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?
That’s an interesting question. The percentage of servers (with the exception of routers, and other consumer appliances) that run OpenBSD (and variants) is actually extremely low when compared to the amount of servers running Linux. That being said you CAN set it up yourself, rust can easily compile to a binary that works with openbsd by using the target x86_64-unknown-openbsd.
As another commenter said here, *BSD is very far behind the developments of Linux, when compared to developer experience. And realistically, unless you’re a huge organization that can dedicate a team of engineers just to manage your system, perhaps because your business is one of those antiquated companies that hate the GPL, or you’re someone who likes getting into the weeds, there is no reason to ever use *BSD in a modern system.
there is no reason to ever use *BSD in a modern system.
Pfsense/OPNsense has been running on my router for… I can’t even remember how long ago I built it. The BSD family of OSs are great pieces of opensource software and they absolutely have niches they excel at. Use the best tool for the job, and don’t fall prey to marketed loyalty.
And realistically (…) there is no reason to ever use *BSD in a modern system.
In my very personal opinion, there are a few not entirely unimportant advantages to using OpenBSD over Linux (and I suppose users of the other free BSDs have similar lists, but I no longer use any other free BSD):
- Culture. Basically, “shut up and hack”. Not wasting the time of project members with dissolute thoughts about social interference, but devoting themselves exclusively to improving the technology so far, leads to the fact that (much like NetBSD) all sorts of technical achievements came out of OpenBSD, including OpenSMTPD, OpenSSH and LibreSSL. Linux to me often seems more like a support group than a technical project.
- Predictability. The Linux community seems to constantly need new completely different approaches to everyday things. The systemd debacle with numerous reports of computers no longer starting (or shutting down) is not yet over, and there is already debate about the now-but-really future of the desktop. Many Linux distributions do not know anything like an “upgrade”, the normal approach to a new version is “download the installation DVD and start it”. In OpenBSD it is essentially three commands (
sysupgrade,reboot,sysmerge) - and it has never happened to me that after rebooting I was suddenly sitting in front of a completely different system. Yes, all this may not be cool - but predictability seems to me to be a not entirely irrelevant feature (also and especially for large companies). - History. Linux is a clone of Minix, which is itself essentially a clone of BSD, which was not yet free software in 1991. You might as well use the original, right? ;-)
edit: See also my previous answer for further advantages.
If 386BSD had been available when I started on Linux, Linux would probably never had happened.
The GPL licence is not a free licence, rather the opposite. But let’s assume that the licence debate is actually relevant: Why should a company that needs to make money selling software be “antiquated” simply because (for example) some of its algorithms are trade secrets?
Indeed, each system bears its distinctive advantages and drawbacks, and the optimal choice often hinges on the specific requirements of the task at hand. Nonetheless, I believe that OpenBSD’s utility is limited in contemporary scenarios.
Culture
It’s undeniable that OpenBSD has spawned important technologies under its “shut up and hack” mantra, cultivating an environment conducive to technical breakthroughs. Conversely, the Linux ecosystem too has been a breeding ground for major projects, Docker and Git being just a couple of examples. The ethos within each community can differ considerably, contingent upon the project or distribution. The widespread popularity of Linux may attract a varied spectrum of users, some less technically adept than the typical OpenBSD user. However, that doesn’t mean it’s short on technologically adept contributors.
Predictability
I’ve chosen to make peace with systemd, seeing it as a necessary compromise, as it has become the preferred choice amongst the developer community. Unless one fancies rewriting systemd .unit files each time something needs to be installed (which I don’t), the practical choice is to work with it.
Concerning the upgrading process, many Linux distributions today offer smooth upgrades without necessitating a complete reinstall. Your encounter may rely on the particular distribution you’re using. Perhaps it’s been a while since you last used Linux. I haven’t come across a distro that requires a complete overhaul in quite some time. Rolling release distros are now increasingly prevalent and are even suggested for novices.
With nixos, which is my distribution of choice for the foreseeable future, I have an attribute that your OpenBSD system lacks: reproducibility. I can transfer a handful of configuration files to a brand new computer and replicate my system precisely, encompassing all my installed packages and configurations, including those in $XDG_CONFIG_HOME. It will literally recreate the same exact environment.
History
And both of them are inspired by Unix, what’s your point? :P
Why should a company that needs to make money selling software be “antiquated” simply because (for example) some of its algorithms are trade secrets?
