this post was submitted on 01 Jun 2023
7 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37747 readers
241 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
alyaza@beehaw.org
TheRtRevKaiser@beehaw.org
gyrfalcon@beehaw.org
rs5th@beehaw.org
Los@beehaw.org
coldredlight@beehaw.org
SemioticStandard@beehaw.org
TheRtRevKaiser@kbin.social
remington@beehaw.org
7
Why is it so annoyingly hard to set up a Fediverse node? (feddit.de)
submitted 2 years ago by tux0r@feddit.de to c/technology@beehaw.org
86 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Everyone (and their mother) have been trying to convince me that I should use one of my less loaded servers to be a Fediverse node. However, all Fediverse software packages I checked only support being installed on complicated systemd + Docker machines. My servers don't have either of those, because neither systemd nor Docker even exist on OpenBSD and illumos.

I know that it would be possible to manually install (e.g.) Lemmy, assuming that I won't ever need official support, but I wonder why the world outside a limited subset of the Linux ecosystem is - at most - an afterthought for Fediverse developers.

How can I help to change that?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] tux0r@feddit.de 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

So you have all those servers, but why can’t you install debian or ubuntu server on one of them?

I could. Personal opinion: Linux is frustrating to use for me, and I prefer my servers to bring me joy.

[–] strudel6242@beehaw.org 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

What pain points do you find with Linux? How does OpenBSD differ?

[–] tux0r@feddit.de 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

This question is not as easy to answer as it seems.

Eleven years ago - that was before systemd - I was still using Linux on one of my desktops (Fedora) and my only server at the time (Debian). Independently of each other, both systems refused to start after an upgrade, so I had to replace them; on the desktop I ended up with Windows for a long time (in the meantime I've switched to macOS), on the server a FreeBSD worked first. From FreeBSD I later migrated to OpenBSD and illumos, all three systems have their own merits and solve problems that the other systems have.

As to the "OpenBSD vs. Linux" question, I'll be brief:

  • OpenBSD just works. No need to be careful during installation, no surprising problems with the init system after an upgrade.
  • OpenBSD's man pages are exemplary, Linux could take a leaf out of its book.
  • OpenBSD largely adheres to standards. The GNU tools do not always do so. This is a pity, especially with the C compiler.
  • Because the OpenBSD team maintains a complete system and not just a part of it, OpenBSD does not look like a patchwork, but is self-contained, which also has positive effects on security. OpenBSD itself advertises its good security statistics, not entirely irrelevant for servers.
  • sysupgrade is a great tool that has no equal.

I think this list could be continued.

[–] strudel6242@beehaw.org 1 points 2 years ago

Thanks for your answer, being fairly out of the loop on all of this it's quite interesting to hear. I've also experienced a number of upgrade pains. I'm quite diligent with storing important data external to the OS, but it still sucks when the only real option is to nuke the drive and install again.