busybox Reboot

Rob Landley rob at landley.net
Tue Feb 28 04:41:02 UTC 2006


On Monday 27 February 2006 1:06 pm, Andy Green wrote:
> Ole-Egil Hvitmyren wrote:
> > There is one problem with that.
> >
> > A WHOLE lot of stuff is COMPLETELY rewritten (functionality wise, not
>
> I don't think you could sleep nights anyway knowing that you are relying
> on such old and deprecated versions and not really therefore in control
> of your code.

Could you not insult our userbase, please?

Also, stop and think about what you just said.  The majority of the planet is 
currently using Windows.  (The most recent major release of which, XP, was in 
2001.)  If people can sleep at night running that stuff (perhaps with the 
help of alcohol), a five year old version of busybox looks pretty nice in 
comparison.

He has more control using busybox since he has the complete source source 
code.  (He might have to dig up a five year old compiler to build it without 
warnings, but that's not too hard either.  Just install Red Hat 9 or some 
such from ftp://archive.download.redhat.com/pub/redhat/linux )

> So this is simply the easily explained ("it's so old it 
> finally broke") opportunity to spend the necessary time making your
> system modern and back in control.

If it didn't change, it shouldn't break.  However, if you upgrade parts of the 
system, you often have to upgrade other parts of the system too.

> > If I cannot get any support without upgrading, then I might have to
> > say no to using your product
>
> Steady on, some of these guys might lose their bonus!  Lol

The fact you don't care doesn't mean the rest of us don't.  We actually do 
support our old users, that's why we have the old versions online.  (We may 
support them by advising them to upgrade or quoting consulting rates for 
doing work that doesn't help the project as a whole.  But they're not going 
to be abandoned.)

> -Andy

Rob
-- 
Never bet against the cheap plastic solution.



More information about the busybox mailing list