On 2013-09-18 04:18, Laurent Bercot wrote: > >> But I'd call such a system "BusyBox/Linux" instead, since BusyBox is the >> userspace, regardless of the C library in my opinion. > > How do you know for sure ?
As Pere said, because this is BusyBox uname. If the uname is provided by BusyBox, the userspace is probably BusyBox (just like GNU uname assumes the userspace is GNU). > Busybox isn't the only alternative userspace. There are other several, > if lesser-known, projects that provide low-level userspace tools. > toybox is one. s6-portable-utils + s6-linux-utils is another. And they > are certainly not the only ones. Right. But Toybox has its own uname [1][2], so BusyBox uname won't be installed on a Toybox-based system (which of course is not a "BusyBox/Linux" or "GNU/Linux" system). Running BusyBox uname on a non-BusyBox system (that is, configuring BusyBox to build only the uname applet and little or nothing else) makes no sense. [1]: http://www.landley.net/toybox/status.html#done [2]: http://www.landley.net/hg/toybox/file/tip/toys/posix/uname.c > In 2000, I have built a server without GNU software just to contradict RMS, > who was insisting that I should call my system GNU/Linux instead of Linux. > Don't make me build a server without GNU *and* without Busybox just to > contradict you. ;) If you do, then GNU uname won't be able to call the system "GNU/Linux" and BusyBox uname won't be able to call it "BusyBox/Linux", because it actually won't be either. That doesn't contradict me at all. -- Patrick "P. J." McDermott http://www.pehjota.net/ Lead Developer, ProteanOS http://www.proteanos.com/ _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list busybox@busybox.net http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
