cage VS busybox

You... might be able to, kind of, depending on your goal... So the thing is, if all you need is a single screen (or at least, I've not run this multi-monitor) and you're just working around drivers that don't support Xorg, you can just run cage ( https://github.com/cage-kiosk/cage ), run xwayland on that, and run your real GUI on that. Of course, then you're skipping all the advantages of wayland except hardware/driver compatibility.

For "real" wayland, sibling comments are correct that you'd need a wayland compositor that reimplemented awesome.

> As a developer, I needed to port a custom Linux system to hardware that only has Wayland drivers and it was a giant pain. Wayland offers no advantage at all for that system but it broke a lot of functionality that relied on X in terms of window placement, etc.

FWIW, I've had decent luck running cage ( https://www.hjdskes.nl/projects/cage/ ), then on that xwayland, and then just ignoring wayland and running X clients. The result does still have some slight quirks, but it mostly works fine.

That did help me find https://github.com/cage-kiosk/cage/wiki initially I'm here there's other going down that path. Thanks

I thought this was going to be some development news with Wayland compositing going further: https://emacsconf.org/2022/talks/wayland/. Maybe it's because 29.1 was on my mind with the full Wayland client support being released.

If you want to just run one application in a modern way (yes, I'm assuming you agree that Wayland is desirable), then check out https://www.hjdskes.nl/projects/cage/.

You can run Wayland inside Xorg via cage[1] so you don't need to use a Wayland compositor.

[1]: https://github.com/cage-kiosk/cage

Just ran into cage, seems useful.

It's kiosk mode. Sometimes related to POS. You can use https://github.com/cage-kiosk/cage (Wayland) for example.

Maybe starting with reimplementing something like this: https://github.com/cage-kiosk/cage would be the easiest?

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.