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?

  • rhabarbaOP
    5•11 months ago

    So you have all those servers, but why can’t you install debian or ubuntu server on one of them?

    I could. Personal opinion: Linux is frustrating to use for me, and I prefer my servers to bring me joy.

    • @Mersampa@beehaw.org
      8•11 months ago

      You don’t have to host a node if you don’t want to.

      But if you do, you may find it’s surprisingly easy to set one up with very little technical knowledge. Docker has benefits in containerizing, yes, but it also makes things easy (which is why it’s so popular).

      In most cases you just install Linux, run through the docker install process (many VPS providers can do these first two parts for you), download a pre-made docker-compose.yml file from whichever service you are trying to run, then run “docker compose up -d” and it just works.

      Running more services on the same machine, adding a reverse proxy, etc, require a bit more work. But once you have those set up it’s simple to integrate further services running in docker.

      But let me reiterate my first point - just because others are asking you to do something, doesn’t mean you have to do it :)

      • rhabarbaOP
        7•11 months ago

        This question is not as easy to answer as it seems.

        Eleven years ago - that was before systemd - I was still using Linux on one of my desktops (Fedora) and my only server at the time (Debian). Independently of each other, both systems refused to start after an upgrade, so I had to replace them; on the desktop I ended up with Windows for a long time (in the meantime I’ve switched to macOS), on the server a FreeBSD worked first. From FreeBSD I later migrated to OpenBSD and illumos, all three systems have their own merits and solve problems that the other systems have.

        As to the “OpenBSD vs. Linux” question, I’ll be brief:

        • OpenBSD just works. No need to be careful during installation, no surprising problems with the init system after an upgrade.
        • OpenBSD’s man pages are exemplary, Linux could take a leaf out of its book.
        • OpenBSD largely adheres to standards. The GNU tools do not always do so. This is a pity, especially with the C compiler.
        • Because the OpenBSD team maintains a complete system and not just a part of it, OpenBSD does not look like a patchwork, but is self-contained, which also has positive effects on security. OpenBSD itself advertises its good security statistics, not entirely irrelevant for servers.
        • sysupgrade is a great tool that has no equal.

        I think this list could be continued.

        • @strudel6242@beehaw.org
          5•11 months ago

          Thanks for your answer, being fairly out of the loop on all of this it’s quite interesting to hear. I’ve also experienced a number of upgrade pains. I’m quite diligent with storing important data external to the OS, but it still sucks when the only real option is to nuke the drive and install again.

          • rhabarbaOP
            3•11 months ago

            I never had this problem with FreeBSD, OpenBSD or illumos (OmniOS). Upgrade pains are especially awful if you actually use your server for something useful.

        • pfogl
          2•11 months ago

          @tux0r @strudel6242 I don’t wanna be that person, but ‘btw i use arch’ and I think you might like Arch Linux (or Gentoo if you aren’t keen on systemd, the only difference being with Gentoo you compile most stuff yourself, whereas with Arch you only compile some stuff yourself) But both Distros have minimal overhead, aren’t junk (like Ubuntu) and have very broad and active support for a lot of stuff. Especially with the AUR, there is almost nothing I can’t get on Arch

          • rhabarbaOP
            5•11 months ago

            I even had a Gentoo installation before I bought a MacBook. (I had a variety of laptops at some point.) However, I also broke Gentoo - by updating the kernel. Apparently my configuration was insufficient somewhere, anyway it didn’t boot up anymore.

            I like Gentoo, but it still carries some shortcomings of the Linux ecosystem. On top of that, the necessary compiling of (almost) the whole system takes more productivity than expected.