcloud as a docker container is not a simple task. If you look into the NC forums, you will see a lot of questions regarding the installation of NC in a docker container. NC is a little picky regarding specific versions for requirements.

There are a lot of tutorials out there, I didn’t find a good and correct one. I didn’t try it in the end, as I found NextcloudPi, that is exactly what I was looking for. Very similar to the now deprecated supervised install. :smiley: :smiley: :smiley:

Have you tried something “easier”? :slight_smile:

RPI is a great solutions… my suggestion for you is to make it bootable from SSD which will make it run much2 faster. Futhermore try running docker hass.core and you should have more flexibility in terms installing more2 addon available out there… I know some dont support armhf at the moment but most do have.

I installed 3 distinct installations of Home-Assistant using Supervised, as it was the easiest and fastest setup ever. Installed at home, at my father’s place and just this weekend at the cottage. I even sent over the script to a buddy of mine to install it today, since I couldn’t find it on the website anymore.



This is a nice poll and I very much commend the effort put into it.

There’s only one issue:
Statistically speaking, polls and other survey data are unfortunately often susceptible to many sorts biases, and [u]this poll and any other like it in particular is highly likely to be susceptible to ‘self-selection bias’.

Given the emotionally charged environment surrounding the possible (re-)depreciation of the Supervised Install while this likely to get me growled at, and while it would be self-serving for me to Not point this out (as my hopes are for continued support of the Supervised Install method),
out of respect for all the hard work being done by the core HA developers, it must be stated, that probabilistically speaking, users in the HA Supervised are over-represented here

( Should you happen to not be familiar, the Wikipedia entry is a decent description: )

Should the decision be made to no longer support the Supervised Install due to a lack of support from developers in the community and that it has become simply unsustainable, it would be unfair and statistically without merit for anyone to point to the results of this poll and claim that the users’ wishes are being ignored.

E.g. For one thing, users such as myself are much more concerned about losing the Supervised (formerly generic/alternative Linux install) installation method are much more likely to be heavily present on this site in order keep up with news and give opinions, etc., than the proportion users Who do not care about this install method so much because they don’t use it and are not feeling affected by that potential deprecation as much)…see non-response bias

(This bias can be slightly mitigated by turning off the Poll Closing expiration timer/countdown…)

I think the efforts are great and I really the involvement in our community, please know that.

And of course I have my own preferences and biases towards keeping this method (or one like it)

But if we’re going to talk about data evidence-based statistical inference/logic then unfortunately raw & unadjusted survey data will simply add to the problem.

Don’t believe me? Fine. Before anyone is tempted to shout, please first ask another statistician for a second opinion.


Well Duh!!!

1 Like

Yeah. And it’s not acknowledged whatsoever here

While I don’t disagree that this is not a purely scientific poll that will be submitted for peer review and therefore isn’t a perfectly “exact” representation I think it at least gives some indication of where the users who visit the forum and are representative of the “passionate base” of HA are and which install method is being used by those users.

So that said at least I gave it a try. Which is more than the devs have done anywhere that I have seen.

Out of all you just said that is the part I disagree with the most.

So, based on the efforts the devs have put into gathering this information what would you prefer they base their decision on, a S.W.A.G. (Silly Wild-A$$ Guess)?

Of course it’s not definitive but even a small amount of info is better than none.

With all due respect, the poll’s result says all that. 300+ votes is a fraction of a percent of the total registered users on this forum (> 60K). It’s statistically insignificant.

The poll also suggests there are more installations of the Supervised version than the next top two types combined. That’s implausible.

What the poll does show is that there are more than just a handful of people using the Supervised version and they care enough to come forward and vote.

More data will be collected by the enhanced updater component (version 0.110) that will also report the installation type.

Sample size alone is not what makes something statistically significant or not

Actually it’s highly plausible. It happens a lot. Go to any university and ask a statistics professor

Of course. But The poll has to not just be on the website for a week or two for starters

You’re defending the indefensible. Less than 1/2 percent of the community responded and you’re defending that paltry sample size as being statistically significant. It’s not.

Well my total guess was 40% just from hanging around the forum for a few years so it’s not that implausible IMO.


Yeah, I’m not convinced that’s the case. There are A LOT of threads here everyday saying that people are running the Supervised install.