You misread again my postings. Such a kernel exists, I'm using it every day. It works fine for the vast majority of Linux software outside those which depend on on a specific linux driver which isn't available or implemented the same way on the kernel.

By the way, you didn't answer to my question. So which one is more Linux to you:

Slackware running on top of my non Linux kernel or AIX running on top of Linux kernel ?

Well I would have to try out AIX, I have not used it at all, so I don't know what makes it so speical.

So I will say Slackware with no Linux kernel.

As I said before I am calling it Linux and not GNU/* because I believe that the kernel is the most important part (hell most centric part) of an OS. It is the very core that let's GNU apps run in the first place. So I would have to go with Linux+AIX. However(!)... AIX is not open source so the choice means very little actually.

Besides my previous post with sources (1, 2 ) I will add 3 new sources ( 1, 2, 3 ).
I am interested to hear how you feel the Linux kernel was ever "used for Minix", and how GNU software and licenses were not a part of Linux development.
It is quite obvious that Linus used GNU software to develop the Linux kernel on a Minix system and ran GNU software with the very first version of the Linux kernel.
Linus in fact provided the kernel GNU lacked.

Stop stuffing words in there... at the time what software did Linux run? GCC? because if that is your only piece of software then stop posting retarded claims. The Linux kernel was not made with GNU in mind, it was to fix the memory managment and other things Linus didn't like about MINIX. Linus said it himself, he did it because he didn't like the lack of features MINIX had then later on he said it was for fun, he in no way walked up to RMS and said I'm going to make a kernel for your software, in fact it was the complete opposite, RMS came to Linus and asked him if he would change the license he was using for his kernel.

From your own source.
http://www.abc.se/~m9339/linux/linux...uxnews03a.html

"So somewhere around March-91, I had a 386 system running Minix-386, and I was able to install awb's gcc-1.37.1 port. After that, I was able to port bash to the resulting mess, and things looked a bit better. I also spent my time generally fooling around (porting gcc-1.40 and various other programs), and kept on learning about the 386 while doing so (writing small boot-disks that would set up a protected mode environment and print out various inane messages).

I had noticed by that time that Minix wasn't enough even with the 386 patches (various troublesome problems: no job control, ugly memory management, no fpu support etc). So I slowly started to try to make something out of my protected mode trials, and the result is Linux."

So as you can see the whole reason why Linus made Linux is the first place was because he didn't like the way MINIX did things and started to slowly apply patches until he desided to make his own, so essentially the patches are the work of Linux's is progress because those patches are were what made MINIX to his liking, but he wanted more.. so he begin writing a kernel with the features and functions able to support GNU software. So now that we have this fixed up stop ignoring the facts and replacing them with your own version.

That's the answer I expected.

Layers can be replaced provided the interfaces between them are known.

What makes a (Gnu/)Linux distribution special isn't that much the hardware (a Linux distro is still the same one when running on virtualized H/W with VMware, Xen, ...) and is less the kernel than the userland layer, especially for end users.

One would argue the hardware is even more centric and important.
Yes. Or better, it is one of the very cores GNU apps run in the first place. Gnu apps are portable so aren't dependent on a kernel. Glibc however is dependant on the kernels it supports.
Interesting. That would probably make sense if you install AIX Toolbox for Linux (Linux affinity).
Let me go further:
which one will you choose as being "more Linux" ?
- Slackware (or Ubuntu or whatever) running on a non Linux kernel
- Windows userland running on top of a Linux kernel.
Indeed. I wrote that it was just hypothetical.

What your forgetting is without Linux's ways of doing things you don't have an OS, without the interfaces to the hardware and the way Linux itself handles memory you aren't looking at Linux anymore it will be an entirely different breed, Linux does things the Linux way, the only way your going to get close to the same feel is by looking at the Linux code and rewriting it so it looks like you didn't copy and paste the code directly. For example Sun's OS feels nothing like the Linux kernel, it sure has a Unix like way and feel of doing things, but I can tell just by running stuff on it, this it's not a Linux kernel, especially 2.6.x series!

The Linux kernel behaves like no other, it's unique in that way. It's features, and support are really untouchable when it comes to anything else, yes other kernels have better ways to do things, but look at how much the kernel supports, all the protocols, file systems, hardware, virtual hardware and interfaces... there is no other kernel that remotely has those features combined with the amount of support, not only does Linux almost run on anything but it runs gracefully on almost everything.

