On Fri, 27 Jun 2025 at 12:03, Harald van Dijk <har...@gigawatt.nl> wrote: > > On 27/06/2025 10:45, Roberto A. Foglietta wrote: > > On Fri, 27 Jun 2025 at 00:35, Harald van Dijk <har...@gigawatt.nl> wrote: > >> That doesn't sound quite right. Any applet that uses system() or > >> get_shell_name() should run a busybox-internal shell when the user > >> account is not specifically configured to use a different shell, agreed > >> so far. > > > > There is no "user account" and there is nothing apart from a busybox > > static binary, in principle. This is the **main** concept of a > > standalone busybox, being the WHOLE system apart from the kernel which > > in a broader view, does not necessarily be a Linux kernel. > > Nothing about this patch set removes the concept of user accounts, nor > the Linux kernel. It seems like you've got some idea in your head about > what this patch set is for that is not connected to what these patches > actually do. > > And if you want to engage with some AI thing to contribute to this > discussion, I can't stop you, but it's downright offensive to say that > any contribution to this that doesn't first go through that same AI > thing is a waste of everyone's time.
You might be right on everything you wrote above. Then: s/patch/patchset/ and you are not anymore, but criticize a patch forgetting the patchset. However, I agree with your implicit suggestion that reality will be the ultimate judge that will settle down this dispute which confirms my idea that a fork is the best way to go in terms of results, whatever they would be gold or poop. After all, freedom is also about the availability of an alternative, right? LOL Best regards with my full signature because I always consider a personal attack as a personal matter, -- Roberto A. Foglietta +49.176.274.75.661 +39.349.33.30.697 _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list busybox@busybox.net https://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
