01:56:27 <bombuzal> <BarnabasDK> well freebsd never claimed to be a desktop os and not really what it is made for
01:56:33 <bombuzal> bit rich coming from #linux
01:59:32 <BarnabasDK> bombuzal: I do not understand
01:59:55 <BarnabasDK> As I said, a serverside os
02:00:27 <BarnabasDK> the fact there is thunderbolt support at all is more suprising
02:01:24 <bombuzal> Unlike GNU/Linux, which was written for desktop use - like BeOS....
02:03:30 <BarnabasDK> agree
02:05:15 <bombuzal> lol
02:05:21 <bombuzal> stupid
02:05:58 <BarnabasDK> bombuzal: not much of a people person eh?
02:06:17 <BarnabasDK> thats ok
02:21:28 <checkpoint> bombuzal: You are not quite right. First, there's "Chapter 8. Desktop Environments" of the Handbook. Second: https://github.com/FreeBSDFoundation/proj-laptop
02:22:38 * checkpoint uses FreeBSD on laptops without any claims ;)
02:23:08 <BarnabasDK> well for all practical purpose - he is right
02:25:06 <checkpoint> well, ahtough there was not any official claim (how that claim would it look like?), it just works on desktops and laptops very well.
02:25:38 <BarnabasDK> yes I agree. And then there are the areas, where linux also took a long time to get it right
02:25:39 * checkpoint recently installed FreeBSD on old MacBook, which brought it to life.
02:26:07 <BarnabasDK> and linux is maybe not even there completely yet
02:26:40 <BarnabasDK> I know I have not have much success with running Freebsd On my monitors via thunderbolt
02:26:53 <BarnabasDK> on my laptop directly - works 100%
02:27:22 * checkpoint thinks Linux is going towards nowhere... Linux guys are trying all possible directions at once, which makes it a mess.
02:28:05 <BarnabasDK> it does make it a mess - it also grows innovation
02:28:15 <BarnabasDK> but it is not pretty
02:29:52 <checkpoint> what's good about being sencond on the run is that you can learn from those how are running first and try to avoind making same mistakes.
02:30:05 <BarnabasDK> absolutely
02:30:13 <bombuzal> checkpoint: it was BarnabasDK saying FreeBSD wasn't for desktops/laptops
02:30:19 <bombuzal> I was being sarcastic
02:30:42 <checkpoint> bombuzal: oops, sorry.
02:30:42 <BarnabasDK> bombuzal: well in that case so was I of cause ..
02:31:20 <bombuzal> :3
02:31:32 * bombuzal hugs checkpoint and BarnabasDK 
02:32:15 <BarnabasDK> one thing I do not understand is the drive to introduce non standardized languages into the kernel in linux
02:32:23 * checkpoint thinks that Linux is kind of doomed, their intention to rewrite the whole world in Rust will kill Linux.
02:32:27 <BarnabasDK> so many applications REQUIRE that
02:32:29 <bombuzal> lol
02:32:35 <bombuzal> death to Rust
02:32:42 <checkpoint> yeah!
02:32:43 <checkpoint> :)
02:32:44 <BarnabasDK> automotive, space, military etc etc etc
02:33:11 <BarnabasDK> I actually like rust - the rust people - not so much
02:33:41 <checkpoint> BarnabasDK: there are special purpose OSes for that case, I cannot see why would they need Linux on flight control.
02:34:31 <BarnabasDK> saving money?
02:34:53 <BarnabasDK> what OS do a Tesla use? I have no idea
02:35:09 <SponiX> ElonOS
02:35:10 <checkpoint> besides, Rust itself does not solve any issues, esp bad coding attitude and logical errors.
02:35:46 <checkpoint> MaskOS X ?
02:36:30 <BarnabasDK> checkpoint: no, you still have to use your head, but some of the traditional memory allocation issues are solved - at the price of more memory usage ofc
02:38:17 <SponiX> Okay -- I don't code, but if I did -- I would probably consider Zig
02:38:18 * checkpoint has never tried Rust, its syntax is too complex for old fart like him ;)
02:38:22 <hodapp> more memory usage? how?
02:38:23 <BarnabasDK> and some of the rust re implementations just make no sense what so ever. Like re implementing UUtils
02:38:44 <BarnabasDK> hodapp: because of the default immutable model
02:39:29 <checkpoint> hodapp: exactly, more $$$ to DDR5 producers
02:41:10 <BarnabasDK> I mean - its a tradeoff isn't it
02:41:29 <checkpoint> the main problem is that there still very few Rust programmers, who till support all that stuff they are trying to rewrite ?
