[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       busybox
Subject:    Re: Fwd: Re: [klibc] klibc and what's the next step?
From:       Rob Landley <rob () landley ! net>
Date:       2006-07-31 18:55:32
Message-ID: 200607311455.32989.rob () landley ! net
[Download RAW message or body]

On Wednesday 26 July 2006 11:17 pm, Paul Fox wrote:
>  > It's _crap_.
> 
> but which bugs, specifically, are you referring to?

A working "sort" implementation written in intercal, cobol, or visual basic, 
may be bloated unmaintainable crap without exhibiting specific bugs.  Really.

> there are certainly 
> bugs in ash, but in terms of usefulness in day to day scripting, none
> of the other busybox shells even come close, and if any other
> non-busybox shell came close in terms of quality per byte, busybox
> would probably already have switched to it.  

I know.  I'm working on one.  Unfortunately, this whole "day job plus busybox 
maintainer" thing takes up way more of my time than I expected.  It's 3 pm 
and I'm still answering back email from the weekend I spent with friends who 
were visiting town.  The only code I've gotten to write so far today was to 
help people debug problems I can't reproduce on my system.

This time a year ago, I could sit on a couch at Metro and code all day on 
things like bbsh, the passwd rewrite, mke2fs cleanup...  I miss those days.  
I would be done with all three of those by now if I could just _focus_ on 
them...

Oh well.

> i know you have plans for bbsh, but i suspect it will be some
> time before its quality is (or, at least, is perceived to be) as
> high as that of ash.  so we've got to continue maintaining what
> we've got in the meantime.

Feel free.

Rob
-- 
Never bet against the cheap plastic solution.
_______________________________________________
busybox mailing list
busybox@busybox.net
http://busybox.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/busybox
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]