Using Freebsd to Make Self-Hosting Fun Again
Posted2 months agoActiveabout 2 months ago
jsteuernagel.deTechstoryHigh profile
calmpositive
Debate
40/100
FreebsdSelf-HostingHomelab
Key topics
Freebsd
Self-Hosting
Homelab
The author shares their experience of using FreeBSD for self-hosting, reigniting their passion for the hobby, and sparking a discussion on the joys and challenges of using BSD systems.
Snapshot generated from the HN discussion
Discussion Activity
Very active discussionFirst comment
18m
Peak period
70
12-24h
Avg / period
22.9
Comment distribution160 data points
Loading chart...
Based on 160 loaded comments
Key moments
- 01Story posted
Nov 2, 2025 at 6:01 AM EST
2 months ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
Nov 2, 2025 at 6:18 AM EST
18m after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
70 comments in 12-24h
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
Nov 6, 2025 at 12:53 PM EST
about 2 months ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
ID: 45789424Type: storyLast synced: 11/20/2025, 7:55:16 PM
Want the full context?
Jump to the original sources
Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.
Fortunately, for them, I think with technologies like docker/podman, flatpak, appimage etc. I feel like its already easy-ish enough.
Side nit pick but I hate when apps create docker/podman containers when they can also have flatpak, I would love to see some self hosting apps which have a gui or maybe even some cli hosted via flatpak but I rarely saw cli apps in flatpak etc.
I like it because it's so stable. They don't have this Linux thing where they have to change everything around to incorporate the latest fad, and there's also not so many big tech companies constantly messing with the code. Linux has too much corporate influence for me. I don't want Huawei or Amazon to be messing with the code I run all the time. The grassroots nature of Linux is kinda gone and the suits have taken over, just like with the internet itself.
I also love how the OS is stable but the apps are rolling. This really helps to be on the latest KDE etc. And the documentation is excellent. ZFS on root as a first class citizen too.
There's a small team of maintainers working hard to keep everything going in this age of increasing linuxisms. But so far they've been doing a great job.
The userland is pretty important. To most Debian users, Debian GNU/FreeBSD would feel more familiar than Alpine/Linux (with busybox and no GNU coreutils).
- firewall? Lots of pain and hard to find friendly, best practice starter templates. Wherever I looked, people said "it's complicated." After a lot of tinkering and learning I finally got a setup that was pretty safe. (I think.)
- pm2 was buggy on FreeBSD because of some issue with process IDs getting lost. That was pm2's fault, not FreeBSD's. But I still wanted to simply run different processes and keep my logs somewhere. Well, I guess I could write rc.d scripts for that. But keeping logs from the processes started by rc.d scripts? That also appeared to be a world of pain, and wherever I looked for answers people said "it's complicated."
In the end, it was just too much having to re-invent the wheel for common server tasks and I had to say goodbye. It's not you FreeBSD, it's me. I'm just not an OS dev.
PF seems to me like pretty much the most well regarded firewall there is - with a nice, sensible DSL for config. If you don't like like it, you can use use IPFW or IPFILTER, which are alternative, built-in, firewall front-ends.
- In the end, it was just too much having to re-invent the wheel for common server tasks
Maybe you have built your routine around a system that have reinvented the wheel? I think FreeBSD knowledge degrades more slowly than that of Linux distros.
- I'm just not an OS dev.
That's how I feel when I enter the chaotic Linux world. Do you think my life revolve around keeping up with this shit? :)
I feel that as a Linux user. I really like Linux, I use it on my desktop and it runs all my servers. Delving into forum posts to find some solution to a specific problem can be exhausting. Sometimes you get a top result from like 2011 and it is out of date so you then need to spend X minutes trying to look up something more recent.
Time passes (how much time? are the birds singing yet?) as you keep slogging through that endless sea of muck.
Finally, you run across an old post on some forum where the person not only wrote about the problem, but also the cause of the problem -- and the answer.
So you're reading along, working to once again evaluate whether your problem matches their problem. And the more you read, the more familiar it all seems... like you've been there before.