02:42:05 <BarnabasDK> and to what standard was it written? whatever the git state of the date was
02:43:10 <BarnabasDK> but yeah, code and dissapear
02:43:21 <BarnabasDK> leave the rubble to someone else
02:44:00 <BarnabasDK> lets take UUtils, it must be the best tested set of tools at all
02:44:11 <BarnabasDK> in 2026
02:45:04 <BarnabasDK> I cannot possibly see the idea in a re implementation just to have it in your "favorite" language
02:45:40 <checkpoint> there's some reason though - get money from US gov/mil
02:46:11 <BarnabasDK> so just to cash a government check?
02:46:14 <checkpoint> those are obsessed with proven code and proven languages
02:46:23 <BarnabasDK> then why rust
02:46:37 <BarnabasDK> unproven, and non standardized
02:46:50 <BarnabasDK> and yes I still like it
02:47:06 <BarnabasDK> but as opposed to c/c++ not a comparizon here
02:48:08 <checkpoint> from what I know, gov/mil guys love Ada and that soft of stuff, Rust is pretty close
02:48:49 <BarnabasDK> but seriously - I had the idea that linux was deep inside automotive, aerospace and medical etc
02:49:21 <BarnabasDK> maybe I was mistaken
02:49:54 <SponiX> Linux is in a lot of places including embedded. But FreeBSD is actually in a lot of places used by companies too
02:50:03 <BarnabasDK> I worked with Ada and that is DEFINATLY standardized up its wazoo
02:50:24 <SponiX> It has the advantage of the MIT license, where these companies can take FreeBSD do whatever they want, and not have to give anything back at all, even recognition
02:51:03 <BarnabasDK> I realize the use of FreeBSD, I am one of the ones that do
02:51:19 <BarnabasDK> famously - network devices
02:51:20 <checkpoint> actually not, Linux is heavily used in appliances like car radios etc. all the real stuff (ECI) work on RTOses and a like. memory shortage and execution time prediction is still an issue.
02:51:38 <SponiX> As to why Rust, and not Ada, Zig, Go, or something else -- No idea, Rust has a cult like following though
02:52:17 <BarnabasDK> SponiX: yeah, I do not understand the cult thing, eventhough I like the language
02:52:29 <BarnabasDK> it is just another programming lang
02:53:11 * checkpoint likes pure C and maybe golang
02:53:14 <SponiX> I agree that encouraging memory safe code for security purposes is important. But I don't think Rust is the only way to do this
02:53:28 <BarnabasDK> checkpoint: I like c too, thats where I started
02:54:29 * checkpoint started with assembly long time ago, but C compiler is just a good macro assembler :)
02:54:57 <BarnabasDK> yeah, I actually started with lattice c on the mc68000
02:55:16 <BarnabasDK> amiga
02:55:28 <BarnabasDK> before that - on the c64 those things made little sense
02:56:10 <BarnabasDK> it supported amigaos quite well in fact
02:57:37 <BarnabasDK> or I suppose - workbench
02:57:44 <checkpoint> actually my first lang was Fortran on big iron in late 80th, but I lost interest in big iron pretty soon and switched to micros (Atari, BK-0010)
02:58:34 <BarnabasDK> yeah, for me it was the other way around, I had to move backwards to make money, so I started coding cobol on VAX / acms decset for LEGO
02:59:11 <BarnabasDK> now there is a truely terrible language
03:00:42 <BarnabasDK> must be up there with php or perl
03:01:26 <checkpoint> at the place I worked in 80th PL/I was quite popular
03:01:30 <BarnabasDK> and since I realized we might as well code in pascal or c in acms, it just made it the more bitter
03:01:59 * checkpoint still uses Perl for web stuff
03:02:12 <BarnabasDK> perl is ok if you have to hack stuff
03:02:14 <checkpoint> and for some automation
03:02:19 <BarnabasDK> just dont build large systems around it
03:02:44 <BarnabasDK> it is very fast at parsing large files, which was the original purpuse
03:02:59 <BarnabasDK> I still don't like it
03:03:24 <hodapp> ooh, neat, have never really looked at Linuxulator and didn't realize it's pretty turn-key to get a Linux userspace in something like Debian on top of FreeBSD
03:03:41 * checkpoint has had experience building a number of large systems in Perl5 (ISP billing and Soft-PBX)
03:03:59 <LXGHTNXNG> all this talk of webdev reminds me that I need to write a fastcgi server for something
03:04:00 <BarnabasDK> hodapp: I think you can even make a linux jail, I haven't tried though
03:04:24 <BarnabasDK> but the handbook says so
03:06:53 <checkpoint> anyone aware what is the state for Docker in FreeBSD ? some ppls needs it badly
03:07:16 <BarnabasDK> I do sort of miss the terminal days though, no matter the system. They where nigh on indestructable
03:07:49 <BarnabasDK> checkpoint: docker and kubernetes tie close to the linux kernel afaik
03:08:41 <checkpoint> BarnabasDK: yes, I know. there's docker package, just wonder what is it. :)
03:08:46 <checkpoint> docker-18.09.5_30              Open-source application container engine
03:09:03 <BarnabasDK> so close that microsoft did not re implement the handles in the windows core, but added a linux sub system, which is really a linux core booted in a virtual machine afaik
03:11:12 * checkpoint recalls in days of big iron all OSes and event distinct programs had to be run in VMs (at least on IBM S/370)
03:12:35 <BarnabasDK> but where they vms?
