Cronux VS busybox

My first attempt at creating the bang line script is using Batch file as part of the Cronux collection, I later rewrite the commands in the collection using Powershell for sanity. I had to write the bash version of the script as I don't have so much time to port Cronux to Unix, Linux, and Mac.

A majority of routers are already based on the Linux kernel. Many are just BusyBox. The most common Linux firewalls are iptables and nftables. With the latter being the most popular one due to being around longer. They are really fine grained and powerful.

As Busybox DockerFile does not contain any EntryPoint(https://github.com/docker-library/busybox/blob/master/musl/Dockerfile), so arguments specified in the kubectl command will only be used, so the command will look like:

https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/arm64/booting.rst This was my guiding light for a project a while back. It describes what Linux expects "time zero" looks like for the system; whatever operating system is going to boot needs that kind of contract between the boot environment and its own entry point. You can develop a lightweight linux-based OS with that document and a package like https://busybox.net/

UUTILS, musl libc, BusyBox , etc.

For libc, we have musl as an alternate implementation. For most coreutils, we have busybox and the BSD coreutils. For desktop environments, you can use something like xfce.