←back to thread

Why I run FreeBSD for my home servers (2024)

(aumont.fr)
188 points psxuaw | 1 comments | 31 Mar 25 12:59 UTC | HN request time: 0.204s | 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 #
osn9363739 ◴[31 Mar 25 23:37 UTC] No.43541224[source]▶
arch (or any rolling release) on a home server doesn't sound like a good idea?
replies(4): >>43541615 #>>43542599 #>>43542748 #>>43554429 #
turboponyy ◴[02 Apr 25 07:30 UTC] No.43554429[source]▶
Once you try a rolling-release distro you realize it's actually a very good idea
replies(1): >>43555588 #
Levitating ◴[02 Apr 25 11:27 UTC] No.43555588[source]▶
It's not though, few server usecases allow/require your environment to change every day.

OpenSUSE Tumbleweed is a lot more stable than ArchLinux for that kind of stuff though. It stages updates in tested snapshots. ArchLinux updates just error if you time them right.

replies(1): >>43555658 #
Orygin ◴[02 Apr 25 11:41 UTC] No.43555658[source]▶
Anecdotal, but I never had an Arch install fail after updating (maybe the one time my EFI partition was full, but not specific to Arch). While I have a laptop running OpenSUSE Tumbleweed that failed to start after the third update I did on it.
replies(1): >>43576653 #
1. Levitating ◴[03 Apr 25 23:22 UTC] No.43576653[source]▶
> While I have a laptop running OpenSUSE Tumbleweed that failed to start after the third update

Very possible, Tumbleweed has had some embarrassing failures.

But when it comes to rolling release on servers I'd still prefer OpenSUSE.

OpenSUSE has whole distributions (MicroOS & Aeon) dedicated to performing automatic updates. ArchLinux is not really made with automatic updates in mind.

Big part of that is possible because OpenSUSE releases Tumbleweed in "snapshots". This means that updated packages are basically staged and tested together before release. This happens a few times a week. If you then experience a failure you can always use an older tumbleweed snapshot. In theory that should provide more stability, but there has recently been a lot of instability especially with SELinux being enabled by default.