BusyBox Goes 1.0.0

prostoalex writes "BusyBox, a stripped-down minimalistic toolkit for embedded Linux, is now shipping 1.0.0. ChangeLog is available on the project Web site."

Comments

The people that make this...

[cs02rm0]

...are liars I tell you!

They robbed us of a real screenshot!

And now we are waiting for uclibc ver 1.0

[geirt]

uclibc is a tiny libc which fits BusyBox very well. A complete linux system (without kernel) can be built using less than 500kbyte with busybox and uclibc.

Re:And now we are waiting for uclibc ver 1.0

[zoloto]

How do you do this? I've been looking to create a linux system that is extremely small with a minimum of fuss and maybe a handfull of modules tops (network) to have space left over on the floppy to save settings etc.

Re:And now we are waiting for uclibc ver 1.0

[SpaceLifeForm]

Put grub, your kernel, rootfs on a minixfs floppy. I've built this (just yesterday) with uClibc-0.9.26 and BusyBox-1.00 without problems. There are still bugs of course, but overall works fine. In addition, I have dropbear, so I can use it to rescue my headless boxes after I mess up. Also has mke2fs and e2fsck. Iptables also. And the correct NIC module. With grub I can recover if I mess up lilo or grub on the harddrive. All fits on a 1.44MB floppy.

Warning: use gcc-2.95.3 and Linux-2.4.x to save space.

Re:And now we are waiting for uclibc ver 1.0

[FLAGGR]

Read the LFS (Linux from scratch) book (It's free on the internet) and read up some tut's on making linux boot floppies/systems. PocketLinux (or is it pocketlnx?) is a good example to poll stuff from.

Re:And now we are waiting for uclibc ver 1.0

[jsveiga]

...complete linux system (without kernel)... ...is that the sound of a long-haired, bearded, GNU guy clenching his teeth?

Re:And now we are waiting for uclibc ver 1.0

[geirt]

jsveiga wrote:

...complete linux system (without kernel)... ...is that the sound of a long-haired, bearded, GNU guy clenching his teeth?

Very funny, smartass ;-)

No, it's the sound of a development engineer making embedded systems with linux, uclibc and busybox. Our system uses an Intel PXA250 CPU, with 32MB RAM and 8MB flash. BusyBox gives us plenty space left, to run our own application on the system. We have tried to build the system with glibc and the standard GNU tools, but that used almost all available RAM and flash so the system was basically useless.

No, I am not featured on the "Busybox hall of Shame".

Re:And now we are waiting for uclibc ver 1.0

[jsveiga]

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply you were doing anything to be hall-of-shamed of.

I read your "complete linux system (without kernel)" part (yes, puposedly taken out-of-context) and smiled thinking about Stallman saying: you should name it "Busybox/Linux" or "GNU/Linux"!! A "complete linux system (without kernel)" is an oxymoron! The "Linux" on the name is just the kernel!

oh well, someone mod me down for a failed joke attempt...

Obligatory

[geeveees]

...link to the Hall Of Shame: http://www.busybox.net/shame.html

It's a list of all the companies that use(d) BusyBox in some way without releasing the source code.

Re:Obligatory

[Brandybuck]

The GPL does not require disclosure of source code for *use* of the software. It also does not require one to *release* the source code, only provide it to customers. The Busybox hall of shame page seems to have gross misunderstanding of the GPL.

Companies that distribute busybox as a component of an embedded system do need to make the source code available to its customers. But this is a different thing than "use". The Busybox page employs the word "use", which is in error. In addition, "releasing" the source code is not necessary, you only have to available. According to some readings of the GPL, if you don't modify the sources, you could even get away with merely providing a link to the Busybox ftp site!

Re:Obligatory

[jhdevos]

The GPL does not require disclosure of source code for *use* of the software. It also does not require one to *release* the source code, only provide it to customers. The Busybox hall of shame page seems to have gross misunderstanding of the GPL.

From the linked hall of shame page:

Do everyone a favor and don't break the law -- if you use busybox, comply with the busybox license by releasing the source code with your product.

I don't think that indicates the gross misunderstanding you imply. He might have used the word 'use', but I am pretty sure that he only ment it in a context where the product it is used is distributed.

Jan

Re:Obligatory

[Fnkmaster]

Admittedly, the first sentence on this page is imprecise, but the second time he uses the word 'use' is pretty accurate:

Do everyone a favor and don't break the law -- if you use busybox, comply with the busybox license by releasing the source code with your product.

This is basically correct. "Releasing the source code with your product" is perhaps less precise than what the GPL says, but it's a decent common English interpretation of it. If you release (i.e. distribute) a product, you need to include the source code to the GPLed components, and any software that links to it, under the GPL or compatible license.

As far as I can tell, none of the examples in the Hall of Shame are examples of internal "use" applications that don't involve distribution, which is perfectly legal under the GPL. All of these look at first glance like they involve distribution without written offers, or source code, and most of these cases have been documented by refusals to provide source code to GPLed components to customers in posession of the hardware in question. If that's not GPL violation, I don't know what is.

It's amazing to me that they are letting all these people run all over them. With a project that's apparently this high profile and subject to abuse, they ought to just assign copyright to the FSF and work with them to enforce their licensing terms, or find lawyers willing to help pursue at least court injunctions on sales of these products. These guys would release their source code in no time flat as soon as the phrase "injunctive relief" was uttered in a courtroom.

busybox is not ..

[josepha48]

... just for Linux anymore.. it is also available for FreeBSD and NetBSD, in their packages / ports sections.. anyone who wants to make a small basic rescue floppy / bootable cd could probably use this..

