Don't forget the duct tape, bailing wire, and gum.

Nobody uses just the kernel alone, so I think it's fair to consider the other required components when looking at the system.

But FreeBSD is an operating system. The userland and kernel are developed together, in the same source tree AFAIK. With Linux you have to glue a user land on to use the kernel, which is a "distribution" which is actually an operating system.

Agreed? I thought we were talking about Linux

Linux is a Kernel...like you said, are you talking about

gnu/linux

musl/gnu/linux

musl/busybox/linux

libc++/uClibc/glibc/musl/busybox/matchbox/gnu/rpm/deb/tar.gz

any other distro/composition of software that runs on linux? You see the problem? Linux is a kernel, FreeBSD/Open/Net/Dragonfly are real OS's...with pkg's.

The grandparent of my post was:

>> FreeBSD's point of distinction is that it's carefully designed and fitted together, compared to Linux's comparatively heavy use of glue.

To which was offered:

> Well Linux is just a kernel, so it's a bit unfair to call it glued together...but the rest (a ditro)...lot of glue and clay...sometimes also pure mud.

So I pointed out that it is fair to call it glued together, because there's no other way to use Linux except with glue. This is applicable to any of GNU/Linux, Busybox/Linux, etc.

But one could get rid of the clay and mud...that was my point.

This is an article and thread about FreeBSD. Linux was invoked and compared to FreeBSD in a completely nonsensical way.