4 ms·

1. zfs runs well on a lot of systems. You might have to change a setting or two but it's not as you say. 2. pkg install and the related pkg utilities have exis

1. zfs runs well on a lot of systems. You might have to change a setting or two but it's not as you say. 2. pkg install and the related pkg utilities have existed for awhile. 5. systemd isn't and shouldn't be a requirement for applications going forward. Any application that requires it is limiting its portability for unknown reasons. The joy of trying a new system is the little things you learn that you weren't even aware of before.

erlehmann_ 10y ago
Regarding your point 5: Application developers embrace systemd (and thereby reject portability to some extent) because it makes it easier for them to not do infrastructure work. A description of that phenomenon in KDE can be read here: http://blog.davidedmundson.co.uk/blog/systemd-and-plasma http://blog.davidedmundson.co.uk/blog/systemd-and-plasma
- malka 10y ago
  So it's a feature. I cut myself from shitty software by using FreeBSD.
nixos 10y ago
> pkg install and the related pkg utilities have existed for awhile. So have apt and apt-get. So that takes away one of the advantages of FreeBSD > systemd isn't and shouldn't be a requirement for applications going forward. Any application that requires it is limiting its portability for unknown reasons. True, tell RedHat that :(
- danieldk 10y ago
  So have apt and apt-get. So that takes away one of the advantages of FreeBSD Not completely. In Debian and others it's mostly a choice between a stable base and stale software or a moving base and up to date software (though backports improve things quite a bit for Debian Stable). Since in FreeBSD packages are separated from the base system, it's possible to run a stable base system, while using quarterly updates or rolling release (latest) of packages. (Note: I didn't have many problems running Debian Unstable, but it may depend on your requirements.)
  - lmz 10y ago
    Of course, there's nothing stopping people from using things like pkgsrc or Nix on Linux.
- darklajid 10y ago
  What would you consider the advantage of FreeBSD ports/packages? Why would that be taken away by pkg? pkg provides a way to manage (binary) packages. There are other tools (like poudriere, last time I dabbled in the FreeBSD world) to manage/create binary packages. You could run FreeBSD on your tiny VPS, but build packages with all the custom ports options you could want in a jail on your local machine.
  - nixos 10y ago
    The advantage of ports is that they are compiled for your machine. The minute you get precompiled packages, you might as well be on Debian
    - danieldk 10y ago
      Well, the nice thing is that you can mix and match. Don't care about the configuration of a package, use pkg. Want to use a set op custom compilation options? Use ports with 'make config'.
Bromskloss 10y ago
> systemd isn't and shouldn't be a requirement for applications going forward. Any application that requires it is limiting its portability for unknown reasons. How should one do it instead? Treat each alternative system specifically? Or is there a way to cover them all at once, including unknown and future ones?
- groovy2shoes 10y ago
  How about this: don't write applications that depend on the init system. Seriously, who ever thought such a dependency was a good idea? Who even thought it would be a good idea to make an init system that was possible for an application to be dependent on? This is exceedingly poor engineering, and I'm dumbfounded at its acceptance and spread.
  - qmr 10y ago
    Hint: Programming is not engineering.
    - groovy2shoes 10y ago
      I've heard this before, but I've seen pretty convincing arguments both pro and contra. I'd actually love to discuss this (not argue -- I honestly don't have a strong opinion on the topic at this time). If you're willing, my e-mail address is on my profile :)

erlehmann_ 10y ago

Regarding your point 5: Application developers embrace systemd (and thereby reject portability to some extent) because it makes it easier for them to not do infrastructure work. A description of that phenomenon in KDE can be read here: http://blog.davidedmundson.co.uk/blog/systemd-and-plasma http://blog.davidedmundson.co.uk/blog/systemd-and-plasma

malka 10y ago
So it's a feature. I cut myself from shitty software by using FreeBSD.

nixos 10y ago

> pkg install and the related pkg utilities have existed for awhile. So have apt and apt-get. So that takes away one of the advantages of FreeBSD > systemd isn't and shouldn't be a requirement for applications going forward. Any application that requires it is limiting its portability for unknown reasons. True, tell RedHat that :(

danieldk 10y ago
So have apt and apt-get. So that takes away one of the advantages of FreeBSD Not completely. In Debian and others it's mostly a choice between a stable base and stale software or a moving base and up to date software (though backports improve things quite a bit for Debian Stable). Since in FreeBSD packages are separated from the base system, it's possible to run a stable base system, while using quarterly updates or rolling release (latest) of packages. (Note: I didn't have many problems running Debian Unstable, but it may depend on your requirements.)
- lmz 10y ago
  Of course, there's nothing stopping people from using things like pkgsrc or Nix on Linux.
darklajid 10y ago
What would you consider the advantage of FreeBSD ports/packages? Why would that be taken away by pkg? pkg provides a way to manage (binary) packages. There are other tools (like poudriere, last time I dabbled in the FreeBSD world) to manage/create binary packages. You could run FreeBSD on your tiny VPS, but build packages with all the custom ports options you could want in a jail on your local machine.
- nixos 10y ago
  The advantage of ports is that they are compiled for your machine. The minute you get precompiled packages, you might as well be on Debian
  - danieldk 10y ago
    Well, the nice thing is that you can mix and match. Don't care about the configuration of a package, use pkg. Want to use a set op custom compilation options? Use ports with 'make config'.

Bromskloss 10y ago

> systemd isn't and shouldn't be a requirement for applications going forward. Any application that requires it is limiting its portability for unknown reasons. How should one do it instead? Treat each alternative system specifically? Or is there a way to cover them all at once, including unknown and future ones?

groovy2shoes 10y ago
How about this: don't write applications that depend on the init system. Seriously, who ever thought such a dependency was a good idea? Who even thought it would be a good idea to make an init system that was possible for an application to be dependent on? This is exceedingly poor engineering, and I'm dumbfounded at its acceptance and spread.
- qmr 10y ago
  Hint: Programming is not engineering.
  - groovy2shoes 10y ago
    I've heard this before, but I've seen pretty convincing arguments both pro and contra. I'd actually love to discuss this (not argue -- I honestly don't have a strong opinion on the topic at this time). If you're willing, my e-mail address is on my profile :)