"It can't be," you say to yourself.
But you scroll back up to the top of the comment and look at the author's name anyway.
And yep, sure as anything: It was you. Six years ago, you wrote about that exact problem yourself and posted a perfectly-cromulent solution to it.
So you fix it (again), note that the birds are in fact singing, and to try to sleep for a bit while pondering your life's choices: You could have found a hobby in origami or perhaps woodworking. Maybe worked as a Mennonite tradesman producing leather goods, or as a carpenter (even an Amish one if any of that seemed too high-tech).
But you didn't. You chose this path instead. It could have all been so simple, but it isn't.
Not sure what things are like now though - I'm guessing it's much better as pf was obviously the best option :)
* PF was imported into FreeBSD from OpenBSD, maybe it had problems at first.
* Both implementations have been actively maintained, further developed, and diverged.
* There is now collaboration in the development of the FreeBSD and OpenBSD implementations.
* PF is the shit. Even though IPFW is the "invented here" firewall.
And I didn't mean to imply that FreeBSD is stale. There is big stuff happening continuously. Right now it's compatibility with Linux Wifi drivers, which will make FreeBSD more laptop-able. And pkgbase, which brings some of the compile-your-self flexibility of FreeBSD to binary management, and merges the two tools that decides what makes up your system into one. And kinda makes FreeBSD into the slim system that people already claims it to be.
My pet conspiracy is that pkgbase happened because the powers that be didn't want the 1000 battles to remove junk. Any time anyone wants to remove something there's always one or two guys on the mailing list claiming their livelihood depends on not having to do "pkg install Ø". With pkgbase its all gone.
I don't use much FreeBSD these days, but pf (from OpenBSD, I know), is one of the best things since sliced bread.
In my first job I was working for a company selling a third-party vertical software and we were proving support for it. We were using a very expensive symantec vpn with most customers connecting with a 33.3kb phone connection, until we reached the license limits, and there was no money for new licenses. In a pinch, me and a coworker set up a new server with openvpn, freebsd, pf, and a ruby-based dns server that I don't remember anymore, and we grew an order of magnitudes more customers.
It's been more that 20 years, I still don't know how to use firewalls in linux, (there are many, I just pretend they don't exists) but I would still be able to setup a pf firewall if needed. I need to say it again, pf is a joy to use.
My gripe with FreeBSD right now is that I miss something like docker swarm. bhyve is fine but AFAIK it works only on a single host. Give me something that works on a bunch of hosts, and I will come back right away
Edit: I think it's 'vm migrate'
https://man.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=vm&sektion=8&manpa...
I felt this way about pf when I first got PF going around 2011 for my home router/firewall box. Not saying this is the same for you or anyone else, but my issue was that I was approaching it from the point of view of “I want to configure a home firewall router with PF” instead of “I want to learn the fundamentals of what a firewall does”.
It took me a few more years to get well-versed in all that stuff: the structure of packets, what NAT actually means (what addresses are being translated, why, and where), what's going on in the state table, how to debug when things aren't doing what I expect, etc. Once I did it became much more straightforward to express in my `pf.conf` what I want to do, but you're right that doesn't really help new users.
> Lots of pain and hard to find friendly, best practice starter templates.
FreeBSD does include this, however! It's just implemented using IPFW instead of PF. Check out `firewall_type` key in `rc.conf`: https://cgit.freebsd.org/src/tree/libexec/rc/rc.conf?id=edad...
For a very simple NAT gateway, one could set `firewall_type=simple` and then `firewall_simple_(iif|inet|oif|onet)(_ipv6)?` to configure the ISP-side and internal-side interface names and IPv4 and IPv6 network ranges for each.
For a very easy single-machine firewall, one could set `firewall_type=client` or `firewall_type=workstation` if you want to host anything. For the latter, `firewall_myservices` and `firewall_allowservices` control what ports are enabled and who (other networks/IPs) have access to them
For more details and to see exactly what each option actually does, check out `/etc/rc.firewall` where this is all implemented: https://cgit.freebsd.org/src/tree/libexec/rc/rc.firewall?id=...
