Everyone (and their mother) have been trying to convince me that I should use one of my less loaded servers to be a Fediverse node. However, all Fediverse software packages I checked only support being installed on complicated systemd + Docker machines. My servers don’t have either of those, because neither systemd nor Docker even exist on OpenBSD and illumos.
I know that it would be possible to manually install (e.g.) Lemmy, assuming that I won’t ever need official support, but I wonder why the world outside a limited subset of the Linux ecosystem is - at most - an afterthought for Fediverse developers.
How can I help to change that?
In my very personal opinion, there are a few not entirely unimportant advantages to using OpenBSD over Linux (and I suppose users of the other free BSDs have similar lists, but I no longer use any other free BSD):
sysupgrade,reboot,sysmerge) - and it has never happened to me that after rebooting I was suddenly sitting in front of a completely different system. Yes, all this may not be cool - but predictability seems to me to be a not entirely irrelevant feature (also and especially for large companies).To quote Linus Torvalds:
The GPL licence is not a free licence, rather the opposite. But let’s assume that the licence debate is actually relevant: Why should a company that needs to make money selling software be “antiquated” simply because (for example) some of its algorithms are trade secrets?
Indeed, each system bears its distinctive advantages and drawbacks, and the optimal choice often hinges on the specific requirements of the task at hand. Nonetheless, I believe that OpenBSD’s utility is limited in contemporary scenarios.
It’s undeniable that OpenBSD has spawned important technologies under its “shut up and hack” mantra, cultivating an environment conducive to technical breakthroughs. Conversely, the Linux ecosystem too has been a breeding ground for major projects, Docker and Git being just a couple of examples. The ethos within each community can differ considerably, contingent upon the project or distribution. The widespread popularity of Linux may attract a varied spectrum of users, some less technically adept than the typical OpenBSD user. However, that doesn’t mean it’s short on technologically adept contributors.
I’ve chosen to make peace with systemd, seeing it as a necessary compromise, as it has become the preferred choice amongst the developer community. Unless one fancies rewriting systemd .unit files each time something needs to be installed (which I don’t), the practical choice is to work with it.
Concerning the upgrading process, many Linux distributions today offer smooth upgrades without necessitating a complete reinstall. Your encounter may rely on the particular distribution you’re using. Perhaps it’s been a while since you last used Linux. I haven’t come across a distro that requires a complete overhaul in quite some time. Rolling release distros are now increasingly prevalent and are even suggested for novices.
With nixos, which is my distribution of choice for the foreseeable future, I have an attribute that your OpenBSD system lacks: reproducibility. I can transfer a handful of configuration files to a brand new computer and replicate my system precisely, encompassing all my installed packages and configurations, including those in $XDG_CONFIG_HOME. It will literally recreate the same exact environment.
And both of them are inspired by Unix, what’s your point? :P
I think we’re not gonna agree on this, but I believe that all code that matters should be FOSS, there is no reason for a company to keep their algorithms as trade secrets, and if anything being open source can only improve the world, not hinder it.
The last Linuces I deliberately played with :-) were Gentoo and Void, both being non-systemd distributions by default. The point is that, if Linux was about choice (at least that’s what I’m told rather often than not), a particular init system should not be a component on which other components depend.
At least none of the services on my servers demanded systemd just yet. Maybe I’m a minority.
Sounds like a glorified rsync to me. I can imagine how this could come in handy if you have a whole set of identical machines that should serve the exact same purpose. I never had this situation in my own environments yet.
The D in BSD means distribution. BSD was Unix until the early 90s. Admittedly, today’s BSD is quite a different piece of software than 4.xBSD, especially given that both macOS and OpenBSD started with (a version of) it.
So do I, and the BSD license is a FOSS license. That does not necessarily mean that you are allowed to sell my code - or that I must not sell mine. Nobody said that FOSS requires “free of charge”. And if you spend quite a lot of money, I’m even sure that Microsoft will gladly sell you the Windows code. I a way, all code is free - it only depends on your bank account.
I mostly agree with this, but there is nothing I (or anyone) can do to change that without significantly hindering my user experience, and the benefits are minor. That’s akin to saying that you prefer gopher as a protocol, so you won’t use HTTP. Gopher is better according to some, but the world has decided on their protocol of choice already, there is no reason to fight it.
Come on man, that’s not what it is, I may have explained it wrong, but imagine being able to define the entire structure of your OS (including every tool installed, with your preferences) in a simple config file.
I knew we weren’t gonna agree on this, haha.
I agree on one thing, free doesn’t mean free of charge. It’s my firm belief that one ought to contribute financially to open-source projects from which one derives substantial benefits. However, I also maintain that code should be open and accessible to all, without any monetary charge.
In the case of windows, for example I would want the code to be open and available to anyone. I would even accept a situation where the code is completely available, albeit under a highly restrictive license. This license could permit you to study and learn from the code, but prohibit any actions such as creating your own version or selling it. This way, open-source principles are upheld, while Microsoft’s rights are protected.
Yet, Gopher is still relevant. There are more than two operating systems for a reason. I know, “Worse is better” (I presume that you know that essay). People who need more than macOS and Windows are a minority. Which minority inside that minority is “the world”?
That sounds useful, indeed.