Casey Dahlin <cjdahlin <at> ncsu.edu> writes:
> What about busybox? What if we ran all the init scripts under busybox?
> Its a shell-type environment, its world-famous for being incredibly
> tiny, it could meet everything.
AFAIK, busybox still forks whereever a regular POSIX shell forks, so if the
amount of forks is the problem, AFAICT busybox will resolve absolutely nothing.
A shell which emulates POSIX process handling in-process and uses direct
builtin function calls for commands like sed rather than forking a new process
(even a new process of itself as busybox appears to be doing) could work, but
would that be maintainable? And what about parallelism: threads? Pipes and the
like would also have to be emulated by special-case code to become as efficient
as a real programming language, which would drive maintainability even further
down (imagine having to implement memory-to-memory, memory-to-file,
file-to-memory and file-to-file versions of all tools like sed, grep etc.).
Kevin Kofler
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