The problem is when self-hosting amateur stuff leaks into professional life.
And then you have a expert beginner pushing their homelab/Self-hosting
I think it's ultimately a sign of aging; I don't really have the attention span or energy to LARP as a sysadmin anymore, especially since I never really enjoyed that aspect of computers anyway. I think my monthly cost of storage would get untenable if I tried to move all my raw media rips to the cloud (about 45TB [1]), so I don't think I'll be able to migrate my Jellyfin for the foreseeable future, but I would like to some day.
[1] Looking it up, storing 45TB would end up costing anywhere between $250-$1500 a month pretty easily, which I currently cannot justify.
Or about $5k one-off at pCloud, which is still a big investment. (No affiliation, just a customer.)
Obviously, collapse is inevitable on a long enough timeline for any company, but this scheme in particular is very vulnerable to a couple slow years in terms of sales.
If you are the only one paying upfront this is impossible as your harddrives might fail early, but if there are 1000 people willing to pay upfront we can easially handle that.
Note that I would not be surprised if this was just a Ponzi. That we know how to do this doesn't mean we are.
They get to depreciate the equipment, deduct electricity and labor, and get bulk rates on equipment.
And show mark to market accounting, cash flow and revenue for investment funding
For reasons not clear to me, if a system update requires compiling a large thing (e.g. Immich + TritonLLVM), 95% of the time it will break the internal LAN's network interface. I think updating is important (especially for a router), this means that a few times a week I have to babysit the system update to be there to reboot the server manually.
The fact I miss pretty much all the drama around the latest corporate take over attempts on Linux is just icing on the cake. The toxic slug strategy is an amazing one that more open source projects should use.
One was to pick a set of norms repugnant to the mainstream that everyone currently in the community can tolerate and enforce them rigorously on all new members. This will limit the appeal of the community to people like the ones currently there and will make sure that it never grows too big.
Thus your community is as appetising to activists attempting a hostile takeover as a toxic slug is to a bird.
As an example from six years ago, when the code of conduct madness had just reached its peak:
>I believe OpenBSD's code of conduct can be summed up as "if you are the type of person who needs a code of conduct to teach to you how to human then you are not welcome here".
I think that the goal of any code of conduct is to prevent any semblance of arbitrary and whimsical punishment, which can kill entire communities.
Linux unfortunately has to endure with toxic contributors and even maintainers, and history showed that when those maintainers fail to human and consequently the community banishes them, they go on a tirade arguing all kinds of conspiracies. A code of conduct is a form of checks and balances, and code of conduct violation processes serve as processes to collect and present objectively verifiable paper trails of exactly when snd how those maintainers failed to human, and how bad at it they were. Those types can't simply argue their way out of a list of messages they were awful to others, how exactly they violated the code of conduct, and how bad it was. Thus any stunt they pull is immediately rendered moot by the deliverables from the project.
Quite ironic then that CoCs overwhelmingly lead to arbitrary and whimsical punishment.
As a result of this typically CoCs are used to block contributions or block contributors from projects where the people enforcing the CoC they wrote wield it as a weapon against men whose perceived personal politics they disagree with. And typically rumours are enough to trigger CoC proceedings against them.
I don't know which codes of conduct you have been exposed to. The ones in Linux cover basic things like not being cool to attack other maintainers with posts like:
> Get your head examined. And get the fuck out of here with this shit.
https://lwn.net/Articles/999197/
This is hardly what I would label as an ideological debate.
I don't agree. I think it has been working quite well in spite of the conspiratorial bullshit excuses made up by those who failed so hard to human to the point they were slapped with one.
Nevertheless, one of the values of a code of conduct is that people like you and me can check the deliberation and hear what all interested parties had to say. Without a code of conduct, the one with the loudest voice and the more interest to subvert code of conduct deliberations could basically dedicate their life shit-talking the project.
That's the opposite goal; the CoC is to be as broad as possible while still being as vague as possible.
