←back to thread

188 points psxuaw | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0.619s | source
Show context
nine_k ◴[] No.43536856[source]

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 suits: ZFS, a different kernel and network stack, a cohesive system from a small(ish) team of authors, the handbook, etc. But the usual Linux hobgoblins listed above are a red herring here, to my mind.

replies(5): >>43536992 #>>43541101 #>>43541384 #>>43541789 #>>43543787 #
m463 ◴[] No.43541101[source]

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.

replies(5): >>43541224 #>>43541387 #>>43546132 #>>43548551 #>>43549450 #
1. jonathanoliver ◴[] No.43541387[source]

Debian is fat?? I always thought it was a nice, minimalist server distro.

replies(2): >>43541904 #>>43542280 #
2. xedrac ◴[] No.43541904[source]

It's definitely fatter than Arch because packages tend to be more coupled.

replies(1): >>43543730 #
3. m463 ◴[] No.43542280[source]

You should try either reading through the installation instruction, or better yet try an install:

https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Installation_guide

4. uggedal ◴[] No.43543730[source]

This is entirely false and the opposite is true. Debian has much more granular package splitting and less hard dependencies.