@lanodan >You can compile linux unmodified with the full LLVM/Clang toolchain, that's been a thing for quite a while now.
Why would you carry out such cucked activities rather than compiling with the superior, better optimizing, freedom defending, gcc?

>Gosling Emacs instead (specially as Stalledman often says he wrote Emacs, which he didn't).
If I remember correctly, rms got permission to carry out the four freedoms with Gosling Emacs and improved it, rewriting many files, but after a while, Gosling realized that rms's version of Emacs was far superior to his original version and tried to put a stop to the freedom - in response rms just went and replaced the few remaining original sections so Gosling didn't have a claim anymore.

GNU Emacs has been developed for decades and it's in no way similar to Gosling Emacs anymore, so it's GNU Emacs.

>Nack, -linux-musl vs. linux-gnu* is the meaningful one
That's a name from the compiler listing the kernel and libc the binary is compiled for, which allows you to take a guess which libc ABI the binary will work with, but that fails to mention the other parts of the OS, which may be required for the binary to work.

I cannot fathom why you would compare the proprietary losetel to 100% free software that's compiled against the finest GNU libraries that happens to be compiled for AMD64 - after all, take a guess how much proprietary software my dual 6282 SE's in my KGPE-D16 runs?