GNU without Linux?

Posted Apr 1, 2005 4:03 UTC (Fri) by stevenj (guest, #421)
In reply to: (Sigh, are the trolls migrating here from Slashdot? Time to filter guest accounts?) by gnb
Parent article: Stallman on the State of GNU/Linux (OfB)

Off the top of my head, I can think of at least seven independent free kernels available right now (counting all BSDs as 1). It's unrealistic to think that no kernel would have been adopted/written for GNU (and thereafter rapidly matured) if Linux hadn't come along.

to post comments

GNU without Linux?

Posted Apr 1, 2005 5:18 UTC (Fri) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link] (2 responses)

according to RMS the GNU system was already fully available when Linus started his kernel development, the other kernels (with the exception of HURD) had their shot, they were all established before Linux got off the ground. saying that any of them could do it is at the very least minimizing the contribution of Linux to the situation.

GNU without Linux?

Posted Apr 1, 2005 8:35 UTC (Fri) by rqosa (subscriber, #24136) [Link]

> the other kernels (with the exception of HURD) had their shot, they were all established before Linux got off the ground

While BSD was "established" before Linux, all complete BSD systems contained non-free AT&T source until at earliest 386BSD, which was released in March 1992. Even then, AT&T sued UCB claiming that there was still AT&T code in Net/2 (and therefore also in 386BSD), and finally settled in 1993. Linux was released in September 1991.

GNU without Linux?

Posted Apr 1, 2005 16:13 UTC (Fri) by stevenj (guest, #421) [Link]

All of the free kernels that I was thinking of, other than Linux, were developed after Linux, with the exception of BSD which still had some legal difficulties in 1991.

GNU without Linux?

Posted Apr 1, 2005 10:23 UTC (Fri) by gnb (subscriber, #5132) [Link]

The only ones I can think of that have been around long enough
that they could credibly have filled the gap are the BSDs. And they
to a great extent run the BSD userland. GNU has achieved prominence
because a kernel arrived on the scene that could run GNU and gave
no other options at the time.
As an embedded systems programmer, I find RMS' stance that the only
purpose of the Linux kernel is to run GNU irritating: there are probably
more embedded Linux systems out there than desktop/server ones, and by
and large they run as little GNU stuff as possible for reasons of size.
A fact that RMS ignores in his effort to present Linux as just a vehicle
for the greatness of GNU.