[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