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?
I hate to break this to you, but OpenBSD is an antiquated OS masquerading as a modern one, and OpenBSD’s lack of willingness to support modern standards results in the difficulty you’re having.
OpenBSD feels like it’s been duct taped together for decades. Anything “new” seems to just be, “sorry, not possible.” The OpenBSD kernel doesn’t support WiFi 5GHz. The OpenBSD kernel doesn’t support even the minimum subset of isolation features in order for Docker to function properly. Why? Because OpenBSD refuses to add these features to their kernel. There are very likely other syscalls and basic features any given open source project needs, even if it’s not being run in Docker, that simply do not exist under OpenBSD due to the very limited kernel it provides.
You’re upset because open source projects don’t support a platform that is old and developer-hostile. Turn your frustrations on OpenBSD - these projects would gladly support OpenBSD if they could.
Ok, let us assume for a moment that “modern” is the same thing as “great”: why do people still use Linux’s terminal, which emulates an actual 70s line printer, although there have been superior input capabilities since the 80s?
That’s irrelevant to this discussion. I was talking about OpenBSD’s lack of kernel features and driver support.
As for the Linux vs OpenBSD terminal comment, I feel like you’re grasping. What does OpenBSD’s terminal do better? We have had augmentations on top of the Linux terminal for years, adding things like auto complete and syntax suggestions that the 80’s could never have dreamed of.
Nothing (well, depending on whether you like the
ksh), and I never said it was. The point is that a terminal is not modern either, it’s actually the exact opposite of modern, yet you’re happy with it.OpenBSD has more reliable WiFi on a ThinkPad than Linux has ever had - at least for me. It seems that “lack” is a highly subjective term.
Calling OpenBSD “ducked taped together” feels rather crassly inaccurate. I won’t pretend it’s particularly modernized, but thats not a requirement for a lot of people using it. For many use cases, including many of mine, OpenBSD is easily the most consistent and quality Unix environment out there.
OpenBSD has, for a very long time, had their own isolation features, and have their own implementation of a myriad of modern kernel functionality. What they explicitly do not have is clones of Linux syscalls, which is why things like Docker (and Wayland, for that matter) do not work. And while unfortunate, I do not believe every Unix-like should be forced to imitate the Linux syscall API, as that is exactly what leads to the “duct taped” feeling other Unix-likes suffer from.
That said, I also do not blame FOSS developers for deprioritizing OpenBSD as a platform, as it is one of the smallest actively maintained Unix systems, and time is not infinite.