K. Richard Pixley wrote: > Ok, sure. But that seems like a hack to me so that busybox can be > installed on regular desktop systems which presumably want coreutils, (and > friends), to be installed as the primary "ls" command. In this context, > busybox is more of a toy, or an evaluation install than a useful tool. Most systems that have busybox installed use it to boot, since initramfs-tools puts it on the initramfs by default. That's not very toy-like. > For busybox to be a useful tool, it would need to supplant coreutils, (and > friends). And my question is to why this hasn't been done. Several reasons, including that it would break large quantities of software that expects to be able to use various command line options that are not present in the busybox utilities. http://kitenet.net/~joey/blog/entry/replacing_stuff_with_busybox.html -- see shy jo
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature