🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1991Nov07.211922.20813@kronos.com> richb@kronos.com (Rich Braun) writes:
>I can't answer that (I have no affiliation with FSF) but I too am
>utterly baffled by this one.  Writing a kernel capable of running
>underneath the hundreds of thousands of lines of freely available
>Berkeley and Gnu code, on a couple of given processors like the 386
>and 680x0, doesn't seem like more than a few person-months worth of
>work.  A kernel is, for example, far less complex than something like
>gcc or emacs.  Len and other FSF folks, can you address this one in a
>followup?

As a former FSF employee, perhaps I can answer this.  Three years ago
I offered to write the kernel, but RMS wanted to wait on Mach 3.0.  It
turned out that Mach 3.0's public availability took longer than expected,
and in fact I had left the FSF by the time it became publicly available.

Also, there is a substantial difference between "writing a kernel that
works" and "writing a kernel that someone would actually want to use."
The FSF intends the GNU kernel to compete on its own technical merits,
and not just because it is free.