Somebody (not me) recently added a link to the busybox vs toybox talk to the toybox wikipedia page, and they removed it again as irrelevant. (The <strike>Aristocrats!</strike> Wikimedia Foundation!) Maybe the bot triggered because it was a footnote that never got cited? (Just a guess.)
Obviously I can't edit the toybox page on there because I have firsthand knowledge and am thus disqualified (and apparently even a video of me speaking on the topic is out of bounds as not sufficiently hearsay/anecdotal), but the first paragraph of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toybox says 150 commands when defconfig is over 200 now (and has been for a while) and that's just math. Also, what does the word "some" in the first line contribute? Why not "Toybox is a 0BSD licensed implementation of over 200 basic Unix command line utilities." (They have a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses#0-clause_license_(%22Zero_Clause_BSD%22) so I don't see why they can't link to it? But then I dunno why wikipedia does anything...) "certain other operating systems"... certain? It's tested on linux, bsd, and OSX, if it's been ported to anything else nobody's bothered to inform me yet. I should do an analysis of what "Feature-wise, Toybox has not reached parity with Busybox" actually _means_ someday. (Mostly that I need to promote toysh and init? But I need to clear toys/pending and do a 1.0 release before I get to mock them for that.) The "history" section was probably not initially written by a native english speaker? (ala "suggested to create" = suggested creating) "Rob Landley followed the request and suggested instead to base this library on the dormant Toybox." is subtly wrong in like 3 ways (the most obvious being it's not a library?) Tim contacted me looking to hire a consultant to work on a project he was trying to scrape up funding to create. He didn't request that I work on it for free, it was a "Can I hire you to do this?" call and I went "Dude, I only stopped doing that as a hobby because I ran out of viable goals to work towards. I have years of code lying around I could trivially relicense if there's a USE for it, and if you're saying there's demand and a userbase waiting for the result I'd be happy to give it another go..." The "in android" part was previously too audacious to seriously consider, but knowing that major phone _vendors_ wanted this to happen meant I could maybe do an end-run around Google if they continued to be a hermetically sealed ecosystem with no way to submit bug reports to gmail and so on from outside the Googleplex. (Yes, people offering me money for stuff and me either solving their problem on the phone or winding up doing it for free so I can publish the result is a chronic problem with me.) But how do you explain all that to wikipedia? Maybe it could say something more like "Rob Landley agreed with this goal but pursued it resuming work on toybox, starting by relicensing his existing code from GPL to BSD." (I mean I literally blogged about it at the time: https://landley.net/notes-2011.html#13-11-2011 ) (Oh, and the busybox page has a _strangely_ worded toybox section, "re-licensed under the BSD License after the project went dormant"? Kind of awkward backwards phrasing, the relicensing was the first step in RESUMING work on it. But then elsewhere on that same page it says "the sharp zaurus uses" and that product was discontinued 13 years ago, so...) Rob P.S. Sometimes my english minor from college bobs to the surface. Their supposed documentation is BADLY WORDED. https://xkcd.com/386/ _______________________________________________ Toybox mailing list Toybox@lists.landley.net http://lists.landley.net/listinfo.cgi/toybox-landley.net
