Puppy Linux Discussion Forum

[sunburnt]

Yes, I realize BusyBox isn`t for the purpose of reduced size.
I just question it`s seeming general usefulness, and it`s value in Squash based systems.
I have no doubt that there`s a lot more going on with it.

If it`s truly an enhancement then perhaps it should be expanded?
Add in sed, grep, cut, paste, comm, awk, and perhaps even more...
This would "containerize" most of the loose Linux utility files.

[Ibidem]

Busybox has sed, awk, lpd, vi, fdisk, mkfs, fsck, and so on--it's enough to build the kernel, combined with binutils, gcc, and make. You probably want CONFIG_DESKTOP, though.
I've actually usedit as a full standalone OS.

IIRC, UPX hurts because it ends up killing the self-exec trick or something similar--could be wrong; I remember they mentioned it was NOT good for anything which has multiple instances.
I'd expect Busybox to be an improvement on compressed filesystems due to reduced filesystem io-it self-executes from RAM that is required just to run it, so you don't have it eating up cycles on decompression or cached in ram.
The big space savings (IIRC) was actually in just having one ELF header.
A shared, split Busybox with libbusybox.so was ~6-7 MB in the 1.18 timeline (an interesting config option that is well hidden: enable PIC, then edit .config and uncomment it; I forget the name of the option...)

[technosaurus]

The problem with libbusybox.so is that it only exports the <applet>_main functions, not the other functions that could be useful for linking against for creating other apps (I believe this was brought up on the mailing list at some point) ... things like the zlib/bz2/xz, md5/sha1 and other numerous helper functions, but this is likely due to license choice being gpl vs. lgpl - industry isn't usually interested in gpl-ing a major work, but now there is toybox.

[scsijon]

[technosaurus]

If you start at /, it will check libs too even if no binaries use them. Waste of time and not useful. Maybe add some from /usr/share and $HOME, but those should really get fixed to be in proper locations.

[slavvo67]

Interesting thread.... The first example on page one did not work on Tahrpup.

Best,

Slavvo67

[technosaurus]

[greengeek]

[Keef]

Actually it does work on Tahrpup. Maybe you (slavvo67) couldn't find the 'binaudit' text file?

[potchan]

Hello, I'm Timmo' from http://potchan.org.

My main s(q)fs file is a 3.0G. size CREAMED to 3.8G. to earn about 15 s' in mounting out of total 1.5 min' mounting depends on PC. I find this discussion interesting regarding BIHIHIHIG sqfs needs to be 'educated' in a more manner to ststistically mount the more essentials faster instead of just scanning it. In my humble POV busybox gives a partial-frozen solution to it. Two points to relate to...

1. 's(q)fs' making with new codes: to run the 'naked' basis "/" on desktop partition with some essentials such as network and browser (for instance). The system will acquire it in several plays statistically (best will be thousands times) and then we freeze it into sqfs or sfs which is the basis.

- a possible con of this may be the specific HW coder uses. So we must find the "average politically-correct standard agreed" APCS new negging standard for it, and we as community may compromise a lot doing it right... if "right" is a some absolute value out there...

2. to do the same on "savefile.4fs" or save folder and the user will 'teach' the system according to specific HW and habits on the run, "next time will be faster" in a better way.

Alternatively, we create several of "file.4fs" or save folder on shelf for various users and machines. Not a BarryK vision at all (and not mine at all).

Which one - or which combination - we do better or shorter way ?