This morning a colleague told me he tried both FreeBSD and OpenBSD. He said he found them "strange." For example, FreeBSD doesn’t have the bash in the base system, and even after installing it, it’s not in "/bin/bash", "which it should be because all the scripts expect it to be there."
I explained to him that scripts shouldn’t have hard-coded paths, but unfortunately, they do. He said he gave up and that he might try again later since "the BSDs do things their own way."
One of the problems for those approaching a new operating system is they should consider it as a standalone entity rather than a "variant" of another. Linux users are often confused because they regard BSDs as just another "distribution." They don’t realize that having a shell doesn’t mean having the same operating system or procedures underneath.
I’m reminded of the famous saying by Oscar Wilde, that the English and the Americans are two peoples divided by the same language: paradoxically, for a new user, it’s easier to perceive the difference when the two operating systems are extremely different (like Windows and Linux) than when they are seemingly similar (like Linux and the BSDs).
I will try to have a "four hands" session with my colleague because I believe he would greatly benefit from using BSDs.
I posted here about how I didn’t agree that, in many companies, a technician's career had to necessarily evolve into a managerial role. I just opened LinkedIn and found a message: 'Hey! We noticed you had a great technical background! Join our school, and you’ll become an excellent manager, advancing your career immediately!'
Some years ago, a client of mine asked me to create a VPS for a website they were going to host. As per their request, I set up an Ubuntu VPS with Nginx, PHP, MySQL, Redis, etc. Its job was to support a low-traffic, local website built with Laravel.
I've since lost touch with the client, but the website is still up and running (the VPS is up to date, though Laravel might be slightly behind - I'm not managing it).
This morning, my client (a good person with solid tech skills) told me that their client will be migrating the website to another provider, so they asked for the server specifications. I replied with the details, explaining that it's a simple and stable setup, and that the requirements are low since they only get around 50 visits per day. Easy peasy.
A few hours later, the client came back saying they had been asked for more details, as everything is required for the new setup - even though it's just a basic migration. Here's what they sent me (copy-pasting the request):
Development Environment Setup • Development Environment Configuration Files (.env files or config scripts) • Instructions for Local Setup (required tools, frameworks, or virtual environments) • System Architecture Diagrams
When we explained that we didn’t use most of those things (CI/CD tools - they're not needed here, and "system architecture diagrams" don’t really make sense), they couldn't believe it.
I'm at a loss for words. Why are we overcomplicating things like this? It’s just a simple Laravel website. Install Nginx, MySQL, PHP, Redis, and you're good to go. Do we really need all of this for a low-traffic, small website?
We're unnecessarily overcomplicating things. Sure, this stuff makes sense for more complex setups - but not this one.
By overcomplicating the setup with unnecessary tools and processes, we're not only adding complexity but also consuming more resources - more servers, more power, more energy. Keeping things simple isn’t just practical, it's also more sustainable.
BSD.cafe "Barista", Founder and System Administrator, Unix enthusiast ( #FreeBSD, #OpenBSD, #NetBSD, #DragonflyBSD, and #Linux ), with a keen eye for everything happening in this world and the fascinating beings that populate it. I enjoy #music, #photography, and, of course, #technology. I'll be sharing posts about my interests. Boosts are not endorsements."I Solve Problems" - https://it-notes.dragas.net/2024/10/03/i-solve-problems-eurobsdcon/