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?

  • @Mersampa@beehaw.org
    7•11 months ago

    80/20 rule.

    When you are creating something like Lemmy, where you want wide uptake, you need to pander to the masses.

    The /r/selfhosted surveys show around half of self-hosters mostly or exclusively use docker. A significant portion of the rest can use docker if needed.

    If you’re in the 20% that isn’t covered by the most common setup, then it can be frustrating. But supporting that 20% takes as much effort as supporting the other 80% (see 80/20 rule), and when things are new it’s just not where the effort should be focused.

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

    You could also get a $2/month VPS and run it on that. Beehaw is run on something similar (though apparently $12 a month, but a lot more users).

    • rhabarbaOPEnglish
      2•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.

        • rhabarbaOPEnglish
          3•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.orgEnglish
            1•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.