Just as an example that's super frowned upon, I install about 5-10 various packages like jq, htop, net-utils, bash, httpie, things like that into each oci container I build. I also have the exact same customized ~/.bashrc with aliases and a motd that tells me the distro and outdated packages and what not in all of the oci containers I build. Also a custom ~/.nanorc with syntax highlighting so I don't have to constantly write nano -l (everyone will hate me for using nano, I know).
I have to troubleshoot containers a lot. This example I'm posting here went from a 150Mb container to 203 with my "debug" packages. And each time I exec into one I get a nice little motd that makes fixing things so much faster for me. A 203Mb container has absolutely no effect on my autoscaling infrastructure. We watch for anomalies and immediately scale up and have the oci images cached on the clusters. I used to make these little 30mb scratch go containers that had literally nothing but the app. It was so annoying having to troubleshoot them and the benefit seemed so not worth it. Not having bash installed is absolutely horrendous. Being forced to use sh. I can't use arrow keys to move the cursor or up and down to go through history. I think ctrl-r doesnt even work.
I would get absolutely screamed at by the greybeard genius nix admins I used to work with. But I make the infra standards now.. Package attack vectors are definitely a concern. My containers go through a rigorous security test while being built.
process list and mount table on oldschool unixes "fit's in head" conveying familiarity and trust while laying a foundation for security
The best thing about it is that it is boring, completely predictable outside of hardware faults, and dependable. If you know how to competently manage it, which isn't hard, it is a rock.
Also nice is that FreeBSD isn't involved in vendor tugs-of-war that result in the constant stream of bullshit changes* - the network config format doesn't change every version, people aren't playing political games with init, etc. All of which mean far fewer goofy make-work surprises.
And the quality of their releases is still very high. I consider them one of top open source projects, period, in terms of qualities others should emulate for better results.
As with anything, it isn't for everything. If you need the latest version of whatever is trendy this month, you should run Linux. But if your use case benefits from stability and ease of administration, FreeBSD rocks.
* What is bullshit in my environment may not be in yours, etc.
I never felt comfortable managing openbsd, but linux has repeatedly and gratuitously changed all the management tools, so now it’s easier for me to get around an openbsd box, despite using Linux daily, and openbsd maybe twice a year.
(It’s a serious question. I’m strongly considering switching to one of the bsd’s at this point.)
Are you not so subtly referring to the systemd fiasco? That was about, if not over 10 years ago. I also don't think it matters. Change is not a bad thing, and that change is not as hectic or constant as you seem to imply.
If you really want a Linux distro that hasn't changed at all in the past 30 years, Slackware might be your bets bet, but I don't think that 'having not changed in the past 30 years' really makes sense as a metric.
Personally, I'm a fan of Alpine and Void Linux, and I also run NetBSD. FreeBSD seems too 'messy' as someone that likes minimalism, and OpenBSD's security focus is misplaced IMO.
Wayland, ACLs, SELinux and cgroup are all just options, none are forced.
Was deprecated ~20 years ago. Not a recent change.
> selinux vs cgroups vs ???
This doesn't make any sense? It's like writing "network drivers vs. X11" in OpenBSD.
For instance, some systemd-login thing broke compatibility with xscreensaver on my manjaro box 6 months ago.
I don't think of openbsd as a minimal system, in fact it is almost the opposite openbsd crams more into it's base distribution than most linux distos. But the openbsd services tend to be small and well behaved and well documented., I am a bit biased but I tend to think of openbsd as the best bsd for desktop use. It is not the fastest, it does not have the best filesystems, but damn if everything does not come together in a really comfortable package.
Also having little glitches by tiny differences in shell handling make your already tuned Linux dotfiles incompatible that adds to the annoyances.
And then I don't really get anything over Linux. pf is good but I'm just mostly using ufw and not running a router in the cloud that requires more than port handling.
Ubuntu supports zfs in a very seamless way that I just don't find a reason to use BSD anymore unfortunately. It's probably only driven by companies that don't want to expose their code via GPL.
Though I don't find anything better than Linux, it's not lacking either.
- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36972903
... and that can give You another reason 'why':
- https://vermaden.wordpress.com/2020/09/07/quare-freebsd/
... but if you are happy where You are - then stay where You are.
I moved to FreeBSD because I was not happy on Linux.
Regards, vermaden
What would bring me to bsd today? Not in a negative way at all, I'm curious what people love about it. I barely remember much about it. I loved pf over iptables but I don't remember why. It has jailed containers which.. I think people still love? I'm not sure.
I'm reading about appjails and these sound interesting.