3 ms·
I believe that's because devs want to use what they use for their workstation (that is, what they know the best) on their servers. That's understandable, and m
by gkya 11y ago
I believe that's because devs want to use what they use for their workstation (that is, what they know the best) on their servers. That's understandable, and most cloud services give you boxes that are already usable but because you don't have sth. like the FreeBSD handbook, and because the whole thing is not that thightly integrated, complex stuff requires hacks and dirty workarounds or at least a lot of experience. I have not done any system-admin work, but I can say this: in one week I've managed to make my FreeBSD system completely reproducible after using it for the first time. I haven't been able to do that with any Gnu/Linux, and I've used it for more than ten years till last february I guess.
- slizard 11y agoI take your point about FreeBSD's benefits, but we need to be realistic. People want working devices/peripherals (admittedly, I'm not very familiar with the state of the drivers on FreeBSD today, but I know it has been an issue) and many prefer to be productive too rather than hack away at their OS. These OSes have moved out of the garage and are running a large part of this damn Internet :) FreeBSD is certainly perfect for some niche uses but, I believe, it isn't realistic for many if not most GNU/Linux server uses today. And that's where I'd come back to your initial point on Ubuntu's lacking server benefits: you may not see them, but many do, and for better or worse they vote with their choice. Even if many don't like it, let's be honest, many do benefit from it indirectly.