>> If you're talking about the entire GNU/Linux operating system, it doesn't make sense to talk about a "vanilla" version, because there are thousands of different utilities that can comprise a GNU/Linux-based operating system, and there are combinatorially many ways to create a Linux distribution.

> That exactly WAS the GP's point about the difference, I think, and exactly what he said: There's no "vanilla Linux" you can run. There is a "vanilla FreeBSD" you can run. That's a huge difference.

If I want to use the FreeBSD kernel, I have many choices of distribution: FreeBSD, PC-BSD, Debian GNU/kFreeBSD, etc.

If I want to use the linux kernel, I have many, many, choices of distribution: Red Hat, SUSE, Debian etc.