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?

  • rhabarba@feddit.deOPEnglish
    1·
    1 year ago

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    And both of them are inspired by Unix, what’s your point? :P

    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.

    I believe that all code that matters should be FOSS

    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.

    • Danny M@lemmy.escapebigtech.infoEnglish
      1·
      1 year ago

      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.

      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.

      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.

      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.

      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 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.