I think we’re not gonna agree on this, but I believe that all code that matters should be FOSS, there is no reason for a company to keep their algorithms as trade secrets, and if anything being open source can only improve the world, not hinder it.
Unless one fancies rewriting systemd .unit files each time something needs to be installed (which I don’t), the practical choice is to work with it.
The last Linuces I deliberately played with :-) were Gentoo and Void, both being non-systemd distributions by default. The point is that, if Linux was about choice (at least that’s what I’m told rather often than not), a particular init system should not be a component on which other components depend.
At least none of the services on my servers demanded systemd just yet. Maybe I’m a minority.
I can transfer a handful of configuration files to a brand new computer and replicate my system precisely, encompassing all my installed packages and configurations, including those in $XDG_CONFIG_HOME. It will literally recreate the same exact environment.
Sounds like a glorified rsync to me. I can imagine how this could come in handy if you have a whole set of identical machines that should serve the exact same purpose. I never had this situation in my own environments yet.
And both of them are inspired by Unix, what’s your point? :P
The D in BSD means distribution. BSD was Unix until the early 90s. Admittedly, today’s BSD is quite a different piece of software than 4.xBSD, especially given that both macOS and OpenBSD started with (a version of) it.
I believe that all code that matters should be FOSS
So do I, and the BSD license is a FOSS license. That does not necessarily mean that you are allowed to sell my code - or that I must not sell mine. Nobody said that FOSS requires “free of charge”. And if you spend quite a lot of money, I’m even sure that Microsoft will gladly sell you the Windows code. I a way, all code is free - it only depends on your bank account.
For me it was real easy setting up a node, because of docker. Docker+docker-compose were the only requirements to get it running. Docker (or the alternatives are available for a lot of systems, so supporting that makes sure it can run on a lot of machines.
For the remainder of systems, if the administrator decides to go for a less common install, I get that the developers aren’t able to support that. There’s just too much diversity in that kind of systems.
Docker is used by a ton of projects and makes installation very easy in most cases
I’d highly recommend moving to a different distro that has docker
Most of these projects are FOSS, so you have two options. Either ask the devs for OpenBSD support (but try installing everything on OpenBSD to see what goes wrong). Or try modifying the program yourself to add OpenBSD support.
Developers of these projects often target Linux, since it is by far the most used server kernel/OS. *BSD is not nearly as common.
The only way to potentially change that industry wide is to have enough people stubbornly use *BSD and help implement *BSD support for Linux specific tools they use.
Official support is often only provided with a docker setup as it standardizes bundled libraries and other needed blobs. This makes it easier to support many Linux distros.
I wonder why the world outside a limited subset of the Linux ecosystem is - at most - an afterthought for Fediverse developers.
I hate to break this to you, but OpenBSD is an antiquated OS masquerading as a modern one, and the OpenBSD’s lack of willingness to support modern standards results in the difficulty you’re having.
OpenBSD feels like it’s been duct taped together for decades. Anything “new” seems to just be, “sorry, not possible.” The OpenBSD kernel doesn’t support WiFi 5GHz. The OpenBSD kernel doesn’t support even the minimum subset of isolation features in order for Docker to function. Why? Because OpenBSD refuses to add these features to their kernel. There are very likely other syscalls and basic features any given open source projects needs, even if it’s not being run in Docker, that simply could not run under OpenBSD due to the very limited kernel it provides.
You’re upset because open source projects don’t support a platform that is old and developer-hostile. Turn your frustrations on OpenBSD - these projects would gladly support OpenBSD if they could.
I hate to break this to you, but OpenBSD is an antiquated OS masquerading as a modern one, and OpenBSD’s lack of willingness to support modern standards results in the difficulty you’re having.
Ok, let us assume for a moment that “modern” is the same thing as “great”: why do people still use Linux’s terminal, which emulates an actual 70s line printer, although there have been superior input capabilities since the 80s?
That’s irrelevant to this discussion. I was talking about OpenBSD’s lack of kernel features and driver support.
As for the Linux vs OpenBSD terminal comment, I feel like you’re grasping. What does OpenBSD’s terminal do better? We have had augmentations on top of the Linux terminal for years, adding things like auto complete and syntax suggestions that the 80’s could never have dreamed of.
