On Saturday 15 May 2010 13:30:51 Cristian Ionescu-Idbohrn wrote: > On Fri, 14 May 2010, Rob Landley wrote: > > And of course you program in shell for performance reasons. > > Yes. A performant shell it's crucial in the embedded world, as an > important part of cross-building and also running the target system.
On the target use a busybox shell. That's a separate issue from your build environment. I'm building under QEMU on a 3 year old laptop that was only midrange when I got it, and Bash is working fine for me. I'd prefer to move to a busybox shell, but that's to reduce the number of packages in my base system, not for performance reasons. > > Debian is sucking in bad design decisions from Ubuntu, yes. > > Which distribution sucks less, in your opinion? They all suck in different ways. I'm sniffing arond Gentoo these days and thinking of switching my laptop over to that when Ubuntu 9.04 becomes unsupported, but that's not the same as endorsing it for others to use. (Then again, I don't recommend Linux for other people anymore. The battle for the desktop is over and we lost, I just tell 'em to get a Mac...) Rob -- Latency is more important than throughput. It's that simple. - Linus Torvalds _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list busybox@busybox.net http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
