I take GNU Linux to be GNU-flavoured Linux. Musl and Busybox still behave like GNU, since they were written as alternatives to GNU (at least busybox). Alpine belongs in the same category as regular Linux distros - unlike Android.
More important than this distinction though, is the philosophy behind them. Despite the difference in license, Musl and Busybox still value freedom, like GNU. Android is a monstrosity - a wolf in sheep’s clothing. A malware masquerading as open source.
This takes the alternate history to a crazy new level.
GNU was written to mimic / replace UNIX—POSIX specifically. The standard core utilities and the idea of a C library pre-date GNU.
BSD was already a complete and free UNIX system when the GNU project was started and long before the Linux kernel was conceived.
MUSL is in no way “GNU-flavoured”. It is an an alternative C library sure. That is what Glibc is. They are both implementations of the same standard. MUSL prides itself in being more standards compliant. What critics dislike about MUSL is that it is not enough like GNU.
BusyBox is an alternative to the standard UNIX userland. I think it is fair to say it is an alternative to the GNU utils as those are the most common but the history of most of these tools goes back further than GNU.
Would you consider FreeBSD a GNU-flavoured system too?
I take GNU Linux to be GNU-flavoured Linux. Musl and Busybox still behave like GNU, since they were written as alternatives to GNU (at least busybox). Alpine belongs in the same category as regular Linux distros - unlike Android.
More important than this distinction though, is the philosophy behind them. Despite the difference in license, Musl and Busybox still value freedom, like GNU. Android is a monstrosity - a wolf in sheep’s clothing. A malware masquerading as open source.
This takes the alternate history to a crazy new level.
GNU was written to mimic / replace UNIX—POSIX specifically. The standard core utilities and the idea of a C library pre-date GNU.
BSD was already a complete and free UNIX system when the GNU project was started and long before the Linux kernel was conceived.
MUSL is in no way “GNU-flavoured”. It is an an alternative C library sure. That is what Glibc is. They are both implementations of the same standard. MUSL prides itself in being more standards compliant. What critics dislike about MUSL is that it is not enough like GNU.
BusyBox is an alternative to the standard UNIX userland. I think it is fair to say it is an alternative to the GNU utils as those are the most common but the history of most of these tools goes back further than GNU.
Would you consider FreeBSD a GNU-flavoured system too?