• wolo@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
    1201·
    1 year ago

    my website’s backend is made with bash, it calls make for every request and it probably has hundreds of remote arbitrary code execution bugs that will get me pwned someday, it’s great

    edit: to clarify, it uses a rust program i made to expose the bash scripts as http endpoints, i’m not crazy enough to implement http in bash

    it behaves like a static file server, but if a file has the others-execute permission bit set it executes the file instead of reading it

    it’s surprisingly nice for prototyping since you can just write a cli program and it’s automatically available over http too

  • agilob@programming.devEnglish
    97·
    1 year ago

    Before nginx was a thing, I worked with a guy who forked apache httpd and wrote this blog in C, like, literally embedded html and css inside the server, so when he made a tpyo or was adding another post he had to recompile the source code. The performance was out of this world.

    • Schmeckinger@feddit.de
      312·
      1 year ago

      There are a lot of solutions like that in rust. You basically compile the template into your code.

        • sebsch@discuss.tchncs.de
          71·
          1 year ago

          They are nowadays. Compiling assets and static data into rust and deliver virtual DOM via websocket to the browser is the new cool kid in the corner.

          Have a look at dioxus

        • Schmeckinger@feddit.de
          21·
          1 year ago

          Compiling all assets into the binary is trivial in rust. When I have a small web server that generates everything in code I usually compile the favicon into the binary.

    • Bazsalanszky@lemmy.toldi.eu
      8·
      1 year ago

      This reminds me of one of my older projects. I wanted to learn more about network communications, so I started working on a simple P2P chat app. It wasn’t anything fancy, but I really enjoyed working on it. One challenge I faced was that, at the time, I didn’t know how to listen for user input while handling network communication simultaneously. So, after I had managed to get multiple TCP sockets working on one thread, I thought, why not open another socket for HTTP communication? That way, I could incorporate a fancy web UI instead of just a CLI interface.

      So, I wrote a simple HTTP server, which, in hindsight, might not have been necessary.

    • MeanEYE@lemmy.world
      44·
      1 year ago

      Nothing good old cache can’t solve. Compile JS and CSS. Bundle CSS with main HTML file and send it in batches since HTTP2 supports chunkifying your output. HTTP prefers one big stream over multiple smaller anyway. So that guy was only inviting trouble for himself.

      • agilob@programming.devEnglish
        61·
        1 year ago

        You’re telling me about compiling JS, to my story that is so old… I had to check. and yes, JS existed back then. HTTP2? Wasn’t even planned. This was still when IRC communities weren’t sure if LAMP is Perl or PHP because both were equally popular ;)

        • MeanEYE@lemmy.world
          2·
          1 year ago

          Am just saying including source code into Apache is an overkill. But I guess if Apache was so old that doing so wasn’t much of a chore, sure thing. Still think apache module would have been simpler.

    • philm@programming.dev
      85·
      1 year ago

      but effectively it’s bash, I think /bin/sh is a symlink to bash on every system I know of…

      Edit: I feel corrected, thanks for the information, all the systems I used, had a symlink to bash. Also it was not intended to recommend using bash functionality when having a shebang !#/bin/sh. As someone other pointed out, recommendation would be #!/usr/bin/env bash, or !#/bin/sh if you know that you’re not using bash specific functionality.

      • MonkderZweite@feddit.ch
        20·
        1 year ago

        Still don’t do this. If you use bash specific syntax with this head, that’s a bashism and causes issues with people using zsh for example. Or with Debian/*buntu, who use dash as init shell.

        Just use #!/bin/bash or #!/usr/bin/env bash if you’re funny.

        • wolo@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
          91·
          1 year ago

          #!/bin/bash doesn’t work on NixOS since bash is in the nix store somewhere, #!/usr/bin/env bash resolves the correct location regardless of where bash is

          • JackbyDev@programming.devEnglish
            3·
            1 year ago

            Are there any distos with /usr/bin/env in a different spot? I still believe that’s the best approach for getting bash.

              • MonkderZweite@feddit.ch
                5·
                1 year ago

                I do think a simple symlink is superior to a tool parsing stuff. A shame POSIX choose this approach.

                Still the issue that a posix shell can be on a non-posix system and vice versa. And certificates versus used practice. Btw, isn’t there only one posix certified Linux distro? Was it Suse?

                • MenacingPerson@lemm.ee
                  2·
                  1 year ago

                  Posix certification is dumb but posix compliance is nice to ensure some level of compatibility.

                  Symlinks would be pretty bad in the case of nixos. Wouldn’t fit at all

        • quantenzitrone@feddit.de
          11·
          1 year ago

          /bin/bash won’t work on every system for example NixOS some other systems may have bash in /usr/bin or elsewhere

      • JackbyDev@programming.devEnglish
        15·
        1 year ago

        No no no no no, do not believe this you will shoot yourself in the foot.

        https://wiki.debian.org/Shell

        Beginning with DebianSqueeze, Debian uses Dash as the target of the /bin/sh symlink. Dash lacks many of the features one would expect in an interactive shell, making it faster and more memory efficient than Bash.

        From DebianSqueeze to DebianBullseye, it was possible to select bash as the target of the /bin/sh symlink (by running dpkg-reconfigure dash). As of DebianBookworm, this is no longer supported.

      • SurpriseWaterfall@sopuli.xyz
        6·
        1 year ago

        It is a symlink, but bash will automatically enable posix compliance mode if you use it. So any bash specific features will bomb out unless you explicitly reset it in the script.

      • UNWILLING_PARTICIPANT@sh.itjust.works
        4·
        1 year ago

        Wut that is not even the case for Ubuntu. You’re probably thinking of dash example:

        sh -c '[[ true ]] && echo ya' 
# sh: 1: [[: not found

bash -c '[[ true ]] && echo ya' 
# ya
      • cally [he/they]@pawb.socialEnglish
        3·
        1 year ago

        i thought most unix-like systems had it symlinked to a shell like dash. it’s what i have on my system (void linux), of course not as an interactive shell lol

        i use #!/bin/sh for posix scripts and #!/usr/bin/env bash for bash scripts. #!/bin/sh works for posix scripts since even if it’s symlinked to bash, bash still supports posix features.