How do you know for sure ?
As Pere said, because this is BusyBox uname.
That would only prove that the "uname" implementation is Busybox's. That
wouldn't say anything about the rest of the 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.
I guess I make no sense then, because it's exactly what I do. I build
my servers from bits and pieces of software, in the original "Linux from
scratch" spirit; I use Busybox when I don't have a better implementation
of some functionality. That's the way the OS has become what it is today,
that's what free software is about, even if that kind of creativity has
of course diminished over the last fifteen-or-so years.
The GNU tendency to take over the machine and pretend to provide absolutely
everything a user might ever need while disregarding quality smells a bit too
much like Microsoft in my opinion; and I'm not particularly happy when people
try to push Busybox in that direction too (even if the quality is orders of
magnitude better).
Call the kernel "Linux", even if it's patched, because nobody will build a
kernel from bits and pieces: the kernel is monolithic and cathedral-like,
and it has a strong identity. But as much as GNU would love to, it's
impossible to label userspace. Userspace is a bazaar, even on mainstream
distribution you have endless sources of software, and it's fine the way
it is. I'm very glad to have Busybox as part of my system, but I really
do not want Busybox to claim it IS my system.
--
Laurent
_______________________________________________
busybox mailing list
busybox@busybox.net
http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
