On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 03:50:58PM -0500, Kurt H Maier wrote: > On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 1:29 PM, Mate Nagy <mn...@port70.net> wrote: > > > i don't know what's up with this newfangled popular hate for GNU > > software. The GNU userland is a thousand times more comfortable and > > usable than old unix, not least because some utils even have >features< > > (imagine that), while the old unix tools were simplistic hackjobs. > > Does /bin/ls really need to be 96kb? Really? I think the answer is > no. Features are fine, but the GNU method seems to be "include > everything," and that's stupid. I don't need 96kb worth of ls. I > just want to know what files are in a directory. The other half of the > problem is that you've got GNU coreutils on one end, which are > freaking huge, and then you've got busybox on the other end, which is > one binary and a ton of aliases. A good start to a lightweight > coreutils package would be breaking the busybox utils apart into > descrete programs, in my opinion.
What's wrong with the busybox approach? busybox used to support a build option which compiles every applet to it's own binary optionaly dynamically linked against libbb for space reasons. Don't know if it is still supported though. I agree with the rest of your mail. Marc -- Marc Andre Tanner >< http://www.brain-dump.org/ >< GPG key: CF7D56C0