Lean Kernel

[RAMMS EIN]

Now that we have a lean userland in BusyBox and a lean C library in dietlibc, the next step is a lean kernel.

Suggestions?

Re:Lean Kernel

[FLAGGR]

Harder, because someone who wanted to make a minimal kernel would probably be bound to some pretty specific hardware, which might depend on alot of kernel features. I've stripped my own kernel once, straight from source. v2.2 I think... It was difficult, but eventually worked. I've got a floppy disk that runs all the mini stuff, plus X11/Fluxbox. Very neat, all on one floppy (mind you X11 is painfully thinned down of course, so its basically only usable to use as a GUI installer for an app or something)

Re:Lean Kernel

[Pikhq]

You could try the -tiny branch of the Linux 2.6 kernel. Please note, however, that I have yet to actually try out linux-tiny, so you may or may not have luck with this. I will reply to this, either here, or via e-mail once I have actually gotten linux-tiny to run (weekend project).

Re:Lean Kernel

[Anonymous Coward]

ELKS

distro

[vijaya_chandra]

GeexBox is one cool tiny linux distro for creating bootable media discs using BusyBox

Let the box be busy

The finer points of gross misunderstanding

[Kaseijin]

The GPL does not require disclosure of source code for *use* of the software. It also does not require one to *release* the source code, only provide it to customers.

In context, "use" implies distribution; it's imprecise, but hardly evidence of a "gross misunderstanding". I have no idea what you infer from "release" that you don't from "provide" or "make... available". Also, your own reading is in error. The GPL says nothing about "customers"; the source must "accompany" the binaries (whether provided to customers, partners, or anyone else) or be offered to "any third party".

According to some readings of the GPL, if you don't modify the sources, you could even get away with merely providing a link to the Busybox ftp site!

Section 3c, which allows the recipient of a binary and an offer simply to pass on both, applies only to noncommercial distribution. Most if not all the products in the hall of shame are commercial, and the one possible exception I saw does not include information about an offer of source Also, I cannot see how I could satisfy section 3c by linking to the BusyBox FTP site. The web site contains source, not an offer, and the FTP site appears not to be open to the public. A link by itself doesn't meet the requirements of an offer in section 3b, and I would need a 3b offer to make a 3c reference.

Re:The finer points of gross misunderstanding

[Brandybuck]

The GPL community needs to get it through its thick skull that words have meanings. When the Busybox site has several prominent admonitions not to *use* the software, then it should surprise no one that people continue to think that the GPL restricts usage of the software.

Re:The finer points of gross misunderstanding

[Anonymous Coward]

Words have meanings which depend on the context. You can't honestly tell me that you also think "use the crapper" means that I'm going to install the crapper on my PC and run it, right? Obviously, that page is talking about those who used busybox in the development of products, and failed to hold up their end of the license bargain.

Re:The finer points of gross misunderstanding

[Brandybuck]

Obviously, that page is talking about those who used busybox in the development of products, and failed to hold up their end of the license bargain.

So should there be a "Hall of Shame" for those who use/em? GCC in the development of products but don't release the source code?

What?

[Pan T. Hose]

$ ./busybox
BusyBox v1.00 (2004.10.13-04:49+0000) multi-call binary

Usage: busybox [function] [arguments]...
or: [function] [arguments]...

BusyBox is a multi-call binary that combines many common Unix
utilities into a single executable. Most people will create a
link to busybox for each function they wish to use, and BusyBox
will act like whatever it was invoked as.
Currently defined functions:

[, addgroup, adduser, adjtimex, ar, arping, ash, awk, basename, bunzip2,
busybox, bzcat, cal, cat, chgrp, chmod, chown, chroot, chvt, clear, cmp,
cp, cpio, crond, crontab, cut, date, dc, dd, deallocvt, delgroup, deluser,
devfsd, df, dirname, dmesg, dos2unix, dpkg, dpkg-deb, du, dumpkmap,
dumpleases, echo, egrep, env, expr, false, fbset, fdflush, fdformat, fdisk,
fgrep, find, fold, free, freeramdisk, fsck.minix, ftpget, ftpput, getopt,
getty, grep, gunzip, gzip, halt, hdparm, head, hexdump, hostid, hostname,
httpd, hush, hwclock, id, ifconfig, ifdown, ifup, inetd, init, insmod,
install, ip, ipaddr, ipcalc, iplink, iproute, iptunnel, kill, killall,
klogd, lash, last, length, linuxrc, ln, loadfont, loadkmap, logger, login,
logname, logread, losetup, ls, lsmod, makedevs, md5sum, mesg, mkdir,
mkfifo, mkfs.minix, mknod, mkswap, mktemp, modprobe, more, mount, msh, mt,
mv, nameif, nc, netstat, nslookup, od, openvt, passwd, patch, pidof, ping,
ping6, pipe_progress, pivot_root, poweroff, printf, ps, pwd, rdate,
readlink, realpath, reboot, renice, reset, rm, rmdir, rmmod, route, rpm,
rpm2cpio, run-parts, rx, sed, seq, setkeycodes, sha1sum, sleep, sort,
start-stop-daemon, strings, stty, su, sulogin, swapoff, swapon, sync,
sysctl, syslogd, tail, tar, tee, telnet, telnetd, test, tftp, time, top,
touch, tr, traceroute, true, tty, udhcpc, udhcpd, umount, uname,
uncompress, uniq, unix2dos, unzip, uptime, usleep, uudecode, uuencode,
vconfig, vi, vlock, watch, watchdog, wc, wget, which, who, whoami, xargs,
yes, zcat

$ _

No perl?