you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 1 year ago (7 children)

That's not a fair comparison at all. Busybox is specifically optimized for size, and to accomplish that, leaves out a large number of GNU compatibility features; uutils is designed to mimic GNU as closely as possible, and I'm assuming that the binary you're looking at is not the "small-release" build. Just to see what that looks like, I've built it that way now and that puts it under 7 MiB; still much larger than busybox, but it shows how much the optimization choices matter.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)

    That’s not a fair comparison at all. Busybox is specifically optimized for size, and to accomplish that, leaves out a large number of GNU compatibility features

    Such as? busybox provides a nice interactive shell, awk, bc, wget and much more. I know GNU awk has a lot more features than posix awk but awk is not part of the uutils anyways.

    busybox also implements [[ from bash, none of this is provided by uutils or coreutils.

    EDIT: busybox also provides grep while the uutils/coreutils don't.

    I’ve built it that way now and that puts it under 7 MiB; still much larger than busybox, but it shows how much the optimization choices matter.

    I'm assuming this uses -Os which means performance hit, (iirc busybox also uses -Os so it is fair comparison), still we are looking at 7x larger binary.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    From the busybox "about" page:

    The utilities in BusyBox generally have fewer options than their full-featured GNU cousins; however, the options that are included provide the expected functionality and behave very much like their GNU counterparts.... BusyBox has been written with size-optimization and limited resources in mind.

    Neither of these is true for uutils, which is specifically targeting perfect GNU compatibility. I don't think there is a comparable Rust project for minimized utilities.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    The utilities in BusyBox generally have fewer options than their full-featured GNU cousins

    Note: GNU cousins, not GNU coreutils.

    GNU awk, GNU grep, bash, wget, etc will give you a lot more features than the busybox equivalents. However the uutils nor coreutils implement those features at all.

    If anything the comparison is not being fair to busybox because busybox implements a lot more utilities.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Busybox ls has 26 flags. GNU ls has 60.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    fair, in that case the comparison is even since busybox provides a shell, awk, grep, wget among other 395 utils, uutils it is 115.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I really don't think these are clearly comparable. I would rather see two more similar projects with comparable functionality that are both attempting to optimize for program binary size.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment