Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

BusyBox Goes 1.0.0

Comments Filter:
  • by cs02rm0 (654673) on Thursday October 14, 2004 @12:11PM (#10525229)
    ...are liars I tell you!

    They robbed us of a real screenshot! [busybox.net]
  • by geirt (55254) on Thursday October 14, 2004 @12:13PM (#10525257)
    uclibc [uclibc.org] is a tiny libc which fits BusyBox very well. A complete linux system (without kernel) can be built using less than 500kbyte with busybox and uclibc.
    • How do you do this? I've been looking to create a linux system that is extremely small with a minimum of fuss and maybe a handfull of modules tops (network) to have space left over on the floppy to save settings etc.
      • Put grub, your kernel, rootfs on a minixfs floppy. I've built this (just yesterday) with uClibc-0.9.26 and BusyBox-1.00 without problems. There are still bugs of course, but overall works fine. In addition, I have dropbear, so I can use it to rescue my headless boxes after I mess up. Also has mke2fs and e2fsck. Iptables also. And the correct NIC module. With grub I can recover if I mess up lilo or grub on the harddrive. All fits on a 1.44MB floppy.

        Warning: use gcc-2.95.3 and Linux-2.4.x to save space

      • Read the LFS (Linux from scratch) book (It's free on the internet) and read up some tut's on making linux boot floppies/systems. PocketLinux (or is it pocketlnx?) is a good example to poll stuff from.
    • ...complete linux system (without kernel)... ...is that the sound of a long-haired, bearded, GNU guy clenching his teeth?
      • jsveiga wrote:

        ...complete linux system (without kernel)... ...is that the sound of a long-haired, bearded, GNU guy clenching his teeth?

        Very funny, smartass ;-)

        No, it's the sound of a development engineer making embedded systems with linux, uclibc and busybox. Our system uses an Intel PXA250 CPU, with 32MB RAM and 8MB flash. BusyBox gives us plenty space left, to run our own application on the system. We have tried to build the system with glibc and the standard GNU tools, but that used almost all ava

        • Sorry, I didn't mean to imply you were doing anything to be hall-of-shamed of.

          I read your "complete linux system (without kernel)" part (yes, puposedly taken out-of-context) and smiled thinking about Stallman saying: you should name it "Busybox/Linux" or "GNU/Linux"!! A "complete linux system (without kernel)" is an oxymoron! The "Linux" on the name is just the kernel!

          oh well, someone mod me down for a failed joke attempt...

  • Obligatory (Score:5, Informative)

    by geeveees (690232) on Thursday October 14, 2004 @12:52PM (#10525907) Homepage Journal

    ...link to the Hall Of Shame: http://www.busybox.net/shame.html [busybox.net]

    It's a list of all the companies that use(d) BusyBox in some way without releasing the source code.

    • Re:Obligatory (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Brandybuck (704397) on Thursday October 14, 2004 @02:00PM (#10526721) Homepage Journal
      The GPL does not require disclosure of source code for *use* of the software. It also does not require one to *release* the source code, only provide it to customers. The Busybox hall of shame page seems to have gross misunderstanding of the GPL.

      Companies that distribute busybox as a component of an embedded system do need to make the source code available to its customers. But this is a different thing than "use". The Busybox page employs the word "use", which is in error. In addition, "releasing" the source code is not necessary, you only have to available. According to some readings of the GPL, if you don't modify the sources, you could even get away with merely providing a link to the Busybox ftp site!
      • The GPL does not require disclosure of source code for *use* of the software. It also does not require one to *release* the source code, only provide it to customers.

        In context, "use" implies distribution; it's imprecise, but hardly evidence of a "gross misunderstanding". I have no idea what you infer from "release" that you don't from "provide" or "make... available". Also, your own reading is in error. The GPL says nothing about "customers"; the source must "accompany" the binaries (whether provided t

        • The GPL community needs to get it through its thick skull that words have meanings. When the Busybox site has several prominent admonitions not to *use* the software, then it should surprise no one that people continue to think that the GPL restricts usage of the software.
          • by Anonymous Coward
            Words have meanings which depend on the context. You can't honestly tell me that you also think "use the crapper" means that I'm going to install the crapper on my PC and run it, right? Obviously, that page is talking about those who used busybox in the development of products, and failed to hold up their end of the license bargain.
            • Obviously, that page is talking about those who used busybox in the development of products, and failed to hold up their end of the license bargain.

              So should there be a "Hall of Shame" for those who use/em? GCC in the development of products but don't release the source code?
      • Re:Obligatory (Score:3, Informative)

        by Fnkmaster (89084) *
        Admittedly, the first sentence on this page is imprecise, but the second time he uses the word 'use' is pretty accurate:

        Do everyone a favor and don't break the law -- if you use busybox, comply with the busybox license by releasing the source code with your product.

        This is basically correct. "Releasing the source code with your product" is perhaps less precise than what the GPL says, but it's a decent common English interpretation of it. If you release (i.e. distribute) a product, you need to include
  • busybox is not .. (Score:5, Informative)

    by josepha48 (13953) on Thursday October 14, 2004 @01:37PM (#10526449) Journal
    ... just for Linux anymore.. it is also available for FreeBSD and NetBSD, in their packages / ports sections.. anyone who wants to make a small basic rescue floppy / bootable cd could probably use this..
  • Now that we have a lean userland in BusyBox [busybox.net] and a lean C library in dietlibc [www.fefe.de], the next step is a lean kernel.

    Suggestions?
    • Re:Lean Kernel (Score:4, Interesting)

      by FLAGGR (800770) on Thursday October 14, 2004 @03:37PM (#10527776)
      Harder, because someone who wanted to make a minimal kernel would probably be bound to some pretty specific hardware, which might depend on alot of kernel features. I've stripped my own kernel once, straight from source. v2.2 I think... It was difficult, but eventually worked. I've got a floppy disk that runs all the mini stuff, plus X11/Fluxbox. Very neat, all on one floppy (mind you X11 is painfully thinned down of course, so its basically only usable to use as a GUI installer for an app or something)
  • distro (Score:5, Informative)

    by vijaya_chandra (618284) on Thursday October 14, 2004 @03:01PM (#10527298)
    GeexBox [geexbox.org] is one cool tiny linux distro for creating bootable media discs using BusyBox

    Let the box be busy
  • $ ./busybox
    BusyBox v1.00 (2004.10.13-04:49+0000) multi-call binary

    Usage: busybox [function] [arguments]...
    or: [function] [arguments]...

    BusyBox is a multi-call binary that combines many common Unix
    utilities into a single executable. Most people will create a
    link to busybox for each function they wish to use, and BusyBox
    will act like whatever it was invoked as.
    Currently defined functions:

    [, addgroup, adduser, adjtimex, ar, arping, ash, awk, basename, bunzip2

I've got a bad feeling about this.

Working...