Re: [gentoo-user] [extremly, wildly, obscenely OT] Is there a Linux system without GNU userlands?

[b.n.]

Chuck Robey ha scritto:
> You might possibly be missing one of the most basic (in organization)
> differences between any BSD and any Linux is that BSD's are all built and
> packaged with a set of userland programs.  This doesn't include many user
> applications, just the kind of things that you think of as being part of any
> base (like shells, or utilities like the various filesystem tools, grep, find,
> like that)  Linux, OTOH, is only a kernel.  Any time you go after a distribution
> that has more than the kernel (and ONLY the kernel) its because the group
> putting together that distribution has decided to attach those parts, but the
> Linux developers are concerned with the kernel alone.

Ehm, thanks for the lesson, but I am actually well aware of that. I 
installed and used a lot of Linux distros and, to a lesser extent, BSD 
and other exotic systems (Hurd anyone?).

Instead, maybe you might possibly be missing the fact that kernel-BSD 
systems with GNU userlands have been attempted (Debian GNU/kFreeBSD 
being one - dunno about the Gentoo/FreeBSD port -is it still alive, by 
the way?). I wondered if there is the contrary, as a startpoint.

> So, when you talk about, say, FreeBSD, you're talking about kernel + userland
> base.  This isn't truie with Linux, so all linuxes are just a little bit
> different in their choice of userland tools.

That's why I asked if there is some Linux that is not "a little bit" but 
*wildly* different, as to be almost unrecognizable as the Linux we're 
all familiar with (that usually is done by a bash/zsh/ksh shell + other 
gnu coreutils etc.)

For a (theoretical) example, imagine a system that boots in the Windows 
Powershell on top of the Linux kernel.

m.