00:52:10 call out fr. can any one here help me get access to shell so i can program again 00:53:16 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 00:53:58 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 01:36:50 porchaa: https://sdf.org/ 01:36:51 Title: SDF Public Access UNIX System - Free Shell Account and Shell Access 01:37:18 it might not be the fastest, but many people still rely on it 01:37:34 vortexx is this something you have used or results from a web search? 01:37:57 ok let me try. everything I do does not work. like ever 01:38:26 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 01:38:56 at least outside academia and corporate 01:40:19 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 01:40:26 porchaa: don't give up hope, having your laptop stolen sucks 01:40:42 nothing works in porcha-land. 01:40:49 thank you vortexx 01:41:14 vortexx, first my laptop 01:41:16 you're welcome 01:42:00 then my ID, cell phone, clothing 01:43:11 i am an absolute fukn embarrassment and disgrace. but I can still program 01:48:18 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 01:57:29 it will be rough 01:58:46 if I make it back, it will be rough, for those that chose not to help 01:59:53 not that I would waste a neuron remembering them. but if for some reason odd reason I do 02:04:12 time to work out who is a friend and who isn't, and act 02:04:24 but don't give up 02:08:54 vortexx can you do this with me 02:09:25 i don't think we can validate each other's accounts but it may be useful. is sort of interesting in there any way 02:09:56 but is ultimately kind of a time sink dead end as far as i can tell. i hate to say that but 02:11:14 i don't mind paying for an account but seriously don't think i can until next month 02:11:55 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 02:12:34 vortexx no i don't want that. thank you though 02:13:33 do me a favor though. do not link stuff on irc you have not used yourself 02:13:59 i do have a fking web browser and all 02:14:37 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 02:16:32 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 02:18:49 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. 02:19:21 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. 02:32:23 I use tilde.club, typing from there 05:08:31 what a totally fd day. 05:09:57 virtual machine in android running alpine hoated screebln and irssi seems better than other crap ways of .... 05:10:56 i cam absolutely disgusted with myself andvthe amount of time i waste 05:20:44 Hi. Do *BSDs generally require bash to be installed like on Linux distros? 05:21:06 In other words, are scripts made/ported without bash-specific functionality? 05:23:15 ncurs3s: FreeBSD does not include bash and does not require bash to be installed. however, third-party software (from ports/packages) may require bash. 05:23:43 nothing requires bash 05:24:04 porscha: that's not true, software from ports/packages may require bash. (but if you mean the base system, then yes.) 05:25:06 both are true 05:25:34 no, "nothing requires bash" is not true. "the base system does not require bash" is true. 05:26:04 obviously, some things do require bash. those things are just not part of the base system. 05:26:22 only bash requires bash 05:26:42 but they realky don't lw 05:26:49 that's... not true. there are many shell scripts which require bash-specific extensions. 05:27:08 "many" 05:27:17 yes, many 05:27:32 although "many" could mean "greater than zero" and this would still be true 05:27:35 many that no one uses any mote 05:27:50 yeah. ok i buy that 05:27:53 what is your point? are you claiming that no shell scripts installed by ports/packages require bash? 05:28:00 this is obviously not true 05:28:26 lw, very unfortunate. When possible, do FreeBSD package maintainers port packages that require bash to ksh or generally less "bash-specific" behavior? 05:28:28 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 05:28:33 i would be comfortable saying that yes 05:28:43 unless the software sucks 05:28:59 in which case it would be a "many' 05:29:35 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. 05:29:57 feel free to cite ne. call me out in an academic journal. porscha purveyor of misinfotmation 05:30:11 ncurs3s: that probably depends on the port, hard to say in general 05:30:13 no. i know. not think 05:31:11 i dobn't actually have to think for this. bash has not been a legitmate dependency for fukn eons 05:31:43 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 05:31:52 anyway you are confusing people and being a douche 05:32:14 i dob't brlieve it l. i kbow it 05:32:18 no, you are confusing pepole by saying "nothing requires bash" when many packages require bash. i am trying to help OP with their question. 