Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why I run FreeBSD for my home servers (2024)

aumont.fr

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 251 posts

Re: Why I run FreeBSD for my home servers (2024)

#131

Post by nisa »

giantrobot wrote: post #127

I have tried several times to run FreeBSD on my home servers and every single time it fails to boot let alone run. Each happily runs Linux (with ZFS) all day long with no issues. I know the project is smaller in scope and has less funding than Linux (distros and subprojects included) but it's kind of ridiculous. It's incredibly frustrating to set aside the time to set up a machine only to have the kernel panic half w…

I've also found hardware support lacking. In my case SATA controller threw errors on FreeBSD and worked fine in Linux. It's something that's impossible for FreeBSD through because Linux has much more drivers, testers and eyes for exotic hardware. However there exist hardware compatibility lists and most common hardware is supported very well.

Re: Why I run FreeBSD for my home servers (2024)

#132

Post by [deleted] »

inopinatus wrote: post #125
citrin_ru wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the split between /usr/local/etc and /etc constantly leaves you guessing where to find a particular config file I started with FreeBSD and it never was a problem to me until I started to use Linux too. Now I just make symlinks from /usr/local/etc to /etc for software I use both on Linux and FreeBSD. The rule is simple - if an app is from the base system it is in /etc and if you installed some software from packages…

FreeBSD is more of an admin's system than a user's system and this perfectly illustrates one of the reasons why. Outside of this forum, in regular consumer land, OS users don't want to know or care about the distinction between base and ports, and nothing anyone says about it is going to change that. So I run lots of BSD at home but I recommend Mint to family.

[deleted]

Re: Why I run FreeBSD for my home servers (2024)

#133

Post by packetlost »

osn9363739 wrote: post #119
m463 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me arch linux is the middle ground between a too-much-complexity "fat" distribution like ubuntu or debian and a-minimal-but-eclectic-freebsd. the arch wiki is VERY comprehensive, linux has a huge community, and arch forced you to understand much just by stepping through the installation process.

arch (or any rolling release) on a home server doesn't sound like a good idea?

if you actually run updates regularly (which you should anyways) it's fine. I did it for years until I switched to NixOS.

Re: Why I run FreeBSD for my home servers (2024)

#134

Post by bigfishrunning »

fragmede wrote: post #108
n3storm wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have "reversed engineered" dockerfiles in order to avoid containers. Any software should be installable without docker, it just takes more knowledge and time. Also sometimes it doesn't, there is a binary (like with go and rust and .net) or other times the long route is pip or apt and some conf fiddling. Databases are the worse part maybe but once you get it is more control for you and what you want to do with your…

that is absolutely fascinating. why do you want to avoid containers?

I'm not the parent poster, but I also like to avoid containers when I can. For instance, if there is a bug in some library or common dependency (think libssl or bash) it's easy to update it in one place rather then make sure a whole bunch of containers get updated. Also, when writing software I find that targeting a container keeps you from thinking about portability (by intrinsically avoiding the "it works on my machine" problem) and results in a more fragile end product.

Re: Why I run FreeBSD for my home servers (2024)

#135

Post by chillfox »

csdvrx wrote: post #21
nine_k wrote: post #12

If systemd is the reason, there are several good distros without systemd (I run Void Linux in particular). If "kubesomething" is the reason, there's no requirement to use it. I think most people don't run it on their home servers. If containers are the reason, then again, they are not a requirement. But they are pretty similar to BSD's jails. I don't think they are particularly complex. FreeBSD has a number of strong…

> But the usual Linux hobgoblins listed above are a red herring here, to my mind. Absolutely > If containers are the reason, then again, they are not a requirement. But they are pretty similar to BSD's jails. I don't think they are particularly complex. The only point I agree with the author is that many things are shipped to be used with docker when they don't need to be, which creates a needless dependency.

I used to run FreeBSD on my home server and switched it over to Alpine Linux (with ZFS) because everything I wanted to run came as a docker containers and it was just easier to use docker compose to manage all the apps.

Re: Why I run FreeBSD for my home servers (2024)

#136

Post by twelvedogs »

packetlost wrote: post #133
osn9363739 wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

arch (or any rolling release) on a home server doesn't sound like a good idea?

if you actually run updates regularly (which you should anyways) it's fine. I did it for years until I switched to NixOS.

yeah, this was my main annoyance with it, i don't log into my server for months at a time so i wanted something without constant updates but other than that it was fine.

Re: Why I run FreeBSD for my home servers (2024)

#137

Post by asveikau »

tomxor wrote: post #106
bluGill wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ZFS is a first class part of FreeBSD. you can use it on linux, but it will always have some rough edges. How rough it open to question though, for some it works well.

Used ZFS on Debian in production for 8 years, yet to experience rough edges but always interested to learn.

I have never had a good experience with out of tree kernel modules on linux, so I am skeptical of this report. Usually for Linux Debian is my distro of choice.

Re: Why I run FreeBSD for my home servers (2024)

#138

Post by nine_k »

fragmede wrote: post #108
n3storm wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have "reversed engineered" dockerfiles in order to avoid containers. Any software should be installable without docker, it just takes more knowledge and time. Also sometimes it doesn't, there is a binary (like with go and rust and .net) or other times the long route is pip or apt and some conf fiddling. Databases are the worse part maybe but once you get it is more control for you and what you want to do with your…

that is absolutely fascinating. why do you want to avoid containers?

One reason could be bringing in auto-upgradable dependencies: much less to rebuild when a security patch release is issued.

This is doable with containers, too, if you agree to maintain and build them yourself.

Re: Why I run FreeBSD for my home servers (2024)

#139

Post by mattpallissard »

nine_k wrote: post #12

If systemd is the reason, there are several good distros without systemd (I run Void Linux in particular). If "kubesomething" is the reason, there's no requirement to use it. I think most people don't run it on their home servers. If containers are the reason, then again, they are not a requirement. But they are pretty similar to BSD's jails. I don't think they are particularly complex. FreeBSD has a number of strong…

> If systemd is the reason, there are several good distros without systemd

I totally get avoiding systemd, I don't myself, but I get it. The author on the other hand talks about the problems doing this in a professional setting. This I do not get. As far as management of large fleets of servers goes, systemd is quite nice. Yeah, it's odd for some things but as far as automation is concerned it's the way to go.

With systemd the same file syntax and management works for services, timers, mount points, networking, name resolution, lightweight containers, virtual machines. You literally have to write one parser and serialize to ini. Then you get distribution generic management. Upgrades? No problem? Moving to CentOS to Debian? Ubuntu? arch? Whatever? No problem. It. Just. Works.

Yeah, if you're in the know you can do better for specific circumstances, but in this day and age OS's are throw away and automation you don't have to refactor is paramount. For professional work, this flame war is over.

Post reply on HN