←back to thread

190 points psxuaw | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.212s | source
Show context
whalesalad ◴[] No.43536630[source]
I notice FreeBSD admins tend to follow a 'pets not cattle' approach, carefully nurturing individual systems. Linux admins like myself typically prefer the 'cattle not pets' mindset—using infrastructure-as-code where if a server dies, no problem, just spin up another one. Leverage containers. Statelessness.

I don't want to spend time meticulously configuring things beyond the core infrastructure my services run on. I should probably explore FreeBSD more, but honestly, with containers being everywhere now, I'm not seeing a compelling reason to bother. I realize jails are a valid analogue, but broadly speaking the UX is not the same.

All this being said, I have this romantic draw to FreeBSD and want to play around with it more. But every time I set up a basic box I feel teleported back to 2007.

Are there any fun lab projects, posts, educational series targeted at FreeBSD?

replies(6): >>43536769 #>>43537039 #>>43537278 #>>43539063 #>>43541053 #>>43542740 #
toast0 ◴[] No.43539063[source]
> I notice FreeBSD admins tend to follow a 'pets not cattle' approach, carefully nurturing individual systems. Linux admins like myself typically prefer the 'cattle not pets' mindset—using infrastructure-as-code where if a server dies, no problem, just spin up another one.

I've worked at 'pets not cattle' and 'cattle not pets', and I vastly prefer pets. Yes, you should be able to easily bring up a new pet when you need to; yes, it must be ok if pet1 goes away, never to be seen again. But no, it's not really ok when your servers have an average lifetime of 30 days. It's very hard to offer a stable service on an unstable substrate. Automatic recovery makes sense in some cases, but if the system stops working, there's a problem that needs to be addressed when possible.

> All this being said, I have this romantic draw to FreeBSD and want to play around with it more. But every time I set up a basic box I feel teleported back to 2007.

Like another poster mentioned; this is actually a good thing. FreeBSD respects your investment in knowledge; everything you learned in 2007 still works, and most likely will continue to work. You won't need to learn a new firewall tool every decade, whichever of the three firewalls you like will keep working. You don't need to learn a new tool to configure interfaces, ifconfig will keep working. You don't need to learn a new tool to get network statistics, netstat will keep working. Etc.

replies(2): >>43539475 #>>43539513 #
unethical_ban ◴[] No.43539513[source]
I agree on the "knowledge stability" front. I feel like I have to relearn Linux server networking config every three years because I switched distro or a distro switched their network management middleware.

But.

Having tried to move a machine from rhel 5 to rhel 7, where 12 people had used the server over the past 8 years for any scripting/log analysis/automation, for hosting a bespoke python web request site and a team-specific dokuwiki... The idea of having all that in source control and CICD is alluring.

replies(1): >>43539896 #
1. toast0 ◴[] No.43539896[source]
You can certainly keep information on your pets and how to rebuild them in source control along with all the procedures used to update them. It's probably a good idea.

Nobody says you can't do CI/CD with pets too. You do have to keep the pets well groomed, of course.