It's a tool that has been repeatedly weaponised against the out-group by the in-group - there is never any sense of even-handed usage of a CoC against the community.
True, but what you have ignored is that jerks exist equally on all sides of any CoC.
It's just as often as not that the producers and promulgators of some CoC are the jerks. In other words CoC's don't fix anything by merely existing. A few lines in a charter or mission statement already does the same to have something to point to just for formality and documentation sake.
--
[edit to expand or re-state a little...]
It's not that there is no problem and everything is fine already. It's that CoC's are almost always a thoughtless and ineffective, even actively counter-productive response to the problem.
A coc is an attempt to make an easy solution for something that there probably IS no easy solution for.
The problem takes the form of a continual fresh stream source of problem. IE a forever stream of new jerks, and existing jerks who dodn't just do one thing today but continue to exist tomorrow and the next day.
And so the solution can only be a matching continual case-by-case counter-effort, from intelligent insightful people who have good judgement.
Yeah, that doesn't scale and isn't easy and only some people do even a half-way good job of it.
It's just not a problam that you can bash script away.
But trying to do so is an example of being just a different color of jerk making life worse for others, but just in a different way and employing different mechanisms.
It's true that you can't just throw together a CoC and declare the problem to be solved. But there is value in writing down some ground rules. The purpose is not to "script" enforcement, it's to have something concrete you can point to. Having a CoC that says "no personal attacks" won't stop personal attacks, but it will let you very quickly shut down anyone who comes back with something like, "you just need to have a thicker skin."
Nice.
- IDE support is an issue still
- Filesystem challenging when using a laptop that runs out of battery
- MATE lacking volume and WiFi controls
- This one is just me being picky but a GUI to help me gain a better understanding of the security settings or alternatively more up to date books.
- I am not exactly sure on how to correctly use virtualization and I need it to support docker workloads at work
> IDE support is an issue still
IMO, languages and platforms that require IDEs, also leads to complex software that is hard to maintain. The only exception is smalltalk.
> Filesystem challenging when using a laptop that runs out of battery
Easily resolved by using apmd and it `-z` flag. I think there's a couple utility out there that you can script for monitoring battery level.
> MATE lacking volume and WiFi controls
One of the good strength of OpenBSD is that the cli utilities are quite nice that I've not installed gui replacements (I'm using cwm). I don't mind doing a few `doas ifconfig` every once in a while.
> but a GUI to help me gain a better understanding of the security settings
I'm with you on that one. But the man pages are truly extensive. And the OS code is fairly readable.
> how to correctly use virtualization
Current vm solution is very bare. For docker, you'll need a linux VM, but the installation process maybe troublesome. It only supports serial interaction, which can be disabled by default in some distros.
“ IMO, languages and platforms that require IDEs, also leads to complex software that is hard to maintain. ”
The truth is that I (and probably other users) don’t always have the luxury of choice and a large portion of commercial codebases have a very large number of files. Sometimes, it is multiple codebases at once with a very large number of files .
“ Easily resolved by using apmd and it `-z` flag. I think there's a couple utility out there that you can script for monitoring battery level.”
Yeah but I don’t want to accidentally lose data if I shut the lid and accidentally forget to plug the thing in for a few days . “ One of the good strength of OpenBSD is that the cli utilities are quite nice”
I don’t want to enter and exit a cli tool in order to increase and decrease the volume . Ideally it’s a control in the top right or a keyboard mapping . What if something loud begins playing in a browser tab and I have to change the volume quickly?
> IDE support is an issue still
Yes, I agree. I enjoy using VSCode for most projects and there is no native support today in 2025 as far as I know. It is possible to use the web version (vscode.dev), but naturally, this lacks some features of the desktop application.
Typically I use some lightweight editor like Leafpad which has some basic IDE features. Not a replacement for a real IDE, but just an idea.