The end users in this mean nothing, because end users don't care about what is what, all they care about is if it works or not. So they mean nothing they are totally erelvent to this convo. That being said even when VMware is in place or Xen, you still need a kernel, without it your pty's don't exist therefore you don't have a command prompt to work with and if you don't have that you can't execute any commands at all.

You are confusing the implementation and the interface. Linux kernel exposes an interface to the userland that is equivalent to the one exposed by other Unix and Unix like implementations. This is no surprise as Linux goal was to implement that set of interfaces. Properly developed applications stick to this exposed interface so are independent of the O/S. I would say that probably something like 99% of what makes a Gnu/Linux distribution is independent of the Linux kernel. Less than that is independent of the Gnu layers (libraries). That's the reason why I think it is reasonable to prefer the Gnu/Linux name.
Did you play with BrandZ Linux zones or are you talking about native Solaris ?
Same can be written about any kernel.
No. It has strengths and weaknesses, like all do.
Yes, I mostly agree although support on non x86/x64 architecture is certainly not at the same level. But you are right these are Linux strengths.
Everybody is caring about it and about the price it costs.
Sure you need a kernel, my point is most people do not care that much which one it is.
When you flight in a Boeing or Airbus plane, do you care if the engines are Rolls-Royce or Pratt & Whitney or Snecma or whatever ? Yes the engines are extremely important but they are replaceable. A plane isn't named after it's engine brand.

I don't recal who was pulling the 'respect the history of Linux'-stuff but if you wanted to respect it's history (read = the making) than you would know it was used for MINIX prior to the 2.0 version.

FYI the GNU kernel, which is named HURD (talking about GNU knowledge here), was, and is to this date, not completed yet so how could it be 'lacking'? :S

We are talking about software here, not hardware. In software the kernel is the core of a OS.

You have completely lost me here. GNU apps run the Kernel? Bash is the closest thing towards this by giving the Kernel instructions but the kernel runs itself. GNU doesn't make the kernel run.

Silly, tricky question there
Most software can be compiled for *BSD as well. inserting a BSD kernel makes it *BSD. Software like blackbox and OO.o is available for Windows as well. Inserting a NT kernel makes it Windows. It might look the same for the end user but technically it's very different. So this is not my choice.
About Windows userland apps... Are you talking about apps like Word and IE? That I can run on Linux allready through Wine and that doesn't make my Linux installment less Linux if you ask me. Running stuff like Explorer is in my opinion still Linux because: No DRM, same Linux drivers, same EXT*/ReiserFS filesystem, UNIX-like... If I really have to make a choice between the two, I have to choose Linux+Win userland apps over NT/*BSD+GNU. Have I awnsered your tricky question correctly? :P

EDIT: typo

YEAH, but GNU make the kernel alive.

--
PS: i would say like this orignally --> YEAH, but STILL GNU make the kernel run. :)

No the BIOS does Just kidding XD Bad joke...

Allthough the commandline is something that should be in every PC OS, it is mostly the GUI that makes the Linux+GNU setup alive. Can you imagine a PC without a word processor, graphical browser (LQ.org!), etc. in this age?

EDIT: Technically your statement is incorrect but from a user perspective you're right.

Yes, i do, because i have used to use all kind of oses in my hands and still looking for something new.

when i want to use GUI or such a thing you have mentioned, i use winxp, BUT, winxp doesn't cover everything, all style is different, when i want such a style, i use lfs, plan9 and try to see the source of gcc, binutils, kernel, etc etc.

It's mood.

You can implement everything to spec, it doesn't make it feel the way the Linux kernel does, some times there is no spec so follow, look at all the hacks in the kernel to make hardware behave the way it should, all those workarounds can't be duplicated without looking at the code, it will always behave differently.


Solaris

Yes, but thats besides the point we are talking about replacing a kernel with another one, so you would still lose the feel of the Linux kernel.


Yes it does, but it is like no other kernel and therefor it is unique
it is a kernel which anyone can work on, and works almost everywhere, you won't find another like it.


People don't care your next statement says so, for all they know it would be the Windows kernel driving the rest of GNU and they wouldn't care or know.

That's because most people don't develop software or kernel hack or take any intrest in anything kernel; related, and hence why they arent part of this convo, it's like inviting a machainc to a programming convention, of course the machainc is not going to care if your using BASIC/C++ or Assembler to him there all the same.

Read the last comment I posted, same thing applys.

Whoa whoa whoa whoa, calm down!
Look, people are going to call it "linux" no matter what, because it's just so much easier to say "linux" than "GNU/Linux". It's not like people are conspiring to hide the existence of GNU and give all the credit to Linus Torvalds.