03:12:41 <BarnabasDK> or just partitions
03:13:27 <BarnabasDK> HP-UX had a great system for dividing expensive hardware
03:13:35 <BarnabasDK> now it is non supported
03:14:45 <checkpoint> BarnabasDK: the underlying system was a sort of hypervisor, an operator starts a many VMs as programs he/she wants to run
03:14:59 <BarnabasDK> ic
03:15:48 <BarnabasDK> but within the same os and arch though?
03:15:59 <V_PauAmma_V> BarnabasDK, first VMs (370 onward) if you were runing the hypervisor, then partitions (LPARs) IIRC from ES/9000 onwards.
03:16:09 <checkpoint> for me Docker looks pretty similar to what we had on S/370
03:16:09 <BarnabasDK> sweet
03:16:33 <BarnabasDK> you know much more about this stage of computing than me
03:17:06 * V_PauAmma_V cut his mouthpalps on APL under VM/CMS.
03:17:27 <BarnabasDK> but still same os and etc
03:17:34 <LXGHTNXNG> mouthpalps
03:17:45 <BarnabasDK> you could not run a bsd unix in a partition for argument
03:18:24 <BarnabasDK> I never really understood why we needed to do hw level abstraction tbh
03:18:35 <BarnabasDK> in production
03:18:43 <BarnabasDK> for development - yes ofc
03:19:58 <V_PauAmma_V> LXGHTNXNG, yes, mouthpalps. I'm a giant crab, as my name would indicate.
03:20:25 <LXGHTNXNG> I was aware of that.
03:20:38 * checkpoint thinks it's bizarre how bad solutions tend to repeat again and again (VMs, now Docker)
03:20:53 <BarnabasDK> checkpoint: yes
03:21:13 <BarnabasDK> seems to be a 7 year cycle
03:21:15 <LXGHTNXNG> ... are jails a bad solution (being essentially lean VMs)?
03:21:39 <BarnabasDK> they do not emulate hw
03:21:50 <LXGHTNXNG> does Docker?
03:22:12 <BarnabasDK> no, but I like that too
03:22:29 <BarnabasDK> I am thinking of the vmware stuff
03:22:33 <LXGHTNXNG> see also: vnet jails, which create separate network stacks, thus emulating network hardware
03:23:19 <BarnabasDK> jep
03:23:23 <BarnabasDK> I know
03:23:28 <checkpoint> is there something close to vnet in Linux, btw ?
03:23:33 <amigan> netns
03:23:41 <LXGHTNXNG> yeah something like that
03:23:51 <BarnabasDK> but jails do not let you run a macosx in a sub system
03:24:28 <BarnabasDK> because jails are not a hw emulation layer
03:24:52 <BarnabasDK> I think that entire idea was wrong in production
03:24:58 <checkpoint> bhyve ?
03:25:31 * checkpoint still has not tried bhyve
03:25:34 <BarnabasDK> bhyve is a alternative to wmware isnt it
03:25:43 <LXGHTNXNG> yes
03:25:49 <checkpoint> rather KVM
03:25:50 <LXGHTNXNG> bhyve fits into the same class as kvm
03:25:56 <amigan> Jails just let you virtualize the FreeBSD kernel. Linux can do it too, with namespaces.