05:32:41 it just isn't. you are severely misguided 05:32:41 ah, a classic fight of ideology vs pragmatism 05:33:16 Dooshki: no, not even. if porscha had said "nothing should require bash" we could all agree on that. "nothing requires bash" is objectively false. 05:33:49 "nothing should require bash" is ideology, "nothing requires bash" is objective (false) fact 05:34:30 i mean for fuks sake. nothing does except some random script 05:35:04 some random script may be included as part of a larger package 05:35:16 thus, pulling in bash even if it isn't needed for most of the application's usage 05:35:34 i know cuz i hqve read all the code for all the programs anyone actually uses 05:35:41 lmao 05:35:47 please, stop trolling. 05:36:25 wtf. i mean if you haven't why would you answer questions 05:37:08 It's obvious you had a bad day. Please, take a break and try to relax 05:37:27 it's not that much. you do eventually read ut 05:40:00 please install tge bash shell for advanced ./configuration 05:40:25 the fk.. lol 05:49:42 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 05:51:04 Again, that's a hypothetical, not the current state of affairs 05:51:32 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 05:52:10 * kevans_ stares at the current conversation and wonders if it's worth scrolling back to the origin 05:52:37 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. 05:53:35 i mean right. no you don"t know and can't 05:53:46 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 05:54:02 i know. that's all you got 05:54:04 arrays are a royal pain in the ass to recreate in posix shell 05:54:33 either porscha is wrong cuz some other nerds say so -- or not 05:55:06 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. 05:55:36 anyway linux foesn't requure bash either it is just a nice login shell 05:56:06 yash? the fk 05:56:43 ok nvm. i like the guys who said i am full of shit bettet now 05:57:36 fish anf other ridiculous shells and anyone who writes in shell is delusional 05:58:01 people can do whatever they want with their free time 05:58:49 or any discussion of shell as anything 05:59:02 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 05:59:32 not to mention countless user applications that might include bash scripts 05:59:38 yes ofc. but if they use shell then "anything" will be "nothing' 06:00:08 ok now you ate not fkn serious are you? 06:00:50 no. just no lol. that doesn't happen except perhaps by accident. 06:02:09 anyway not discussing this any longer. very rare programs that are critical or even commonly used do this 07:24:34 niha0: you are freaking me out 07:25:13 msg me tho. i sorta have an irc client up seni-permanent. i live in LA now 07:35:40 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. 07:39:53 well the problem in fact appeared when FreeBSD 14.0 change default shell to /bin/sh instead of /bin/csh ... 07:40:06 midnight commander works ok with csh 19:55:58 Isnt' tcsh the default shell? 19:57:15 Also, what's your objections to bash? 20:01:39 In 14.0 the default root shell changed from /bin/csh to /bin/sh 20:02:10 sh is okay for shell scripts, but it's a horrible interactive shell. 20:02:35 'Course, I use bash anyways, so. . . 20:03:14 https://www.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" 20:03:16 Title: FreeBSD 14.0-RELEASE Release Notes | The FreeBSD Project 20:03:21 https://cgit.freebsd.org/src/commit/?id=d410b585b6f0 20:03:22 Title: src - FreeBSD source tree 20:04:21 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. 20:05:34 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. 20:08:08 I mean. . . I know there's some license zealots out there that avoid Gnu GPL code at all costs, but. . . 22:56:05 is it possible to downgrade a package from a .pkg ? 22:56:05 https://hostit.tfnux.org/obj/7x5u32j7ane5bv4rwe5z3e2fhcvaff3o/stdin 23:12:46 Just install the package using the .pkg and it will change to that pkg, up or down or same. 23:13:16 But the error you posted is a different problem: pkg: archive_read_open_filename((null)): Failed to open '(null)' 23:13:47 Looks like some error in the package scripts. You might need to remove it and then install the previous one.