←back to thread

Why I run FreeBSD for my home servers (2024)

(aumont.fr)
190 points psxuaw | 1 comments | 31 Mar 25 12:59 UTC | HN request time: 0.337s | 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 #
1. Levitating ◴[01 Apr 25 12:46 UTC] No.43546132[source]▶
FreeBSD and ArchLinux do not need to be compared in this context.

FreeBSD is an extremely simple and stable system. All packages/ports for which are tailored to integrate well with the networking stack, logging etc of FreeBSD. FreeBSD has daily/weekly/monthly cronjobs per default that runs a number of cleanup tasks and security updates and emails the result. It also has email setup correctly per default.

And FreeBSD only gets a few patch updates a year and a new major release every two years. The security patches it will download for you and then inform you over email.

ArchLinux needs constant maintenance to be updated, often requiring manual intervention. The packages are unchanged from upstream and thus do not integrate that well will the system at all, often requiring much more configuration. ArchLinux can be run as a server, and I have an do for years now, but it isn't made for it and it does require attention. ArchLinux is about getting bleeding edge software packaged as-is from upstream, and it's about allowing the user to tinker and customize. In that sense FreeBSD and ArchLinux can be considered opposites.