[indiana-discuss] [caiman-discuss] Indiana, just a Linux clone with different kernel?

[Stefan Teleman]

Jennifer Pioch wrote:

> I thought Indiana is not a Linux clone and makes better choices, yes?
> Maybe not and the Indiana developers - whoever they are - are just
> resistant against any community input. Indiana appears to be a Linux
> clone with Solaris kernel, GNU tools and no real improvements.

Could you please expand on this very interesting set of observations ?

You state:

"Indiana appears to be a Linux clone with Solaris kernel, GNU tools and
no real improvements."

If Indiana was indeed a "Linux clone", i would have expected it to contain the 
GNU/Linux kernel. But, as you state, Indiana delivers the Solaris kernel. Unless 
i have missed some drastic changes occurring in O/N over the past couple of 
days, the Solaris kernel was not the GNU/Linux kernel.

Last i checked, the determinant of a GNU/Linux distribution was the delivery of 
the Linux kernel [http://kernel.org]. The inclusion of userland GNU tools is 
also present in FreeBSD and Apple Mac OS X, it has been for quite some time, and 
is not, and has never been, a determinant characteristic of a GNU/Linux 
distribution.

According to your theory, the presence of the userland GNU tools automatically 
promotes (or demotes, as the case may be) FreeBSD and Apple Mac OS X to being 
"yet another Linux clone".

Do i understand your assertions correctly ?

I would very much appreciate your help in clarifying these facts in my mind, 
because i believe it is imperative to notify the FreeBSD developers, and the 
Apple Mac OS X developers, that they have been building a GNU/Linux system, for 
all these years, and they don't even know it.

Thank you very much for your help.

--Stefan

-- 
Stefan Teleman
Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Stefan.Teleman at Sun.COM