BusyBox Goes 1.0.0 24
prostoalex writes "BusyBox, a stripped-down minimalistic toolkit for embedded Linux, is now shipping 1.0.0. ChangeLog is available on the project Web site."
You are in a maze of little twisting passages, all different.
The people that make this... (Score:5, Informative)
They robbed us of a real screenshot! [busybox.net]
And now we are waiting for uclibc ver 1.0 (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:And now we are waiting for uclibc ver 1.0 (Score:2)
Re:And now we are waiting for uclibc ver 1.0 (Score:3, Informative)
Warning: use gcc-2.95.3 and Linux-2.4.x to save space
Re:And now we are waiting for uclibc ver 1.0 (Score:3, Informative)
Re:And now we are waiting for uclibc ver 1.0 (Score:1)
Re:And now we are waiting for uclibc ver 1.0 (Score:3, Informative)
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
Re:And now we are waiting for uclibc ver 1.0 (Score:1)
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)
...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)
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 finer points of gross misunderstanding (Score:3, Informative)
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
Re:The finer points of gross misunderstanding (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The finer points of gross misunderstanding (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:The finer points of gross misunderstanding (Score:1)
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)
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)
Lean Kernel (Score:1)
Suggestions?
Re:Lean Kernel (Score:4, Interesting)
distro (Score:5, Informative)
Let the box be busy
What? (Score:2)
$ ./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