Posted by todsacerdoti 11/12/2025
I'm not sure about that. This isn't FreeBSD specific so it's a bit tangential, but I've certainly debugged systems where someone thought it appropriate to run their intensive job on a live box (mind boggling, yes). Seeing it smack dab under their name is kind of important.
Am I missing something?
If you have them unset, you can login to the server as you, see what your service user is up to, and only have to do interventions as the service user or root depending.
If you don't want your service to see what else is going on on the server, you can put it in a jail and not allow jailed processes to see out; not a bad idea to do that anyway, although it does mean starting the service needs root when it likely wouldn't otherwise (you can drop the high priviledged port to 79 and then your service can listen on port 80 without root)
I haven't tried podman in FreeBSD yet because from what I understand you can only run it as root right now, so it kind of defeat the purpose.
Wonderfully under-rated. Robust as anything and SO FAST. It was my sole desktop OS for years, and while I’m dabbling with Debian right now, I miss Void the most. So lean and snappy.
Coming from OpenBSD and FreeBSD, Void Linux feels almost the same. Same rc init scripts and such.
I grew up in times when people were using stuff like Solaris, Novel and my older friends would occasionally gift me a whooping set of 7CDs with something like SUSE or RedHat so I could join the cool kids club.
While former - in my headspace - were like Oracle - specialized, enterprise solutions, the latter were just different breeds of Linux trying to compete with Windows. Nowadays, for an ordinary dude like myself, we pretty much settled on Ubuntu with plethora of different distributions for hackers and tinkers, but, at least for me, there's not much difference between Mint or Arch. It's like sports team, everyone has their own favorite team, but at the end of the day the all play football. Or fashion.
It's like if you'd ask me about a bike I could go for an hour long tangent about different breeds and brands, but at the end of the day if you just want to cycle around the neighborhood just pick any bike you can that more or less fits your size and you're set.
But for whatever reason BSD seems to occupy different space, why?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Software_Distribution
I mean, if I want to deploy a service on the internet and I need a server, or I want a computer that would work as a weather station around my house, or simply a NAS - I need to pick an OS. At this point I may come to realization that there might be better solutions that my usual desktop system (ie Windows/Mac) and opt for more streamlined solution. But then I have all flavors of Linux. Why is BSD relevant?
Sorry if this sounds stupid, but this questions pops in my head every few years and every time I fail to find the right answer.
On Ubuntu, Arch, Mint, etc. there is no such distinction. Everything is made of packages, including the base system. You have packages for the kernel, the init system, logging, networking, firmware, etc. These are all versioned independently and whether or not they are considered "essential" is up to the user to decide.
On BSD, the base system is not composed of packages. It is a separate thing, with the kernel, libc, command line utilities all tightly coupled and versioned together. This allows the components to evolve together, with breaking ABI changes that would not be practical in Linux. This makes BSD better for research, which is why things like IPv6, address space randomization, SSH, jails, capabilities were developed there.
Packages are used for applications and are isolated to /usr/local. Dependency and compatibility problems only exist for packages. The base system is always there, always bootable, and you can count on being able to log in to a command line session and use the standard suite of tools. It is sort of like a Linux rescue image, except you boot off it every time.
I grew to appreciate stability, over time - I don't want to have to fix things after updates, including my tweaks and customizations. I want complete control of my computers. I appreciate a cohesive and well documented system. I want simple and consistent and secure. I don't want the OS to take up more of my time than it needs to.
Perhaps you should consider the BSDs to be like different linux distributions, having their own priorities, pros and cons. Some people don't care. Some do. It's all good, having more options.
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWuZLJkUBfw
- https://freebsdfoundation.org/blog/three-ways-to-try-freebsd...
https://svnweb.freebsd.org/base?view=revision&revision=34396...
Is security not a priority for their developers?
They are not directly comparable since ZFS is also the volume manager for your ZFS filesystems, enabling features like `zfs send` of snapshots or entire filesystems for easy backups.
> Let's start with the first and probably most important step: setting up the network. […] I don't fully remember how I actually set up the network as it's been a while, but it involved adding the following to `/etc/rc.conf`
This would be a great time to show off FreeBSD's documentation. A great “Step 1” would be https://man.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?networking(7)
And then later on when people reasonably wonder what the heck else is going on in `rc.conf`: https://man.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=rc.conf
All of the modern `rc.conf` examples will also be using `sysrc` instead of telling you to edit the file directly, at first as a first line of defense against fatfingering the file formatting, and later when you get more advanced as a way to transparently descend into Jails' `rc.conf`s without having to think about it: https://man.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=sysrc
One thing FreeBSD's installer does not do a good job with that's very relevant for laptop usage is any automatic setup of hardware-specific kernel modules. You will want to enable either `coretemp` or `amdtemp` (depending on your particular Framework model) which will automatically populate all the sensor data, easily queried via `sysctl`:
- https://man.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?coretemp
- https://man.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?amdtemp
[Lammy@Emi] sysctl dev.cpu.{0..7}.temperature
dev.cpu.0.temperature: 40.0C
dev.cpu.1.temperature: 43.0C
dev.cpu.2.temperature: 41.0C
dev.cpu.3.temperature: 42.0C
dev.cpu.4.temperature: 40.0C
dev.cpu.5.temperature: 40.0C
dev.cpu.6.temperature: 42.0C
dev.cpu.7.temperature: 43.0C
Btrfs supports both snapshots and sending/receiving them between different hosts. You can also create additional Btrfs subvolumes.
This is mostly what I meant with the differences between zfs and btrfs not being that significant for most: they largely seem to give you the same end result, instead taking a different path to get there. I do know that zfs is better in terms of reliability (or at least people love to bring that up), but it's something I don't have any experience with myself and thus can't comment on.
That document is a stunning illustration of beautiful simplicity.
On the other hand, the lack of broad HW support means that my FreeBSD server burned 2x more power at low to mid usage levels than the same HW running Proxmox.