Was going to post my thoughts on Israel but suspect I'd get flamed to high heaven right now.
Let me summarize it though: it is possible to hold the two thoughts "Likud is evil and the Israeli government needs to stop its part in the massacres going on" and "It is legitimate for Israel to exist, and Hamas is an evil entity that should have no part in the region" in your head at the same time.
=> More informations about this toot | View the thread
I hate #vi with a passion, it's the worst way to do editing I've ever come across, yet I end up sudo update-alternatives --config editor on every new box and changing the default to vim (or vim.tiny or whatever.) Why? Because I'm used to it.
But my world, I suspect, would be infinitely nicer if #Emacs had won that particular battle.
=> More informations about this toot | View the thread
The rumors about CUPS being the mysterious "OMG Linux is compromised!" CVE concerns are apparently true:
https://github.com/OpenPrinting/cups-browsed/issues/36
Either that or it's a huge coincidence this happened today and involved the same party.
[#]linux
=> More informations about this toot | View the thread
SOLVED!
Virtualization was disabled in the BIOS. For AMD motherboards, you're looking for the "SVM" mode in the CPU settings. Turn it on and you're all set. My domU is now booting as a PVH! Even the funky NFS one is now too! Yay!
(In ye olden days, when Google worked, this was the first response, but Google sucks now. How do I know? Because I've done this in the past.)
---- Original post follows
Anyone know what might make PVH not work on a Ryzen 3700X running Xen 4.17.3 on a Debian 12 system as dom0?
PV works fine. The PV images boot without any issues. Add "type='pvh'" to their configuration files and I get "libxl: error: libxl_create.c:711:libxl__domain_make: domain creation fail: Invalid argument"
This all worked fine with a Debian 11 dem0, Xen 4.14, on an Intel Xeon.
I should stress I'm not talking about my funky NFS based boot yesterday, this is a generic Debian domU created using sudo xen-create-image with a regular ext4 file system. It boots fine as a PV.
(Guessing PVHs don't work with AMD processors? Would be weird but I don't have any other guesses.)
[#]xen #linux
=> More informations about this toot | View the thread
So, posting as a warning to others.
What I wanted: A Debian 12 PV/PVH domU running under Xen with a btrfs file system. My Xen Dom0 is another Debian 12 system (just installed! 12.7!)
What I got: technically it's possible, but everything is broken by default. Some people have implemented btrfs in their own pieces but it requires more than their pieces to work.
xen-create-image claims to support btrfs. It sort of does. But overall, Xen doesn't support it across the board.
There are two major problems:
Third thing is easy to fix, remove all that crap, and while you're at it, add noatime and compress=lzo because we're not animals.
First and second: Basically you're going to have to use an external kernel and initrd. Now if you happen to be running Debian 12 as your Dom0 anyway, that's easy, just point them at your local files, something like this in your .cfg file:
kernel='/vmlinuz'
root='/dev/xvda2'
extra=' ro elevator=noop'
ramdisk='/initrd.img'
and comment out bootloader.
Now, I'm not sure if it's a side effect of this, or because the Debian installer has another problem, but it's worth noting the Ethernet device isn't called 'eth0' when you boot after making those changes. So you'll have to go into /etc/network/interfaces and change it to the name you get (in my case 'enX0')
I guess a second possible option might be to create an ext4 /boot partition for each Debian image, but that's going to be a pain with each set up. Reading the options I don't see xen-create-image doing it easily. And that's assuming it'll still boot.
For now though I guess I'll probably have to forget about btrfs. Which is a crying shame. This is so weird, the latter is now a default with some SuSE and Fedoras, so what's the deal with the lack of support? It's nearly 20 years old!
For those curious, pygrub supports the following (according to :/usr/lib/xen-4.17/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/xenfsimage): ext2fs, fat, iso9660, reiserfs (urgh), ufs (!), xfs, and zfs.
Wonder which one works best with SSDs?
[#]xen #linux
=> More informations about this toot | View the thread
Which would you recommend for SSDs? In the past people have recommended btrfs but reading about it I don't know why. Feel free to reply with why you made your choice...
[#]linux #filesystems
=> More informations about this toot | View the thread
Listen, I was just maintaining my lists, and I've noticed a bunch of you who I follow HAVE NOT POSTED ANYTHING IN AGES.
Now, before you get all snippy with me, there is no excuse for this! None! Yes, I get it, you read on Reddit that Mastodon is too hard! You have to pick a server! YOU. HAVE. TO. PICK. A. SERVER!
Well, you already did pick a server, so now it's as hard as Twitter was, which is to say, not at all!
"Oh but I switched to Threads" you claim! Sure you did! Well, at least turn on federation on your Threads account and let us follow you then. And don't forget to tell us in your old account what your Threads account is.
"Oh I wouldn't switch to Threads, it's a corporately owned evil organization!" you claim, "So I switched to the corporately owned evil Bluesky instead because all the anti-mastodon snobs who aren't sure why they don't like Mastodon but are pretty sure it's bad because reply guys* and because certain folks have rights on Mastodon like the right not to be harassed, are on here. This is the platform my favorite authors would switch to if they didn't love Twitter so much, like that author of that fantasy wizard kids book I love, what's her name, not that I share her views!", well at least post that fact. Nvm we know why you didn't! But you'll be back eventually because BS will screw you over just like Musk did when he closed Twitter and replaced it with the decrooked swastika*** site. So why not skip all that crap and just post here anyway?
Come on, you owe me content! A human can only live on so many cat pictures a day!
(j/k, also I'm getting too much content if anything, though that friggin cat pictures account does post rather a lot. But I did notice, alas, a lack of activity by a lot of accounts I was hoping to see content from.)
