←back to thread

Why I run FreeBSD for my home servers (2024)

(aumont.fr)
185 points psxuaw | 1 comments | 31 Mar 25 12:59 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
nine_k ◴[31 Mar 25 16:28 UTC] 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 ◴[31 Mar 25 23:23 UTC] 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 #
jonathanoliver ◴[01 Apr 25 00:04 UTC] No.43541387[source]▶
Debian is fat?? I always thought it was a nice, minimalist server distro.
replies(2): >>43541904 #>>43542280 #
xedrac ◴[01 Apr 25 01:28 UTC] No.43541904{3}[source]▶
It's definitely fatter than Arch because packages tend to be more coupled.
replies(1): >>43543730 #
1. uggedal ◴[01 Apr 25 07:09 UTC] No.43543730{4}[source]▶
This is entirely false and the opposite is true. Debian has much more granular package splitting and less hard dependencies.