On Wednesday 07 March 2007 02:20 pm, Bruno Jargot wrote: > How does BusyBox helps you to reduce the size of the current > footprint? Its an All-in-One solution where lots of code gets shared > between commands. And a ksh93-based BusyBox requires even less > footprint because ksh93 uses less memory than bash. > > Bruno
You're loosing me here. bash is not a part of BusyBox, and neither is ksh93. Again, how would using ksh93 rather than bash same space with that? I'm having a hard time drawing a line between these two...other than both are software.;-) Is what you're proposing an addition of some type of BusyBox based shell, and ksh93 being your preference? If so, I don't think that's a good idea, since you would need to call BusyBox to use the shell, and suspect that calling one large binary that includes the base system programs in it every time the shell is needed, might not render the most optimal results. This is just my first thought, off the top of my head. > > On 3/7/07, Alan DuBoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wednesday 07 March 2007 01:44 pm, Bruno Jargot wrote: > > > You could start creating a solution based on ksh93. I think it may be > > > a good candidate for a Google Summer of Code project. > > > > And how would this help us reduce the size of the current footprint? -- Alan DuBoff - Solaris x86 Engineering - IHV/OEM Group Advocate of insourcing at Sun - hire people that care about our company! _______________________________________________ opensolaris-code mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/opensolaris-code