> Filesystem challenging when using a laptop that runs out of battery
Yes, OpenBSD uses FFS2 as the default file system. It's a solid filesystem with extensive history and testing, but it's not particularly tolerant of sudden power loss. In my experience most OpenBSD systems will come back online automatically after power loss, but there is a risk it will drop into single user mode if `fsck` wants a human in the loop.
There are some things one can do to help mitigate this, granted it's not very appealing coming from a more fault tolerant journalling FS: automated backups, using the `sync` option on your main data partitions (can affect performance), and of course monitoring power as mentioned.
IMO, this is a bit easier to manage on desktop or server roles where one can put everything behind a UPS.
> MATE lacking volume and WiFi controls
I haven't used MATE on OpenBSD. It's possible it's a combination of hardware + OpenBSD + MATE if it's not working. I know I have had working media controls on OpenBSD laptops in the past but I tend to stick with older laptops, Thinkpads, etc.
There are some in-base utilities to probe media keys and hook into X etc. if you're open to scripting a bit on your own hardware.
But yeah, after using Linux on laptops, it would be annoying for media keys to not Just Work after installation.
> This one is just me being picky but a GUI to help me gain a better understanding of the security settings or alternatively more up to date books.
Fortunately, there aren't too many security settings to change on OpenBSD. The most common one for laptops would be to enable SMT, e.g. enable hyperthreading on CPUs that support it. It is disabled by default as SMT is difficult to secure properly, but it does naturally improve performance. The command is `sysctl hw.smt=1`, or `echo 'hw.smt=1' >> /etc/sysctl.conf` to make it permanent.
> I am not exactly sure on how to correctly use virtualization and I need it to support docker workloads at work
Virtualization is a little unusual on OpenBSD. It's not quite as flexible as qemu, FreeBSD jails, bhyve, KVM, etc. The `vmm` and `vmd` systems were built in-house by the OpenBSD team. It is currently limited to just one core per VM the last I checked, and only supported serial and not VGA, so no way to run Windows under it for example.
I have had great success running Alpine Linux under OpenBSD and then running Docker on top of that, which opens the door for many tools and apps to run under an OpenBSD hypervisor.
There are also some VPS providers out there that fully dogfood OpenBSD and run their entire VM architecture on OpenBSD, such as OpenBSD Amsterdam, so it is totally viable depending on what one needs to virtualize.
Of course, one can run qemu on OpenBSD and virtualize whatever the heart desires.
---
That said, while OpenBSD can be a great laptop OS, it can require a bit more setup and understanding compared to a mainstream Linux OS. IMO it's still worth playing around with, even in a VM or on different hardware (desktop, Raspberry Pi, etc.) just to see the OpenBSD way of doing things, because it is truly a wonderful OS to use and learn. Other OSs start to feel a bit clunky to me after using OpenBSD for a while. :)
> One of the good strength of OpenBSD is that the cli utilities are quite nice that I've not installed gui replacements (I'm using cwm). I don't mind doing a few `doas ifconfig` every once in a while.
I also don't mind doing things like this for network, but for volume this is very much an instant always-there requirement. If I need to mute/lower/raise the volumne in a hurry, I don't want to hunt for the application playing the sound, then find the volume slider on it, etc.
This is literally a deal-breaker for desktop/laptop users.
What I'd like to know, if there are any OpenBSD people reading, is how hard is it to contribute a fix or similar to make the desktop environment's volume control work?
I can obviously fix it for myself with some gui script/keyboard shortcut/etc, but I'd rather have anything be in the default installation whenever I refresh the install.
I thought it was about the parallel ATA. And I tought "who uses that still?!" but is about IDEs for programming...
sorry about the topic deviation, but I laughed hard.
One of the reasons you don't see a lot of books around OpenBSD (aside from the very small userbase) is that the built-in documentation is so good. The manpages are actually worth reading, and for the more complex services, include examples and additional reading.
But still, the rest of your points are very true. OpenBSD is really not for everybody, but I think that's one of its strengths. It works extremely well for the people it works for, because it's not trying to coax new users into the fold.
