[BusyBox] Working on "hush" extensions?
Wolfgang Denk
wd at denx.de
Wed Oct 24 10:49:47 UTC 2001
Hi Thomas,
in message <3BD6EB43.A4FBE518 at patcameron.ne.mediaone.net> you wrote:
>
> It would be my assumption that if you wanted a more "full featured"
> hush, you should move to msh. There was discussion a few months back
Agreed.
> regarding the shells, and what their future is (was). I believe msh was
> actually added in lieu of a fuller hush...but I could be comletely wrong
The problem is, that we are restricted (1) by memory footprint, and
(2) by the complexity of integrating the shell into PPCBoot
(remember, this is firmware after all - just an intelligent boot-
loader). "msh" was my favorite, too, but especially because of (2) we
decided for "hush".
Wolfgang Denk
--
Software Engineering: Embedded and Realtime Systems, Embedded Linux
Phone: (+49)-8142-4596-87 Fax: (+49)-8142-4596-88 Email: wd at denx.de
I have a very small mind and must live with it. -- Edsger Dijkstra
More information about the busybox
mailing list