That depends a whole lot on what is in a bare bones system, does it not? 
 I feel confident that I can build an entire bare bones system without 
having any programs in this system being from GNU packages.

The GNU percentage depends highly on what the distribution provider puts 
into it.

Since I deal mostly in 'bare bones' systems such as firewalls and 
tightened machines, the GNU percentage is very low.  I would venture to 
say I have significantly more programs of other origin than GNU. 
 Therefore, my definition of bare bones systems is opposite what yours is.

Linux is Linux, what's added on after that is a varying figure.

my two bytes on the subject,

Roger Leigh wrote:


>A distribution is much more than an operation system.  If you just look
>at the core components that make up the OS (I'm sure that there will be
>plenty of contention regarding what these are ;-) then you have a Linux
>kernel, and GNU tools.  Most of the other programs are not essential--a
>bare bones system will be mostly GNU stuff.
>When talking about the kernel, `Linux' is appropriate, but when talking
>about the /operating system/ as a whole `GNU/Linux' is more accurate,
>especially since you could replace the kernel with Hurd or BSD and from
>the POV of the user (or programmer) there would be little noticeable
>change but the GNU part would still be there.  The GNU tools are the
>actual part the user (and programmer) will interact with, be it bash,
>grep, gcc or glibc.
>Just my tuppence,

Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to