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.
