>>12
Yours is a good explanation, I didn't know beforehand Stallman was not such an UNIX fan.
Nonetheless, I've never seen GNU running under non-UNIX like systems. That wouldn't even make any sense, since core GNU software
is UNIX-like userland. Being such, I can't see why they would do this if they were not bound to UNIX philosophy. If they know better than UNIX, why attempt to just "mock" it? I don't think that the existence of any pre-installed user base is an excuse.
My criticism is rather focused on that part of their software, the part which complicates UNIX. Not everything labeled GNU, or under some variant of GPL.
The fact is, if they're really "going for large feature sets and wide market share with software that works on today's computers", surely they got it wrong (again). Twenty-five command-line switches for
ls or
cat doesn't make these commands specially featureful. And, at least on the desktop market, GNU systems' share is rather ridiculous.
Finally, I totally agree: Microsoft is not doing any better at all. That has not been said anyway, and that is not the point being discussed.