71–80 of 145 posts
Busybox is not KISS. It's an all-in-one package, removing the ability to strip down the number of tools you have to the ones you strictly need. It's a big, bloated binary blob, in other words.
> Every installation of the distribution contains the full sources (of the distribution) with git history attached.
This doesn't even pretend to be minimal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One thing that irks me is the verbosity of simply renaming file extensions of all files in a directory. On Windows: ren ∗.js ∗.mjs On Unix: for x in ∗.js; do mv "$x" "${x%.js}.mjs"; done Feels like shells should have one line list comprehensions without the obtruse do/done. Are there any shell enhancements like zsh or the like, that make simple list operations less verbose?
Linux, at least, has rename(1) where you can just use the same syntax as Windows ren.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On most systems these days, 'less' is more: % cksum `which less` `which more` 2677110273 146976 /usr/bin/less 2677110273 146976 /usr/bin/more
I think that more is symlinked to less on your system, not the other way around. On my machine (Arch), they're separate: jack@jackdesktop ~ [1]> bash -c "cksum `which less` `which more`" 3407085100 179664 /usr/bin/less 110370394 38816 /usr/bin/more jack@jackdesktop ~>
Not a symlink (or even a hard link) on my OS X laptop, but the same executable.
On my OpenBSD systems, they're hard links.
On my Ubuntu system, they're separate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that more is symlinked to less on your system, not the other way around. On my machine (Arch), they're separate: jack@jackdesktop ~ [1]> bash -c "cksum `which less` `which more`" 3407085100 179664 /usr/bin/less 110370394 38816 /usr/bin/more jack@jackdesktop ~>
OK, now you've prompted me to do proper research: Not a symlink (or even a hard link) on my OS X laptop, but the same executable. On my OpenBSD systems, they're hard links. On my Ubuntu system, they're separate.
1000 lines of shell is about 900 lines too many for "simple".
This just sounds like dumb shell hate.
I personally would have used another language, but shell ain't that hard if you have some experience with it, and are using shellcheck as the author does.
The config formats of the distro are optimized for command line tools, and writing the package manager in shell seems like a good way to ensure that this is indeed the case - basic dogfooding.
Website looks terrible, practically unreadable on mobile. Black and red don't go well together either.
> Uses a package manager written in less than 1000 lines of POSIX sh (excluding blank lines and comments). Enough to get 20 bugs :-). I wish there was a good standard alternative to bash (sh in this case) for shell programming. Otherwise I like the spirit, it's a good match with collapse os ;-)
> I wish there was a good standard alternative to bash (sh in this case) for shell programming. I would say Tcl! Tcl is one of the most underrated programming language that everybody probably has installed. It has existed for as long as ksh and even long before bash. It is simple and powerful enough that first version of Redis were written in it[1]. MacPorts is written in Tcl (including its ports DSL) and I enjoyed e…
The syntax takes some adjustment because it's not lval/rval-based, which is maybe why it's not so widely used now. But if you want a language that's more robust than shell and more minimal than Python, consider TCL for your next project.
> Based on musl libc, busybox and the Linux kernel. Busybox is not KISS. It's an all-in-one package, removing the ability to strip down the number of tools you have to the ones you strictly need. It's a big, bloated binary blob, in other words. > Every installation of the distribution contains the full sources (of the distribution) with git history attached. This doesn't even pretend to be minimal.