gow VS BusyBox

Compare gow VS BusyBox and see what are their differences

Contents:

» Base Details
» Videos
» Reviews
» Alternatives

gow

Gow (Gnu On Windows) is the lightweight alternative to Cygwin.

BusyBox

BusyBox is a single binary that provides several stripped-down Unix tools in a single executable.

Landing page //
2022-11-04

Landing page //
2019-04-14

gow

Website: github.com
$ Details: -

Edit details

BusyBox

Website: busybox.net
$ Details

Edit details

gow features and specs

Lightweight
Gow is a lightweight package that provides essential Unix command line utilities for Windows. It doesn't require a lot of system resources and is easy to install.
Convenience
By bringing many familiar Unix commands to Windows, it makes it more convenient for users who frequently switch between Unix/Linux and Windows environments.
No Dependencies
Gow does not rely on additional software or complex dependencies, making it straightforward to set up and use.
Portable
It's designed to be portable, meaning you can easily add it to different Windows systems without much hassle.

Possible disadvantages of gow

Limited Command Set
Compared to full Unix/Linux environments or more comprehensive tools like Cygwin, Gow offers a limited set of commands, which might not satisfy all user needs.
No Ongoing Updates
The project is not actively maintained, and some commands may not be updated to include the latest features or security patches.
Compatibility Issues
There might be compatibility issues or limitations when using certain commands or scripts that expect a full Unix environment.
No Native Shell Integration
Unlike some Unix emulation environments, Gow doesn't provide a complete Unix shell experience on Windows, which could limit usability for some tasks.

BusyBox features and specs

Lightweight
BusyBox is designed to be a minimalistic utility that combines tiny versions of many common UNIX utilities into a single small executable, making it ideal for systems with limited resources.
All-in-One
It provides a comprehensive suite of tools and utilities in one package, eliminating the need to install and manage multiple separate utilities.
Customizable
BusyBox can be customized to include only the needed utilities, which allows for a tailored solution that fits the specific requirements of a project or system.
Open Source
It is open source, meaning it is freely available for anyone to use, modify, and distribute, which encourages collaboration and community-driven improvements.
Widely Used in Embedded Systems
BusyBox is popular in embedded systems and other environments where storage and processing power are limited, making it a proven choice for resource-constrained applications.

Possible disadvantages of BusyBox

Limited Functionality
Being a smaller version of each utility, BusyBox may lack some of the advanced features found in full versions of UNIX utilities, which can be a limitation for complex tasks.
Compatibility Issues
Certain scripts or applications that expect specific behaviors from standard Linux utilities might not work correctly with BusyBox due to subtle differences in functionality.
Less Frequent Updates
Compared to mainstream distributions and their utilities, BusyBox might not be updated as frequently, which can be a concern for security or feature updates.
Steeper Learning Curve for Customization
Customizing BusyBox to include or exclude specific utilities can require a more in-depth understanding of both the system’s needs and the configuration options available.

gow videos

No gow videos yet. You could help us improve this page by suggesting one.

Add video

BusyBox videos

+ Add

What is BusyBox | Busybox demo

Category Popularity

0-100% (relative to gow and BusyBox)

BusyBox

Terminal Tools

36 36%

Terminal Tools

64% 64

Server Management

39 39%

Server Management

61% 61

SSH

35 35%

SSH

65% 65

Emulators

38 38%

Emulators

62% 62

User comments

Share your experience with using gow and BusyBox. For example, how are they different and which one is better?

Reviews

These are some of the external sources and on-site user reviews we've used to compare gow and BusyBox

gow Reviews

We have no reviews of gow yet.
Be the first one to post

BusyBox Reviews

Top 10 Best Apps To Use Linux Terminal on Your Android Device

BusyBox is an excellent option for Android users who want to have control in the internal Linux command-line shell. This terminal emulator for Android requires a rooted device to function properly. It is one of the most popular among its competitors. There is a pro version, but the vanilla edition is more than enough for casual users. It will provide you with numerous Unix...

Source: www.ubuntupit.com

Best Terminal Emulator for Android in 2021

BusyBox is a famous terminal emulator for quick and reliable performance. It needs the device to be rooted for executing the app. The emulator can work well with Linux kernel with GNU Core applications. It offers plenty of standard Unix tools with backup features to retrieve all data. The app provides the user to choose the desired applets for quick installation. It also...

Source: www.techowns.com

Social recommendations and mentions

Based on our record, BusyBox should be more popular than gow. It has been mentiond 17 times since March 2021. We are tracking product recommendations and mentions on various public social media platforms and blogs. They can help you identify which product is more popular and what people think of it.

gow mentions (4)

The world if Windows was POSIX compliant
And if need so much something like this, you can always use WSL or GOW (https://github.com/bmatzelle/gow). Source: about 2 years ago
how the fuck does this make any sense?
Use gow, and WindTerm; and if you want an even better experience install lsd, fd, and lf all of which are downloadable via Chocolatey, the Windows package manager. Source: over 2 years ago
If Fuchsia eventually makes its way into the desktop/laptop space, do you think it will support Linux-like commands for the terminal?
¹ Bash was ported natively, zsh runs through mingw quite well. ² https://github.com/bmatzelle/gow. Source: about 4 years ago
Limit image count number by deleting old image tags via FIFO-principle?
Ah, you're on Windows, so you don't have those utilities. Looks like these days, folks are using GoW (GNU on Windows) to install some useful GNU utilities on Windows machines: https://github.com/bmatzelle/gow. Source: about 4 years ago

BusyBox mentions (17)

Revisit base container image for AWS services
The busybox container is, as the name suggests, a base image that contains the minimum environment for BusyBox to work. It is also one of the official Docker images. The actual Dockerfile for creating this image is as follows:. - Source: dev.to / 4 months ago
Making memcpy(NULL, NULL, 0) well-defined
Https://busybox.net/~landley/c99-draft.html#7.20.6.1 "The abs, labs, and llabs functions compute the absolute value of an integer j. If the result cannot be represented, the behavior is undefined. (242)" 242 The absolute value of the most negative number cannot be represented in two's complement. - Source: Hacker News / 6 months ago
Docker, Linux, Security. Kinda.
On to our second point, which is the cli utilities' implementation. Debian and Ubuntu use gnu's Coreutils while Alpine uses Busybox(remember, we are talking about the most used application container bases. You can install a desktop version of Alpine with GNU coreutils). Here we have the same situation as before, The GNU coreutils are bigger, do more and have a larger attack surface. Busybox is smaller, does not... - Source: dev.to / about 1 year ago
The Awk Programming Language, Second Edition
AWK runs everywhere. Perl and Python do not. Busybox has their own independent AWK implementation. https://busybox.net/ https://frippery.org/busybox/ Also see the first edition of the AWK manual online here: https://archive.org/details/pdfy-MgN0H1joIoDVoIC7. - Source: Hacker News / almost 2 years ago
This would have made my life so much easier in the beginning....
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. Source: about 2 years ago