> Weird that you are upset of having an OS with Hurd Kernel. We are discussing promoting a single OS over all other ones, this might imply choosing a single kernel.
> Everyone knows Libre-Linux is now a GNU package. Did you know it was > non-gnu before FSF Latin America joined in? And, Linux-libre = Linux > minus Shackles(non-free). So, it is directly dependent on Linux. IceCat is another example of a GNU package dependent on an upstream nonfree program. (There was also an important GNU package with a maintainer having very anti-FSF views, seems similar.) Hurd also is, it has drivers from old Linux and software to use new Linux network drivers in userspace. > btw, you are yanking the wrong chain, as i see you are whipping out > debate on Hurd vs Linux. Query was about "Why there is no GNU OS > rolled out". Somehow these debates usually lead to Hurd vs Linux. > If GNU project is working on their own kernel, then they must be doing > it because,.. ummm, [1]maybe they want to use it in GNU OS, > or.. [2]just for fun.. nah, i think its the first one. The motivation for writing a kernel is much more complex. (Technically Hurd was chosen so that they could use an existing and working Mach kernel instead of writing and debugging their own.)
pgpw1Ss3KxhTE.pgp
Description: PGP signature