[#]fediverse
=> More informations about this toot | View the thread
Any opinions on Incus vs LXD?
Apparently the former is a fork of the latter, created because of concerns about Canonical's relicensing of LXD. But I've never heard of it and have no idea how much support it has.
Moving away from Ubuntu because of the snaps fiasco (I've lost LXD images because LXD is installed as a Snap, it's not a theoretical annoyance.) So would be curious to know if Incus is a drop in replacement with future support.
https://wiki.debian.org/Incus
https://linuxcontainers.org/incus/
[#]incus #lxd #lxc #linux
=> More informations about this toot | View the thread
One showerthought I regularly have is how terms like "32 bit" had no meaning until 32 bit CPUs started to appear like the 68020, ARM, and 80386.
People who weren't from the era tend to not know this, but 16 bit and 8 bit were really fuzzily defined and there was no consensus. The 8088 was considered a "16 bit chip" because it had a 16 bit ALU, and the PC likewise a 16 bit computer because it had an 8088. But literally the ALU, comprising 1 square mm or less of the entire IBM PC, was the only part of the IBM PC that was 16 bit. It wasn't until the 80286 that the PC had 16 bit databuses throughout.
Nobody knew what to call the 68000. It generally was called 16 bit because of the ALU (there it is again!) and the external data bus, but had a 32 bit ISA.
Meanwhile the Z80 and 6502 were both "8 bit". But... the 6502 was somehow considerably faster, clock for clock, than the Z80. That's because the Z80 had a 4 bit ALU. So the Z80 was actually 4 bit? Or was it 16 bit? I mean, a major advantage it had over the 6502 was its support for 16 bit processing at the instruction level. The ample registers could be used as pairs (BC, DE, HL) and there were 16 bit ADD/etc instructions that used them, for example.
In the mean time, like the 8 bit 6502 and the 16 bit 8088, the Z80 had an 8 bit external address bus.
No consistency whatsoever. By ALU, the Z80 was 4 bit, 6502 8 bit, and 8088, 68000 and 80286 16 bit. By data bus, the Z80, 6502, 8088, and 68008 were all 8 bit, and 80286 and 68000 16 bit. By register size and type of operations single instructions could easily do (this is where it gets fuzzy) the 6502 was 8 bit, the Z80, 8088, and 80286 16 bit, and the 68000 and 68008 32 bit.
It gets worse. The real difference between what was considered 8 bit and what was 16 bit was... memory addressing. All the mainstream chips that were considered 8 bit could only address 64k of memory without resorting to external hardware hacks to provide paging etc. That is, the address bus was 16 bit. All the chips that everyone called 16 bit were able to directly address much more than 64k, a meg in the case of the 8088 and 68008, and 16Mb in the case of the 80286 and 68000. True, the Intel chips had an internal weird way to represent this with dedicated registers being used to offset a 16 bit base address, but if we're going to complain about that, we might as well complain that the 6502 didn't exactly make generic 16 bit addressing easy either.
In the end the terms were more about marketing than anything else. 16 bit actually meant "Second generation" (assuming the 8080 was first, and its predecessors like the 8008 and 4000 series were more prototypes) It wasn't until the 32 bit processors came along that were unambiguously 32 bit that these words meant something. 8 bit and 16 bit still seem to be used in their 1980s contexts today, largely because that hardware is considered obsolete so it doesn't matter.
[#]retrocomputing
=> More informations about this toot | View the thread
So here's a question for all you people who think you know Unix and its clones like Linux:
As you probably know, if you create a new file and seek to some arbitrary number, and write something, the file immediately becomes THAT LONG.
[#]include <stdio.h>
int main(void) {
FILE *fp = fopen("test.bin", "w");
fseek(fp, 70000, SEEK_SET);
fputs("Hello world after lots of nulls\n", fp);
fclose(fp);
}
Compile the above, run it, you'll get a file in the current directory called test.bin that's 70032 bytes long according to both ls -l and vi if you load it. If you load it into vi you'll see it's a ton of nulls followed by Hello world etc.
But wait... du -k says it's only 4k! And that's true, it's only taking up 4k of disk space! HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE?!!!
That's because a feature of Unix file systems, be they the original or modern versions like ext4, is that they just store the sectors that don't have nulls in them, but ONLY if the other sectors were skipped using seek. If you actually copy the file using cat (cp is clever here) then the new file blows up to 72k according to du.
Anyway you all knew that! Of course you did. My question is, are you aware of any archiver that actually recognizes files like this and handles them appropriately? Because tar doesn't, tar x'ing a file like this blows it back up to 72k. And I have no idea what magic words to use to get Google to answer this.
(Why is this important? Well, some applications, databases especially, actually take advantage of this feature. But often those files are unimaginably huge so...)
[#]unix #linux #archivers
=> More informations about this toot | View the thread
=> More informations about this toot | View the thread
I think the interesting thing about Mono being offloaded to Wine isn't that Microsoft wants to see it supported again and doesn't want to devote its own resources given it has its own .NET.
No, I think what's interesting is that they're working with the Wine group which traditionally has been seen as a potential danger to Microsoft.
I've wondered for a long time if Microsoft wants ultimately to get out of the operating system thing. Even .NET itself seemed to be a move away from it, and I'm half expecting them to release a version of ChromeOS ("EdgeOS"?) that'll use Active Directory or its modern cloud based counterpoint to authenticate.
Microsoft not treating the Wine people as a threat is good sign. But corporations change, so don't rely on it.
=> More informations about this toot | View the thread
=> This profile without reblog | Go to poundquerydotinfo@virctuary.com account This content has been proxied by September (3851b).Proxy Information
text/gemini