4 ms·
Some substantive comments I read from the mail: * It takes a long time for a rewrite to be fully compatible and a good implementation. This project says it use
by asveikau 7y ago
Some substantive comments I read from the mail:
* It takes a long time for a rewrite to be fully compatible and a good implementation. This project says it uses the busybox tests and that seems like a good start. Is it good enough though? Busybox itself is quite good for certain embedded niches but it would be absurd to replace a good chunk of OpenBSD userland with that, the usability would suffer a lot.
* OpenBSD needs to compile itself, in reasonable time, and at the time of the writing rust was slower than C at this and could not self host on 32bit x86 due to address space limitations. Has it been fixed?
- yellowapple 7y ago> Busybox itself is quite good for certain embedded niches but it would be absurd to replace a good chunk of OpenBSD userland with that, the usability would suffer a lot. Not to mention that Busybox (last I checked) uses a license unsuitable for inclusion in OpenBSD (which is trying to reduce the amount of GPL-licensed software in the base install).