Low quality post. >The first one that came to my mind was Gatus. Gatus's readme heavily implies it's meant to be run inside Docker, let alone be built inside

Low quality post. >The first one that came to my mind was Gatus. Gatus's readme heavily implies it's meant to be run inside Docker, let alone be built inside Docker. The "Deployment" section only lists Docker-based methods, points to an examples tree that only has Docker-based methods, and has a "Using in production" section that redirects to the "Deployment" section. They've clearly intended for it to be run in a Docker, and thus Linux, environment. >Here’s another one, it’s called statping The default Makefile target builds Linux binaries, but even from the README one can see that it supports OSX, and within the Makefile one can see OSX-specific targets. Sure there's no FreeBSD target, but the software clearly wants to support more than Linux. >The developers of the New World Order will assume, always, you are running Linux, as Ubuntu, and you always have Docker. The developers of the "New World" write software for the OSes they use, same as the old world. Linux users write Linux software. FreeBSD users write FreeBSD software. Only when they cooperate on the same software does that software work on both OSes. Unix is less portable than the author thinks. Source code usually isn't 100% compatible between any of the BSDs, let alone between FreeBSD and Linux. If I were the author of statping and was asked to support FreeBSD, I would require not just code and makefile support but also CI support to ensure its quality. Why should I be expected to do that on my own instead of a FreeBSD user contributing it?