Also, you know, like you don't have to use OpenBSD for everything. I still have plenty of Linux servers, and Linux computers, because there are some things OpenBSD is not suited to.
So much linux software doesn't come with sane defaults out of the box, doesn't have an easy path to common desired configurations, and doesn't have reasonable documentation. PARTICULARLY for "open" software that has a paid hosted option.
I say this after decades of a career where a very large proportion of the frustration and "stupid work" I've had to do involved getting a piece of software to do something obvious.
Working with the BSDs is just delightful in how wanting to do something turns into something working with ease.
And otherwise, I don't know what software you're thinking of that is easier to deploy on BSD than on Linux.
To be blunt, the only reason this is a problem on Linux and not BSD is that no relevant software runs on BSD at all.
I don't understand how you arrived at that conclusion. That comment probably passed through several BSD boxes on its way to me - BGP servers, DNS servers, absolutely critical things that *BSD shines at. Even this website itself apparently:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16076041
Not too mention that some newer servers you might want to run are containerised and have few, if any, instructions for how to set them up without containers.
Time and attention are always in short supply.
* Ease of management - more holistically designed.
* Rock solid parts that fits together - more holistically designed.
* ZFS, jails, bhyve, dtrace, ports.
* If it works today, it works tomorrow.
* A more approachable community (which AMD says is the reason why they are developing for FreeBSD before Linux now).
* Transparency and simplicity of how it works - if you can understand it, you can manage it and fix it.
* Documentation.
* Fun! Linux is not fun.
But the nicest thing about the software in the base is that they are developed in sync with the OS, so their code can be simpler.
The other major difference is FreeBSD ports lets you chose the build options - the defaults are normally good, but if you don't like how Debian (Arch...) choose to build your packages you are not stuck. Ports even mixes with binary packages so you can choose the defaults for some things and build others yourself and the system will track everything and when things need to be updated. This is something you rarely need, but when you do FreeBSD soundly beats everyone else just because the effort is so much less (again though, most people never need this in the first place - and Debian has pushed less need of this on applications which is a good thing)
And it shows.
I wrote about it here: https://www.blog.montgomerie.net/posts/2025-10-11-setting-up...
Not an OpenBSD expert by any means, but two small pieces of minor feedback as everything else you wrote mirrors my own setup and experience. Firstly, unless you are really strapped for space on say a 90s machine, it is generally recommended to install all the file sets as there can be interactions with ports even if one does not expect it (say ffmpeg needing X11 libraries). The general OpenBSD mindset is after all "Use the defaults" and the default is to install all the file sets. Secondly, the OpenBSD Handbook has a bit of a mixed reputation in the community from what I can tell. Unlike the FreeBSD Handbook, it is not an official document and I tend to rely on man pages, openbsd.org, misc@, and a few blogs I consider to be trustworthy instead.
As a final note, glad to see you have IPv6 up and running. I really should get around to it now that dhcp6leased has been in base for more than two releases.
There were a few hiccups, such as learning about bootloader versions, but after a few Saturdays tinkering it has been running solid and I’m very pleased.
https://zvault.io/
At the time the FreeNAS documentation recommend installing to a usb drive. This proved unreliable, but dedicating a drive to it was silly given it couldn't be used for anything else. I had all the things I needed but I wanted to peel back the layers and this seemed like a good excuse
So I threw in a drive and installed freebsd 10 and spent a few days familiarising myself with everything, learned how to configure samba myself, learned how to setup jails with iocage (the old shell version), and finally imported my pool.
Years later very little has changed.
For me, the balance between all the overhead of the "cattle, not pets" approach and the manual way is the a README.md file for basic setup, and then having Ansible stand up the rest of the configuration. The host is configured as a Jail host, then individual services live inside the jails. Creating and configuring the jails is also done through Ansible. Overall, I really like the setup. I can individually SSH into each jail to allow easy debugging, I can snapshot the jails, and data lives on a special ZFS subvolume that I mount into each jail at "/bucket". This way, I can throw away the jail at any time, fire up Ansible, and have everything up and running again in no time.
