| 1 |
On Fri, 2005-04-22 at 09:38 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 2 |
> for those of you who do not know, busybox is a single binary which implements |
| 3 |
> the functionality of most system utils ... it does not completely implement |
| 4 |
> some features, just the most common ones, but then again sash does the same |
| 5 |
> thing :) |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> details: |
| 8 |
> - busybox implements a *ton* more applets ... it can be configured to replace |
| 9 |
> over 100 system funcs while sash provides about 35 ... |
| 10 |
> - size wise, busybox would be larger, probably by about ~150k - ~200k |
| 11 |
> - busybox commands are transparent while sash requires you to prefix internal |
| 12 |
> commands with a '-' ... so running `cp` in busybox will use busybox's cp |
| 13 |
> while sash needs to run '-cp', and you can still execute the real cp by |
| 14 |
> doing /bin/cp in busybox |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> feedback !? |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Could this make it easier to use busybox for the actual root on a |
| 19 |
LiveCD? If so, then I'm all for it. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
-- |
| 22 |
Chris Gianelloni |
| 23 |
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead/QA Manager |
| 24 |
Games - Developer |
| 25 |
Gentoo Linux |
Archives