call out fr. can any one here help me get access to shell so i can program again

my laptop was stolen while i was asleep. not even trying to get another one. but i need a basic shell to run irssi and edit stuff to commit to github

i spent like 4 hours with the blinkenshell account setup and am not sure if anyone will vouch for me and am kinda fed up with people

porchaa: sdf.org

Title: SDF Public Access UNIX System - Free Shell Account and Shell Access

it might not be the fastest, but many people still rely on it

vortexx is this something you have used or results from a web search?

ok let me try. everything I do does not work. like ever

porchaa: I've known about it for a long time but never used it. Their original purpose is just to let people have shell access, it was setup in a time when this was rare

at least outside academia and corporate

I mean yeah it is now went from rare to unecessary. but i don't think it is possible for me to program without it

porchaa: don't give up hope, having your laptop stolen sucks

nothing works in porcha-land.

thank you vortexx

vortexx, first my laptop

you're welcome

then my ID, cell phone, clothing

i am an absolute fukn embarrassment and disgrace. but I can still program

porchaa: you haven't had your knowledge stolen, so you have a future. It'll be rough for a while, clearly. If you have insurance, use it

it will be rough

if I make it back, it will be rough, for those that chose not to help

not that I would waste a neuron remembering them. but if for some reason odd reason I do

time to work out who is a friend and who isn't, and act

but don't give up

vortexx can you do this with me

i don't think we can validate each other's accounts but it may be useful. is sort of interesting in there any way

but is ultimately kind of a time sink dead end as far as i can tell. i hate to say that but

i don't mind paying for an account but seriously don't think i can until next month

porchaa: I'm afraid I can't provide any financial aid of any kind. I have my own problems and this is not a moral support channel

vortexx no i don't want that. thank you though

do me a favor though. do not link stuff on irc you have not used yourself

i do have a fking web browser and all

this server is the one that you have to mail a postcard to in order to use. connecting to it through this mnethod is just a time sink

and like why in the hell does everyone assume that I am trying to get money out of them. if I wanted money from some douche guy I would say so and sleep with him like usual. i may be a dirty useless excuse for a human being but i am not a scammewr

at a certain point though, and that point is pretty well past once you have taken a swim in macarther park lake -- minimum wage is kinda just too much. unless you happen to like girls with sores all over their body.

which is why it would be fking nice if just one damn technology thing worked. I would have been better off spending the day taking a bath.

I use tilde.club, typing from there

what a totally fd day.

virtual machine in android running alpine hoated screebln and irssi seems better than other crap ways of ....

i cam absolutely disgusted with myself andvthe amount of time i waste

Hi. Do *BSDs generally require bash to be installed like on Linux distros?

In other words, are scripts made/ported without bash-specific functionality?

ncurs3s: FreeBSD does not include bash and does not require bash to be installed. however, third-party software (from ports/packages) may require bash.

nothing requires bash

porscha: that's not true, software from ports/packages may require bash. (but if you mean the base system, then yes.)

both are true

no, "nothing requires bash" is not true. "the base system does not require bash" is true.

obviously, some things do require bash. those things are just not part of the base system.

only bash requires bash

but they realky don't lw

that's... not true. there are many shell scripts which require bash-specific extensions.

"many"

yes, many

although "many" could mean "greater than zero" and this would still be true

many that no one uses any mote

yeah. ok i buy that

what is your point? are you claiming that no shell scripts installed by ports/packages require bash?

this is obviously not true

lw, very unfortunate. When possible, do FreeBSD package maintainers port packages that require bash to ksh or generally less "bash-specific" behavior?

although, i was glad to see that dehydrated recently added support for zsh instead of bash... but still, there are many ports that require bash

i would be comfortable saying that yes

unless the software sucks

in which case it would be a "many'

porscha: so what you're saying is "i think software which is well written should not require bash" -- which i agree with, but that is not what OP asked.

feel free to cite ne. call me out in an academic journal. porscha purveyor of misinfotmation

ncurs3s: that probably depends on the port, hard to say in general

no. i know. not think

i dobn't actually have to think for this. bash has not been a legitmate dependency for fukn eons

ok, well, you're welcome to believe what you want but you should probably avoid giving wrong answers to questions based on what you believe should be true

anyway you are confusing people and being a douche

i dob't brlieve it l. i kbow it

no, you are confusing pepole by saying "nothing requires bash" when many packages require bash. i am trying to help OP with their question.

it just isn't. you are severely misguided

ah, a classic fight of ideology vs pragmatism

Dooshki: no, not even. if porscha had said "nothing should require bash" we could all agree on that. "nothing requires bash" is objectively false.

