Why use nash instead of busybox in initrd and initramfs

busyboxinitramfs

Why use nash instead of busybox in initrd and initramfs?

I'm just looking for pros and cons of both really (and any other applications with similar functionality). I'm currently leaning towards busybox being the better option, but I can't help but wonder why redhat and fedora use nash in their initrd.

Is it strictly for business reasons, or is it technical?

Thanks,
Chenz

Best Answer

Busybox seems to be more versatile. I have used it before for the initrd. You can choose to compile in only a few apps or a tonne of them depending on how much functionality you needed during the initial boot stage. This allows you to customise a lot of things during the boot stage.

Related Topic