> Running /bin/sh on a bare kernel isn't a unix system. That's true and you're right. However, what I was specifically discussing here is core kernel function

> Running /bin/sh on a bare kernel isn't a unix system. That's true and you're right. However, what I was specifically discussing here is core kernel functionality versus layering it on top, and for that, I had to describe things in an artificially simplistic way, because Linux folks tend to think Linux invented everything and is everything and start to go on about in-kernel Ethernet drivers and in-kernel NFS and so on and because they get busy counting trees, they miss the fact that they are lost in the forest. I am not advocating the use of bare kernels here. I am not saying this is a rigorous or fair comparison. What I am trying to demonstrate is the fundamental difference between having networking and a networked system as core parts of your system design, as opposed to bolted on later. It's integral in Plan 9. Whereas Linux is a UNIX, and therefore must implement things later on top of a core design which assumes that all machines are standalone multiuser minicomputers with dumb text terminals. This is such a fundamental part of the design of Unix that it is everywhere and it's very hard to show to Unix users that it's there... because it's the material of the walls, the floor, the ceiling and the door and so it's hard to see.