"nothing should require bash" is ideology, "nothing requires bash" is objective (false) fact

i mean for fuks sake. nothing does except some random script

some random script may be included as part of a larger package

thus, pulling in bash even if it isn't needed for most of the application's usage

i know cuz i hqve read all the code for all the programs anyone actually uses

lmao

please, stop trolling.

wtf. i mean if you haven't why would you answer questions

It's obvious you had a bad day. Please, take a break and try to relax

it's not that much. you do eventually read ut

please install tge bash shell for advanced ./configuration

the fk.. lol

anyway most of what shells do is access the environ "ment" set up by the c run time and provide a front end for fork()+exec() faniky functions. outside of that shells offer almost zero added functionality. there just isn't anything that coukd possibky be providrd by then that woukd lead to a dependency that doesn't have a worj around

Again, that's a hypothetical, not the current state of affairs

If you wish to go through all ports that have bash listed as a dependency, and rework them to not need it, you're free to do that

I don't really know the extent of bash-specific functionality being a requirement in scripts, but I do know that most distros use bash by default and, at least in Debian & Gentoo, removing it breaks core system functionality. This is Linux; BSDs don't use bash in their core system components. As for third party packages; I don't know & it's a bit difficult to find out. I know steam does, but not much else.

i mean right. no you don"t know and can't

bash provides some custom syntax that is useful and convenient, but it's easy enough to work around it if you know what you're doing

i know. that's all you got

arrays are a royal pain in the ass to recreate in posix shell

either porscha is wrong cuz some other nerds say so -- or not

I've recently grown a liking towards the yash shell. Implements a lot of bash features, and by default has interactive/intuitive features, but is MUCH smaller.

anyway linux foesn't requure bash either it is just a nice login shell

yash? the fk

ok nvm. i like the guys who said i am full of shit bettet now

fish anf other ridiculous shells and anyone who writes in shell is delusional

people can do whatever they want with their free time

or any discussion of shell as anything

Apt, Portage, dnf & Pacman use bash-specific functionality. So that's Fedora, Debian, Arch & Gentoo that use bash-specific functionality by default and would break if you uninstalled it

not to mention countless user applications that might include bash scripts

yes ofc. but if they use shell then "anything" will be "nothing'

ok now you ate not fkn serious are you?

no. just no lol. that doesn't happen except perhaps by accident.

anyway not discussing this any longer. very rare programs that are critical or even commonly used do this

niha0: you are freaking me out

msg me tho. i sorta have an irc client up seni-permanent. i live in LA now

porscha: I kind of hate lastest midnight commander package ... it needs bash to use subshell ... so by default when I run it it is not working. It needs to run with -u to disable shell. The same for mcedit, even it does not need subshell.

well the problem in fact appeared when FreeBSD 14.0 change default shell to /bin/sh instead of /bin/csh ...

midnight commander works ok with csh

Isnt' tcsh the default shell?

Also, what's your objections to bash?

In 14.0 the default root shell changed from /bin/csh to /bin/sh

sh is okay for shell scripts, but it's a horrible interactive shell.

'Course, I use bash anyways, so. . .

freebsd.org/releases/14.0R/relnotes "The default shell for the root user is now sh(1), which has many new features for interactive use. d410b585b6f0"

Title: FreeBSD 14.0-RELEASE Release Notes | The FreeBSD Project

Title: src - FreeBSD source tree

I use bash for my interactive shell too. But I should read the changes made in 14 to /bin/sh and figure out what's happening there.

I rather feel that trying to make /bin/sh into a full featured interactive shell is working at opposition to it being good for a lean fast scripting shell.

I mean. . . I know there's some license zealots out there that avoid Gnu GPL code at all costs, but. . .

is it possible to downgrade a package from a .pkg ?

Just install the package using the .pkg and it will change to that pkg, up or down or same.

But the error you posted is a different problem: pkg: archive_read_open_filename((null)): Failed to open '(null)'

Looks like some error in the package scripts. You might need to remove it and then install the previous one.