If you don't know about them already, you may be interested in service jails (forthcoming[1] in 15):
> A service jail shares the complete filesystem tree directly with the host (the jail root path is /) and as such can access and modify any file on the host, and shares the same user accounts with the host. By default it has no access to the network or other resources which are restricted in jails, but they can be configured to re-use the network of the host and to remove some of the jail-restrictions.
* https://docs.freebsd.org/en/books/handbook/jails/#service-ja...
* https://docs.freebsd.org/en/books/handbook/jails/#service-ja...
* https://man.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=rc.conf&manpath=Fr...
[1] https://www.freebsd.org/releases/15.0R/schedule/
But it's very cool to see continued development, jails are such an awesome feature!
These days I have my FreeBSD server providing NFS for a k3s instance on a different box.
I thought about using Linux and simply providing storage from FreeBSD using NFS, but that would require 2 machines or a VM that connects to the host using NFS or something... meh.
I was thinking of Bastille, which is for managing jails
[
] It's not my first time with FreeBSD. I first ran it in ~2004. But it's been over 10 years since I last ran it, and I'd forgotten a decent bit. The last time I ran it, I just set up a couple of jails for NAS and Plex and proceeded to not touch it until I moved.One nice thing is cloning a jail (which can be done live if using ZFS) to spin up a dev/test environment on a different IP. Or setting up a jail to try some different configurations and not having to worry about resetting things on your main host.
I've set up a storage jail with no network access, then a couple of service jails that dip into it at various mount points/permissions. It's total overkill for what I'm doing, but the point is to learn, tinker, and have fun.
I never see an app released for FreeBSD. There are usually Deb and rpm files.
I suppose FreeBSD adapts and releases some them in their ports. But how is the coverage?
Another issue is the hardware support. Does it have drivers for things like recent WiFi chips?
Normally you don't release an app for BSD specifically unless you want to offer a port. In which case software is usually built and if you need containerization you can put it in a jail.
It seems you would do well to install a FreeBSD vm/usb and give it a run. Their documentation is pretty good and their forums are helpful.
If they support flatpaks, it might be good enough.
What’s not to like, I’m curious?
The storage is cheap these days, if you consider downloads are large. Core apps are robust.
GhostBSD.
https://ghostbsd.org/
You don't need to start over in a new OS for this. Just don't cargo cult. Linux can do all this fine natively without containers and without risk in very straightforward ways if you ignore all the "deployal" memes or ideas of fallbacks. Just install nginx from your repos on your desktop, throw in some .html files to a directory and play.
But it become harder and harder in recent years.
Reason? Docker.
Many current «server-side» products doesn't have good instructions how to install them «by hands» and is not very suitable for system-side packaging (creating port), as they have build systems designed to be used in CI with online access in build time (especially node.js-based and go-based ones, but rust goes same way).
Installation instructions, well-defined dependencies, good versioning, immutable source distribution files? Nah. «Take this Docker file and run it».
It is pity.
Then I can put 1.5 hours of effort into it one day setting up and getting used to Bastille and another 1.5 hours another day installing my software. Maybe my request is silly but most people say "I don't have the time or patience to self host" but what does "dont have the time" mean? Sure it's variable from person to person. It might increase interest in self hosting if people have a better idea of what they would be getting into.
This would pair well with encouraging a system like Bastille that just wants to get out of your way (two contextual views of time-savings).
This is delightful. Personal projects are a great place to buck the technical monoculture and try something unique. I really enjoyed reading this.
So I used to have everything FreeBSD but I've stopped using around 2020 when I've started buying computers that have different core configurations like ARM RockChip and Intel Alder Lake. I believe the term is called big.LITTLE when you have efficient and performance cores.
As of now the FreeBSD scheduler is not making full use of big.LITTLE. TBF It works and your mileage might vary and you might also pin stuff to cores but not ideal.
Meanwhile I went back to Linux and fell into the Nix rabbit hole.
I might go back once they get ULE to be able to use my Alder Lake efficiently.
6 more comments available on Hacker News