3 ms·

>Is that the measure: a complete OS? The fact that BSD was incomplete is relevant because it illustrates the fact that the only people who could run BSD were s

• mustache_kimono 2y ago
  So... >> When exactly did GNU ship a complete OS? > the only people who could run BSD were shops that had a source-code license for the proprietary AT&T Unix. So -- finally! -- that's the measure of OSS? It must run on non-proprietary systems? Not simply the source code? OSS that runs on Windows or MacOS or VMS is not actually OSS? You figure that Linux is the first non-proprietary system in 1991? Not 4.3BSD released in 1989? I think you can understand my and others reluctance to state definitively Stallman was first, when by a dozen different metrics he wasn't. I'm still trying to understand what he was supposedly first at? First to find a lawyer? Linux is important. GNU is important. BSD is important. And they remain important. I don't think any of them are made more important by distinguishing only one and not the others. Like -- as much as it pains me to say it, because of how I loath Stallman and the FSF, GCC was more than important to the entire ecosystem for years. Until LLVM, it was required. Etc, etc.
  • dagw 2y ago
    >> When exactly did GNU ship a complete OS? I want to say around 2006 or 2007 was the first time a 'normal' *nix hacker could install and boot[0] a complete GNU OS[1] and get something resembling work done (ie edit and compile C code in vi or emacs). (yes I know the question was rhetorical) [0] without having to to a bunch of bootstrapping steps and other hackery [1] Technically 'shipped' by Debian rather than GNU/FSF