On 04/16/2012 10:11 AM, Denys Vlasenko wrote: > On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Rob Landley <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 04/16/2012 06:31 AM, Denys Vlasenko wrote: >>>> I really don't understand this deference to the limitations of >>>> util-linux. >>> >>> I want to avoid people writing scripts which work with busybox >>> applets but "mysteriously break" on big distros. >> >> Works with big distros, breaks with busybox: busybox has a problem. >> Works with busybox, breaks with big distros: distros have a problem. > > I don't think it works that way. Usually, whoever has the largest > user base is considered a standard (or "de-facto standard").
That would be Windows. > For umount, at the moment that is util-linux... > >> Way back when, I was rooting for busybox to _replace_ all those other >> packages in general use. > > If bbox will become much more popular, then yes, we can > just introduce changes and others will need to follow us. > So far it's the other way around... Multiple choice answer: A) I think you're putting the cart before the horse. B) s/need/want/ C) Becoming synonymous with "lawsuit" didn't help the project's popularity. D) I think this is the first time I've seen a software project stuck in "the friend zone". E) It's hard to change the world by being "another one" of anything. But it's not my call anymore. This has devolved into a difference of opinion, so I'll bow out now. Rob -- GNU/Linux isn't: Linux=GPLv2, GNU=GPLv3+, they can't share code. Either it's "mere aggregation", or a license violation. Pick one. _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
