4 ms·
If it was only for that, they could use/improve busybox, which has the same license as the kernel (GPLv2). Perhaps it is also so they can be used in closed sou
by mjmas 1y ago
If it was only for that, they could use/improve busybox, which has the same license as the kernel (GPLv2).
Perhaps it is also so they can be used in closed source systems (I have uutils installed on my Windows system which works nicely).
- mort96 1y agoBusybox is frankly a horrible user experience, and will never be a good one. Its niche is to be as small as possible, as a single static executable, while providing most tools you need to get the job done in an embedded system. Bells and whistles like a shell that's nice to use, or a vi implementation with working undo/redo, or extensive built-in documentation in the form of --help output, are non-features which would make busybox worse for its primary use case.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]