03:26:03 <amigan> Bhyve is qemu, vmm is kvm
03:26:34 <LXGHTNXNG> the bhyve binary compares to the qemu binary, the vmm kmod compares to kvm
03:26:46 <BarnabasDK> yeah, like I run kvm here on my linux lappie in order to have a windows 10
03:28:07 * checkpoint uses VirtualBox occasionally for Windoze stuff
03:29:42 <BarnabasDK> I think I have a win 10, a freebsd and a haiku os pt on my lappie
03:29:54 <BarnabasDK> deployed via zfs
03:30:12 <amigan> If bhyve could do intel igpu sr-iov, I would use it yesterday
03:30:20 <amigan> I've used it before at work
03:31:20 <checkpoint> bhyve cannot share GPUs ?
03:31:49 <amigan> It can passthrough the entire device, but SR-IOV lets you create multiple virtual instances of a single GPU and pass them through independently
03:31:56 <amigan> And the host can maintain its own device
03:32:24 <checkpoint> amigan: got it, thanks.
03:32:26 <amigan> FreeBSD can do SR-IOV for ethernet controllers but it does not seem that i915/xe are supported
03:32:58 <amigan> Even on linux you have to use a janky out of tree kernel module
03:33:44 <BarnabasDK> yeah
03:34:25 <BarnabasDK> hw virt has stil not ever brought anything to me in production, for local dev yes
03:34:45 <BarnabasDK> I know a lot of my ms friends disagree 100%
03:35:52 <BarnabasDK> why not just build the sw to your platform? in place
03:52:09 <amigan> My use case is a windows VM, it's the best way to get a desktop on your phone for quick stuff
03:52:16 <amigan> RDP is unmatched
03:52:44 <amigan> I daily linux but this is one place windows shines in 2025
03:53:08 <amigan> FreeBSD on all the network and app infra, of course
04:02:33 * checkpoint proclaims 2026 to be year of FreeBSD on laptops
04:03:03 * checkpoint has some more laptops to upgrade to FreeBSD
04:08:22 <BarnabasDK> ix
04:08:27 <BarnabasDK> ic
04:09:17 <Matt|home> o\
09:22:56 <debdrup> Happy new year :)
13:54:47 <Macer> hny
13:55:06 <Macer> i think this weekend i'm going to really sit back and think about the network setup i have going on here heh
13:55:53 <Macer> i have an old xeon 5560 1u that i think i'll use as a router just to have the 10gbit
15:53:28 * rtyler waves
16:34:00 <DarkUranium> Quick question about a.out(5) file format. It's documented that the struct is based on `unsigned long` ... does that mean that on 64-bit, the file's header is thus larger? (because of LP64)
16:34:14 <DarkUranium> Or is the manpage just very old, and I should read the fields as `uint32_t`?
16:36:27 <V_PauAmma_V> The manual page is indeed old. As in, here for historical purposes only, since a.out format support went away in FreeBSD 11 (IIRC).
16:37:13 <DarkUranium> Yeah, I am aware. I need this for mostly-historical reasons, too ^^
16:38:45 <DarkUranium> (though I'm also considering ste^H^H^H adopting it for my own purposes --- not intended to be natively executed mind, it's just that using an existing format as a base saves me on a lot of documentation, assuming it's a good fit ofc)
16:38:46 <ivy> DarkUranium: the manpage is wrong, look sys <sys/imgact_aout.h>
16:39:15 <DarkUranium> `uint32_t`, I see; thanks!
16:41:43 <ivy> it may be academic since i don't think a.out was ever used on a 64-bit platform
16:42:12 <DarkUranium> True.
17:14:50 <mzar> we were builidng and running a.out binaries in the past, whole FreeBSD OS was a.out-based
17:16:17 <mzar> we didn't care at that time, at least me
17:16:31 <ivy> yes, but ELF replaced a.out in 3.0, and 64-bit platforms didn't arrive until 5.0, so i don't know if an a.out format was ever defined for a 64-bit platform
17:17:04 <ivy> actually maybe Alpha was 4.0
17:48:37 <wsky_> I think my server is compromised
17:49:55 <tsoome_> wsky_ what makes you to think that?
17:50:54 <wsky_> Because whenever I connect a machine to the server’s vpn it gets compromised
17:51:04 <wsky_> British services are after me
17:51:07 <wsky_> Im screwed
17:51:15 <tsoome_> I see...
17:51:46 <wsky_> British and polish services