The FSF folks, and their followers usually, say that besides the GNU userland (coreutils, libc, etc.) the Linux kernel can't be built without gcc. Of course, there are icc builds, clang builds, although both builds require specific patches, but who am I to argue with all of them. Besides, if the userland is so damn important that they're placing its name in front of the kernel name, where's HURD, 20-something years later? Even DNF managed to deliver.
Sometimes I wish a specific distribution, GNU-free, so people can call it LNG (Linux is Not GNU).
Linux development only managed to get so far, because many companies saw it as a way to get a cheap UNIX clone, and allocated developers to it, specially due to the BSD litigation going on at the time.
If it wasn't for those companies, Linux would be toy kernel now.
The question wasn't about "where's HURD" as in where's the "download URL". I ran most of the Debian flavors. I'm still interested in their progress as well. But the question still remains: if it's so difficult to write an entire userland, and so easy to write an entire kernel, then why the GNU didn't deliver yet "THE" HURD? Why they don't have a completely free GNU OS that I can install on my completely free hardware with an open BIOS, etc. You know, the same old story that doesn't seem to progress anywhere.
Some people are sick and tired to be "corrected" by the FSF gang. I use the term "Linux". Some people, in a very impolite mode, interrupt me with: "the correct name is GNU/Linux" or other unholy mess that RMS could think of.
> If it wasn't for those companies, Linux would be toy kernel now.
I'd say that without the funding of the Linux kernel, GNU would be a toy OS right now. RMS and co. managed to put together an entire UNIX clone at the time, but they simply didn't grasp a proper kernel for their stuff. Bummer.
The "open source software built by volunteers" meme is long dead by now. Fun fact: people need to eat. The problem with FSF is that they see the World in black and white, when everything is mostly shades of gray. I'm an advocate of the free software, but I got sick and tired of the FSF crowd. Their black/white philosophy won't let them see the forest for the trees. I even had a debate about GPL. Seriously, a software license that protects the freedom by restricting the freedom? Have I passed into a parallel reality where this kind of logic works? The argument of a FSF zealot was: "you know, the train is free to move in any direction guided by the rails". That was the moment I stopped arguing with the FSF zealots as there's no point.
I know. I read the license. I understand the reason why such restriction exists and it is debatable if the BSD licensed software suffers because it doesn't have an equivalent restriction (eg: Apple/OS X). But for a crowd that's yapping all day long about freedom, they surely need a proper dictionary.