Hacker News Reader

How dare a system have "checks notes" have too much documentation describing how it works.

FreeBSD has a lot of documentation, which is something people like about it.

I think it actually shows a problem, which is that BSD is designed for all your machines to be special snowflakes with individual names, edited config files, etc instead of being mass managed declaratively. So you need to know how to do everything because you’re the one doing it.

Our research company hosts 15 PB of data on what we call Single System Imaged FreeBSD with ZFS. All systems pull the complete OS from one managed rsync repo during production hours. Doing this for ten years, never ever any problems. Config files are included using the hostname to differentiate between servers. Adding servers doesn't add manual labor, it's the borg type of setup which handles it all.

This is nonsense. Please educate yourself a bit on systems automation in general if you think this is the case.

Is there an automation for "before updating ports, you need to read every single entry in UPDATING in case one of them has a command you need to run after"?

Why is there a chapter on custom kernels under "common tasks" that assumes you're going to have a C compiler and kernel source on your machine and want to installkernel on that same machine?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com